Yeah, but WHY?

[lpiburn]

I'm looking for some help regarding how to convince others that accessible features really are necessary. For the purposes of this discussion, I'm not talking about the actual regulations in the code. I'm trying to get everyone on the same side (so to speak) so it can stop being a fight between the owner or designer and the AHJ or contractor.

The old argument about ADA features is "we don't have any handicapped people here" or alternatively "we just won't hire anyone in a wheelchair", so why should we have to change anything? These are fairly easy arguments to shoot down by explaining that this is a civil rights issue about non-discrimination. It's not about how many people are disabled, it's about not excluding disabled people if and when they want to use (or work at) your facility. It's even easier when the argument is about public facilities like schools or health centers.

A question that has been coming up for me lately is about employees. Specifically, jobs where you physically cannot perform the task if you are disabled in certain ways. Here are a few examples. (not my words, just paraphrasing things I heard):

1. Hazardous manufacturing. A wheelchair user or a blind person would either be completely unable to, or have extreme difficulty performing the kinds of tasks required by the job.

2. Law enforcement. If a disabled officer was hired (or became disabled in the line of duty) they would have to be given a desk job and therefore wouldn't use any of the back-of-house stuff like the locker rooms, armory, etc.

3. Agricultural. [comments about a bunkhouse/dining hall] you can't have a guy in a wheelchair picking strawberries, so why do we need to do all this back at the main building?

Now, a rule is a rule. So if things really come down to a fight, it's simply a matter of saying "here's the rule, make it right or you don't get a C.O.". For me that's equivalent to a parent telling their child "because I said so".

What I'm after is a way of explaining why these things still need to be done, regardless of whether or not you think they will ever be used at your particular facility. I would hope that this kind of education would help bring all stakeholders in a project closer to being able to meet the requirements without it being a big fighting point.

I look forward to hearing any thoughts or opinions on the matter.

-LP

 

[mtlogcabin]

1. Define hazardous

2. Similar to a firefighter who may be injured during the course of his shift and may need grab bars or seat in the shower to aid in his/her needs

3. Not be in a wheelchair but having spent 9 years in a farm community with lots of migrant farm workers who could not stand up straight or walked with a limp i can see where ambulatory stalls/showers would be the minimum requirements

Before ADA Fl law permitted just what you are asking based on the written job descriptions. Trouble was most job descriptions like today have a minimum standing, lifting, walking, climbing, crawling requirement in them.

 

[lpiburn]

1. Define hazardous

In my case it was semiconductor, which varied from H-5 to H-3. I'm not sure how much it matters though. The general argument stays the same.

Trouble was most job descriptions like today have a minimum standing, lifting, walking, climbing, crawling requirement in them.

So now in 2013, do you think it is reasonable to request a special exception or something like that for these kind of situations?

 

[MtnArch]

1) The supervisor, manager and/or owner may use a wheelchair, and to perform THEIR job they would need the area accessible to provide safety for THEM.

2) A disabled office would still need a locker, may still need to use the shower, may be put in charge of the armory and need to access all of it, etc.

3) See Mtlogcabin's explanation - a very good description.

 

[mark handler]

Employee work areas do not need accessible, unless an employee "becomes" disabled or they "Hire" an employee

Reasonable accommodations Shall be made for a disabled Employee

in the case of the semiconductor Employee, it depends on what his/her duties were, could be a lowered workspace, or something similar

Common areas still must be accessible.

 

[mark handler]

What is Reasonable Accommodation?

Reasonable accommodation is any change or adjustment to a job or work environment that permits a qualified applicant or employee with a disability to participate in the job application process, to perform the essential functions of a job, or to enjoy benefits and privileges of employment equal to those enjoyed by employees without disabilities. For example, reasonable accommodation may include:

providing or modifying equipment or devices,

job restructuring,

part-time or modified work schedules,

reassignment to a vacant position,

adjusting or modifying examinations, training materials, or policies,

providing readers and interpreters, and

making the workplace readily accessible to and usable by people with disabilities.

An employer is required to provide a reasonable accommodation to a qualified applicant or employee with a disability unless the employer can show that the accommodation would be an undue hardship -- that is, that it would require significant difficulty or expense.

 

[Francis Vineyard]

Aside from making reasonable accommodations your example "why should we have to change anything" makes the point that the building stands to outlast existing occupancies and realizes the need for permanent facilities to accommodate the increasing population of physically disabled including those that are temporarily inconvenienced.

When this issue comes up for discussion begin your point of view stating this is not up for debate and in your own words ask "have you or any one you've known been temporarily impaired from surgery, broken bones, sprains, and injuries resulting in impairments that will allow you to return to work under limited conditions?"

You can research and find cases where an owner and employers suddenly becomes disabled and realizes the foresight to provide accessible facilities was a righteous one and saved time and expense to retrofit.

Computer assisted technology and devices are also making it possible for employees and employers to work in environments that was not conceivable in the recent past. Given an opportunity what to say which person will have better work ethics and will be a resource to make the business stay competitive in the future?

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Tell them you are hepling them from being sued. This always helps me alot.

 

[Yikes]

Regarding ramps, strike side clearances, etc.: even when I have clients with ADA exemptions (like old churches), I'm usually able to sell features like this because ramps are also so handy for anything that has wheels, like:

Serving carts

Hand carts (moving file boxes, bringing in supplies, etc.)

Luggage

Sample boxes

Janitorial equipment (trash barrel with casters)

Audiovisual and stage equipment

Portable furniture carts (they stack chairs on carts with wheels on them)

Etc.

