And remember, if we want more of the same, DON'T bother voting on Nov 7th!!!
Posted on 10/19/2006 5:11:36 AM PDT by Brilliant
The 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act reflected a generous national impulse to provide the most opportunity... But the law has also sometimes led to overzealous interpretations ...that can defy common sense -- and endanger the broader public.
A case in point is last week's ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that United Parcel Service has violated federal law by banning drivers who are deaf. While acknowledging that federal law requires drivers of trucks heavier than 10,000 pounds to be able to hear, a three-judge panel of the ...court ruled that UPS was obliged to prove that allowing the deaf to drive one of its ubiquitous brown vehicles would be unsafe.
Part of the problem here appears to be the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The EEOC filed a brief ...arguing that, because UPS already hires drivers with risk factors such as previous accidents, it would be discriminatory for it not to accept other risks too. Previously, the EEOC sued UPS unsuccessfully to force it to hire drivers who can see out of only one eye. And a few weeks ago the EEOC sued ExxonMobil, alleging discrimination because the oil giant won't allow pilots over the age of 60... -- despite a federal law prohibiting pilots over 60 from flying commercial passenger planes.
Certainly, deaf Americans can now do many jobs that were unfairly denied them in an earlier era. But professional driving remains the kind of work that also involves public safety. UPS drivers have to keep to a tight schedule, often amid crowded urban traffic where the ability to hear is needed... A company such as UPS is obliged to take such precautions if only to protect itself against liability. The Ninth Circuit has once again let its egalitarian impulses trump the larger public good.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
You've been driving a 10,000 lb truck for 20 years?
Liberal dumbbutts and if the America hating left(DEMS)make the gain they are hoping for the above will be compounded!
As long as the judges on the Ninth Circuit pick up the tab for any lawsuits that result from their ruling, I'm good with it.
The question is why we have a federal law prohibiting the practice. It doesn't make sense to attack this for only one company, as if it would be safe to drive a UPS truck but not, say, a FedEx truck.
We have laws that forbid using headphones while driving, presumably because we think it's important for drivers to be able to hear things like car horns and sirens and other noises.
But I think it's prudent to have to prove that, given a deaf person's heightened awareness of other senses, they can't compensate for their lack of hearing.
I'm wondering what you can really hear inside a big rig anyway. I'm not saying that I simply believe it would be safe, I'm saying that we should have to show there is a real risk here that is greater than the harm of denying people opportunity.
There's lots of people who we allow to drive that make the roads riskier for all of us. But we do so because we value freedom over safety. There are some times (like drinking and driving) that we make arbitrary decisions, even though I think we all know drivers who, perfectly sober, are much worse than a good driver with a drink or two.
So the question for me is not whether being deaf makes it a little less safe -- I'm pretty sure that's the case. The question is whether a properly trained deaf person will, on average, be a more dangerous driver than the average person we allow to get behind the wheel today.
And I think there's a good chance they would NOT be, especially if you could rig up some inexpensive electronics that could recognise standard sounds like horns and sirens and provide visual indications. If there isn't already something like this on the market, I claim a patent now on my original idea -- a unit with a sound receiving device, signal processing to evaluate the sounds for common emergency warnings including but not limited to horns, sirens, screeching tires, thunder, and screaming people. The signal processing would output the type of sound being heard to a visual device, either some sort of light set which could include different color lights, or different labelled lights, or blinking light or lights, or an LED or LCD display.
The unit would be available in both portable units, and units able to be built into cars both as factory equipment and as accessories.
The Ninth Circus ALL ride the short bus....
have not read yet myself personally
And remember, if we want more of the same, DON'T bother voting on Nov 7th!!!
Deaf/Hard of Hearing ping list
with interests in health and society
Another article on the EEOC lawsuit with UPS...this time a viewpoint from the Wall Street Journal
If anyone could clarify, I'd appreciate it.
It appears that one arm of the federal government, the EEOC, is suing UPS for not doing something that apparently another part of the federal government, the DOT I suppose, says is illegal.
