What Are They Going To Ban Next????

[Acrylic-bob]

>> Not quite sure why Acrylic-Bob wishes to take issue with having diabled loos available.<<

I take issue, if that is what I am doing, because it seems indicative of the general "one size fits all" approach to problem solving that the current government adopts. The business I run relies on people being agile and fit to handle heavy weights and be manually dextrous and in full posession of all five senses. The installation of a loo for disabled folk might be a nice idea but it is a waste of resources and floor space and adds unnecessarily to the maintainance bill, since it will never be used ( which is perhaps not strictly true, we actually use it as a store room).

I agree that there has to be a place in the workforce for the disabled, it would be foolish and blinkered to suggest anything else. Just as it is foolish and blinkered to suggest that those who are so disabled that they require special toilet facilities might find employment in all areas of the workplace. How many visually impaired people would you employ to decorate cakes, or how many deaf people would you employ in a call centre and still hope to have a business left at the end of the year?
Can we we not keep some sense of proportion and tailor the solution to the problem rather than have central government insist that it knows better than we do. I would have more respect for politicians and government if they started treating us as responsible adults rather than as feckless and wilful children.

[Billcat]

[QUOTE=Acrylic-bobThe installation of a loo for disabled folk might be a nice idea but it is a waste of resources and floor space and adds unnecessarily to the maintainance bill, since it will never be used ( which is perhaps not strictly true, we actually use it as a store room)....

Can we we not keep some sense of proportion and tailor the solution to the problem rather than have central government insist that it knows better than we do. I would have more respect for politicians and government if they started treating us as responsible adults rather than as feckless and wilful children.[/QUOTE]

Point 1 - The fact that the loo is able to serve the disabled certainly does not prevent those with conventional abilities from using it (at least here in the USA).

Unfortunately, cases such as these, due to many, many years of vurtually complete inaction on the issue by the so-called "responsible adults," the central government had to step in. Most businesses and, indeed, many governmental bodies were totally unwilling to provide access to buildings, let alone toilet facilities for the handicapped. The prevailing attitude was "If it does not work for you, too bad, not my problem!" The result of lack of transport, building access and, yes, even accessbile loos, meant that many handicapped folks were excluded from many things, the most important being employment. Their families, and in many cases, the government had to support them, even though they could have become productive citizens.

The same attitude was frequently found in businesses where women had traditionally been excluded - "We don't have a women's loo, so I cannot hire you." that attitude may have been acceptable once upon a time, but it certainly is not today.

Sometimes, it takes a change to the law to cause anything to happen. That was certainly true in terms of opening opportunities to many folks here in the USA, including women, people of color, and the handicapped. Since the laws have changed here in the US (and in the UK, too), opportunities have greatly enlarged for folks with handicaps. Life has certainly not become convenient for these folks, merely less inconvenient, as a non-functioning elevator in an airport recently brought home to me. Not only that, but the overall attitude of society towards the handicapped has become much better. Frankly, if the central government had not stepped in, I believe that this problem would never have been addressed in a meaningful manner. From a purely economic point of view, any business that chose to address this problem unilaterally would be concerned about the possiblity of incurirng costs that their competitors did not have. Making it law put all the businesses on a level playing field and made economically viable to comply (or, conversely, costly not to do so). Businesses as a whole do a poor job of addressing the issues facing society, as they are not designed to handle these issues.

A lot of our firehouses and police departments here in the U.S. found that they needed to upgrade their facilities in order to accomodate women in the workforce. They often made exactly the same arguments used by business for keeping women off the force that you have used in your message - "heavy weights," "agile and fit," "manually dexterous," and "in full possession of all five senses." As things turned out, these were merely excuses for doing nothing. There were women who could qualify as firefighters and police and there were also jobs, albeit not all jobs, that could be handled by folks whose abilities were somewhat limited.

Not wanting to pay for a disabled loo is pretty cummy excuse for continuing job discrimination.

[Acrylic-bob]

>>Not wanting to pay for a disabled loo is pretty cummy excuse for continuing job discrimination. <<

Nothing to do with job discrimination mate, it's merely pragmatism. I would be more than happy to employ anyone who could load and unload a four deck oven with the speed that the job requires, but I am certainly not going to employ someone who cannot, that goes as much for the able bodied as it does for those who are disabled. Similarly, show me a blind person who can decorate a cake to the required standard or who is capable of demonstrating the ability to acquire the necessary skills and I would be more than happy to take them on. There might even be some free publicity available if I were able to do so.

But I somehow doubt that my customers would appreciate being told that their order was below standard because I have decided to be socially responsible and employ disabled bakery staff, nor indeed would they appreciate the fact that I was passing on to them the extra costs incurred as a result of my philanthropy.

It is right and proper that the able bodied among us have the responsibility of caring for those who, for whatever reason or to whatever degree, cannot look after themselves. I have absolutley no argument with this. This costs money, a lot of money! I think that the least that social engineering busy-bodies in Whitehall and Brussels could do is keep out of the damn way while we get on with task of making it, instead of hobbling us at every turn with reams of uneccessary regulation. If I hear just one more environmental health officer attempt to lecture me on changes to fridge temperature guidlines implemented and revised and re-revised by ar**holes in Brussels, I swear I will do someone a mischief.