 

[tmurray]

we just won't hire anyone in a wheelchair

wow. just wow.

That very well might be the most prejudiced thing I have ever heard.

 

[Darren Emery]

I've heard worse, fairly recently. "Not you, or anybody in this country can make me hire those handicaps"

I was dumbfounded.

 

[Frank]

"Not you, or anybody in this country can make me hire those handicaps"

They may not be able to make you hire them but they can sure make you pay for discriminating.

Obviously he has not heard of the Federal Courts 900 pound gorrilla--Shades of the defiance of George Wallace

 

[lpiburn]

Thanks everyone for the responses. Really good stuff.

Tell them you are hepling them from being sued. This always helps me alot.

To me, that translates to "because THEY said so".

That very well might be the most prejudiced thing I have ever heard.

Consider yourself lucky. There is far worse out there. Back to my original question though, that kind of prejudicial comment is fairly easy to argue against. The ones that get me are related to specific tasks.

Here's another example (hypothetical. Just thought this one up): A factory/industrial complex is operated mostly by catwalks and such that clearly meet the exception for raised employee work areas. Admin offices are in a completely separate building. A bathroom is provided on the ground floor of the factory for convenience of the workers. Does that bathroom have to comply?

Per IBC and ANSI, the answer is yes. "All toilet rooms shall be accessible." This situation wouldn't meet any of the few exceptions either. Again the question is raised, why should the bathrooms need to comply when you physically can't do the job if you are disabled? This is the kind of question I don't have a good enough answer for besides "code says so".

 

[ICE]

"Not you, or anybody in this country can make me hire those handicaps"

Well like it or not, employers have rights too.

 

[lpiburn]

I really hope I'm reading that comment the wrong way. Are you saying that standpoint is OK? If so, just do me a favor. Re-read the quote that Darren posted and replace the word "handicaps" with "N-words". Kind of puts it in perspective. No offense if I misunderstood your point.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Per IBC and ANSI, the answer is yes. "All toilet rooms shall be accessible." This situation wouldn't meet any of the few exceptions either. Again the question is raised, why should the bathrooms need to comply when you physically can't do the job if you are disabled? This is the kind of question I don't have a good enough answer for besides "code says so".

I agree a wheelchair accessible restroom may never be needed in that facility but one that meets the ambulatory requirements would be the minimum (think fused back, arthritic joints etc) so what you are really talking about is the additional sg ft required for the wheelchair restroom. In reality that is pretty insignificant in a large facility.

"we just won't hire anyone in a wheelchair"

This is true in all building departments when it comes to field inspectors. A person confined to a wheelchair can not do the job. We may not be that blunt but we know it is a fact.

Now plan reviewers and office staff it would be discriminatory to not even consider someone for a position because they where in a wheelchair

 

[ICE]

I really hope I'm reading that comment the wrong way. Are you saying that standpoint is OK? If so, just do me a favor. Re-read the quote that Darren posted and replace the word "handicaps" with "N-words". Kind of puts it in perspective. No offense if I misunderstood your point.

Actually you got it right. Having been an employer, I can say that the government has no business meddling in my business.

 

[kilitact]

Actually you got it right. Having been an employer, I can say that the government has no business meddling in my business.

I would agree if you operated outside of the mainstream,"moonshiner" perhaps.

 

[fireguy]

I was handicapped about 4years ago. I cut my ankle with a chain saw. For 1+ month, I could not drive. Dee had to take me to the shop. I used crutches and a walker for 2 months. For another month, I could not get on a roof, could not climb stairs. My Attitude about handicapped access changed.

A month ago, I fell off my bike. Four broken ribs, reminded me about being handicapped. Dee has been driving me again. I have to rely on my guys to tell me what the exhaust fan on the roof looks like or what pipe we need to repair a leaking sprinkler pipe. I am still propping my foot up because my knee still hurts.

I read Mark's postings with more care now.

 

[ICE]

I was handicapped about 4years ago. I cut my ankle with a chain saw. For 1+ month, I could not drive. Dee had to take me to the shop. I used crutches and a walker for 2 months. For another month, I could not get on a roof, could not climb stairs. My Attitude about handicapped access changed. A month ago, I fell off my bike. Four broken ribs, reminded me about being handicapped. Dee has been driving me again. I have to rely on my guys to tell me what the exhaust fan on the roof looks like or what pipe we need to repair a leaking sprinkler pipe. I am still propping my foot up because my knee still hurts.

I read Mark's postings with more care now.

Ya , I would not hire you.:devil

 

[Mech]

Here's another example (hypothetical. Just thought this one up): A factory/industrial complex is operated mostly by catwalks and such that clearly meet the exception for raised employee work areas. Admin offices are in a completely separate building. A bathroom is provided on the ground floor of the factory for convenience of the workers. Does that bathroom have to comply?Per IBC and ANSI, the answer is yes. "All toilet rooms shall be accessible." This situation wouldn't meet any of the few exceptions either. Again the question is raised, why should the bathrooms need to comply when you physically can't do the job if you are disabled? This is the kind of question I don't have a good enough answer for besides "code says so".

I'd hate to be the accessibly challenged office worker who heads over to the factory to get some information, paperwork, samples, etc. when the urge to use the restroom hits and it is not configured for disabled people.

What about the owner who is temporarily disabled and wants to visit this factory building but decides not to because the restrooms are not compliant? Or a disabled repair / tech / manufacturer's rep / consultant is sent there for specific equipment troubleshooting?