Dear CharlesWayneCT,
"There's lots of people who we allow to drive that make the roads riskier for all of us. But we do so because we value freedom over safety."
That's true, but we also make riskier drivers responsible when they have accidents through the court system. We may permit a risky driver a license, but he can be held account for the damage he does in a court of law.
In this case, we're forcing another private entity, UPS, to take on the additional potential liability of the riskier driver. If the riskier driver now drives for UPS, UPS assumes the risk, whether it wants to or not.
It isn't as if UPS is denying a deaf person a license, but rather, merely refusing to take on the risk of hiring that person as a driver.
If we're talking about preserving liberty, it seems that there is little liberty interest on the part of the potential UPS driver who is denied a job. I don't see it as a denial of fundamental liberties if a private employer doesn't want to hire a specific person.
However, if the government is entitled to force UPS to hire drivers with specific risk factors, then it is UPS that has lost some of its liberty.
In this case, it appears that the EEOC is dictating to UPS what risks it may choose to accept or deny, and what risks are forced upon it.
sitetest
This right here illustrates part of the wider problem. A lot of people, even conservatives, think that the government should prohibit discrimination by anyone. Truth is, the government should only prevent discrimination (even valid, racial discrimination) within itself. Beyond that, it is the decision of the private owners. Take this absurd example. UPS is a private company and thus should be able to select which risks it thinks are worth taking.
I support UPS's right to ban deaf drivers. I do so because I value freedom over socialism and fascism.
Incidentally, if you really do patent a sound-interpreting device, perhaps UPS will relent. It would be even better if the device could determine where the sound is coming from.
interesting...
Which socialist and fascist value was it to deny women and blacks the right to work?
Are you implying that UPS banning drivers who can't hear car horns and sirens is as dumb as most racial and sexual discrimination. The latter, IMO, are valid only in certain cases (who works on the staff of a black student union or who plays on an NFL team, for example). Do you really support this ruling?
Comparing this to socialism and fascism is silly. Get some perspective.
Ping. Do you think UPS is out of line?
.The ABILITY to HEAR is NEEDED?..... WHY?
Is this some misguided belief in "conventual wisdom", which rarely is right?
This is this same asinine, 19th & 20th Century mindset, championed by "learned educators", Physiatrist and the Medical community that the DEAF should be confined to Schools For the DEAF and DUMB.
"WE" were so intellectually advanced that "WE" were certain that The Deaf can't possibly function in society, can't possibly add to the economy or workforce, can't possibly adapt to the workings of a "hearing" world.
EXTRA .. EXTRA.. The Rumor is true! Complete Ignorance towards the Deaf is still alive and kicking!
Do you actually Believe Hearing people are "safer & better "drivers? Regardless of the size or weight of vehicle?
You Hearing types must really think that, although Illegal, your ipod earbuds stuffed in your ears make you a safer driver! ... OR that the Cellphone you just can't put down OR do without, -permanently attached to your ear, bluetooth or not, qualifies you as safer? How about your stereo system, made better with the windows up, blasting at jet engine level db's, ....shouldn't You be "recognized" as a safer driver?
Unfortunately, I can't be as "safe" a driver as you who "hear", not able to hear such things myself, I don't have the luxury or privilege to be so Drastically Distracted in such "crowed, urban traffic" as you lucky Hearing types!
SEE, I am burdened with "actually having to pay attention" to my driving, traffic signals & signs, Irate drivers in (god forbid) TRAFFIC, Emergency vehicles, all my mirrors ... PLUS, having to Watch out for Idiot Ignorant Hearing drivers!
This is one area that my United States has remained in the stone age, handful's of other countries allow, Qualified "Deaf/Hard of Hearing" to drive delivery, Commercial Trucks & Bus's. AND with NO increase in Injuries, damages or Death's, drivers or otherwise. Insurance for Auto and Commercial drivers have gone up, due to Driver Distraction! Not because of a driver who happens to be DEAF/HoH !
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.