Should someone who is disabled feel the need to contribute towards the effort or exercise some independence, well, I think that would be wonderful and should be encouraged, provided that they can do the job to the same level of competance as anyone else, otherwise that makes them more expensive to employ and I have never seen the point of keeping a dog and barking yourself. In an ideal world the consideration of expense would be of trivial importance, but we do not live in an ideal world, it is hard and often unfair and costs are a very real and pressing consideration for many employers. If employers can no longer afford to employ folk then it's "Hello Recession!" and we are all up the creek without a paddle.

[Tealeaf]

Just to change the subject slightly, A-B......where and when will be able to see, sample and purchase your cakes?

[garinda]

Well blow me! l agree with every word that A-b posted.

Discrimination on any grounds is wrong, but suitability to perform, whatever job should be uppermost in deciding whom should be employed.

From my own experience l know l can't do the job l was trained for, but am keeping my fingers crossed should stem cell research result in a cure for what ails me, l'll be at the front of the line for useful and rewarding employment.

At the moment l wouldn't even make a grade one bottle washer, but if anyone knows of a Louella Parsons 'Queen of Hollywood' Gossip Columnists type jobs going, do let met know.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Tealeaf

Just to change the subject slightly, A-B......where and when will be able to see, sample and purchase your cakes?

FLYDE COAST APPARENTLY- GREAT BIG BLOOMERS.

[Acrylic-bob]

Originally Posted by Tealeaf

Just to change the subject slightly, A-B......where and when will be able to see, sample and purchase your cakes?

At select hostelries and hotels along the Fylde coast. At some point I may post some tantalising pics.

[Neil]

Posting us some examples would be a better idea.
Shall we PM you with our addresses?

[staggeringman]

Originally Posted by Neil

Posting us some examples would be a better idea.
Shall we PM you with our addresses?

neil A-B can post me some samples not examples...lol. and A-B is correct in what he says,my father was disabled bodily and he would do as much as the man next to him and when he came home from work you could see the pain in him,but that would not get him down,what did was being unable to run after his kids on the beach and the likes of that. Being the stubborn owd ****** he was he got on in life as best he could.

[Neil]

I think this is a good example for you A-B.

I had to phone the bank this morning to sort out an online payment that had got lost. The lady I was talking to at the Natwest in Blackburn was struggling to find out who the recipiant of the payment was. After much waiting and messing around by her I asked to speak to the manager. The manager explained that the lady I had been talking to was visually impared and was struggling to see the computer screen. I really had to bite my lip not ask what on earth was she doing working behind a computer screen that she cannot see.

[yerself]

Originally Posted by staggeringman

the do gooders are now aiming(pun) at shooting!

I think they should ban clay-pigeon shooting. It's downright cruel blasting all those poor little black and orange pigeons out of the sky. The last one I shot I took home for the wife to cook, she braised it for eight hours and it was still as tough as bakelite.

[Billcat]

Somehow, the discussion got off topic. A-B was expressing concerns that the government was requiring handicapped loos. I pointed out that leaving the resolution of this problem to "responsible adults" had resulted in not resolving the problem (just as leaving other social ills, such a reducing pollution, improving workplace safety, were not resolved by the same "responsible adults," but required governmant action.

I'll ask again - what in the world is preventing A-B's able-bodied employees from using the handicapped loo? Is there some regulation in the UK saying that these folks cannot?

BTW, A-B, there has been quite a lot of discrimination against the handicapped in terms of hiring over the years, even for employment where they can do the complete job.
Laws requiring handicapped accessiblity (including loos) have allowed many folks to lead useful, fulfilling lives and, at the same time, reducing the burden of supporting these folks to the taxpayers.

If your baking business continues to prosper, it could grow to the point where you might have salespeople, receptionists, secretaries or accounting employees. All of these jobs can be done by folks with some form of handicap, in which case you might well need that handicapped loo. Also, I expect that, as a facility producing food products, you are subject to periodic inspections. - and there's no reason why that inspector (or anyone else paying a visit to your facility) might not be in a wheelchair.


Of course, there will also be businessmen in almost any country who complain about the cost, just in the USA many of those "responsible adults" complained about requirements to reduce pollution, make safer products, make the workplace safer, eliminate possible carcinogens, eliminate child labor, equal opportunity for women/blacks/Irish/Jews/Catholics etc.

Would it be a good thing if those "responsible adults" took care of handicapped accessibiltiy on their own? Would it have been a good thing if those same people had prevented pollution, sold only safe products, had never cut corners to pocket a larger profit, had never cooked their books? Of course - but the hard truth is that "if" simply did not come to pass.

Truth be told, there are two problems with relying upon "responsible adults." Firstly, there are a lot of adults who ought to be responsible but are not (including some folks at Enron and Arthur Andersen). Secondly, in a competitive environment, a business owner who wishes to be responsible may well find that the cost of behaving responsibly (for instance, preventing pollution) may be faced with the unattractive choice between not cleaning up pollution and allowing his more-cost-effective-but-environmentally-irresponsible competitor to put him out of business.

[Neil]

In my line of work our competitors are in China. How are we supposed to compete while we are burdened with such things as climate change levy charges. In China they don't care how much energy they use. Maybe we should nuke them while we still have the chance.

[cashman]

didn,t know you were in the takeaway buisness neil lol

[staggeringman]

Originally Posted by Neil

In my line of work our competitors are in China. How are we supposed to compete while we are burdened with such things as climate change levy charges. In China they don't care how much energy they use. Maybe we should nuke them while we still have the chance.

people should take a step back there neil and realise what you are saying! the chinese are buying what they can from other countries they are stock pileing and have cheap labour where next?