disabled hurt by ADA

Marta Russell ap888 at lafn.org
Wed Jan 20 11:05:16 PST 1999


I haven't read this whole paper, but I do know that the consensus seems to be that employment of people with disabilities(pwds) has dropped since 1986 (the ADA was passed in 1990, effective in 1991). According to the 1998 NOD/Harris survey there has been no increase in employment of people with disabilities. The reasons are complex (work disincentives, health care issues) but most can be boiled down to resistance of employers to hire pwds because of additional costs (whether perceived or real) associated with providing a reasonable accommodation, making access modifications, increases in liability insurance or jacked up health care premiums, nonstandard administrative costs due to cmployers lack of experience with having a disabled employee and the loss of productivity in a worker, again whether perceived or real.

The discrimination part comes from employers assuming that disabled people cannot do the job or not wanting blind, deaf, or mobility impaired people on the premises because it is too disruptive or whatever, although one can make the case(as I am doing now in a paper for the Berkeley law school) that discrimination stems from the extra-ordinary production costs which eats into business proft - that there is a built in economic discrimination so to speak.

The discrimination provisions of the ADA are so weak that virtually no one has success in suing the employer for discrimination in hiring, though there is some success with retaining one's job when disabled after employment. The EEOC has done a lousy job of enforcement, but it has lousy ADA employment regulations that don't help. I think most employers have found ways to get around hiring disabled people and they avoid taking on anything that costs more or is extra-ordinary in hiring practices. So I think these guys at MIT may have something worthwhile to contribute though I would not agree at this moment that the ADA has caused more unemployment, the unemployment rate has been virtually the same pre and post ADA with a very minor (.03 percent up or down depending on what survey one is using).

Marta Russell

Chuck Grimes wrote:


> Although the ADA was
> > meant to increase employment of the disabled, it also increases
> > costs for employers. The net theoretical impact turns on which
> > provisions of the ADA are most important and how responsive firm
> > entry and exit is to profits. Empirical results using the CPS
> > suggest that the ADA had a negative effect on the employment of
> > disabled men of all working ages and disabled women under age
> > 40. The effects appear to be larger in medium size firms,
> > possibly because small firms were exempt from the ADA. The
> > effects are also larger in states where there have been more
> > ADA-related discrimination charges. Estimates of effects on
> > hiring and firing suggest the ADA reduced hiring of the disabled
> > but did not affect separations.
> -------------
>
> Can't let this go by. You can not demonstrate a negative effect
> without demonstrating a change in employment statistics. There is no
> such fall. What is provided are 'estimates' and 'net theoretical
> impact'. I am almost certain that statistical reports before and after
> ADA would show the opposite--an increase in employment--new hires,
> etc, particularly dependent on education levels.
>
> This is pure shit for brains work. Believe me, nobody in business
> would hire a cripple or pay equal pay if it were not for ADA.
>
> Chuck Grimes



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list