I am always surprised when progressive people assume that the ADA is a great piece of legislation. While many activists (most notably from ADAPT) fought long and hard to get *some* legislation (and received a tremendous "moral" victory with some nice words in the preamble), it is essentially toothless. The employment provisions of the ADA requires individual enforcement (there are other titles). That means to win anything, the person must be willing to take legal action, get an attorney, blah money blah connections blah. (There is a movement in the activist community to get more "pro se" suits filed but I don't think that this has had a macro impact yet). The last numbers I saw (admittedly 2 years ago) showed that very few employment lawsuits have been filed and even fewer one.
So, I think it is *possible* for the net effect of the legislation to be negative. The sad fact is that there is just considerable prejudice about the abilities of people with disabilities. Add to this the fact the ADA says you must accomodate people's disabilities at work (take the example of accomodating a person with visual impairment--the difference between a 15" and 21" computer is quite high). So even unjustified fears of excess costs dovetails with prejudice. So even if the weak threat of hiring discrimination were a factor in some people getting hired, the net *could* be negative.
The net effect of the ADA is undoubtedly positive but it should come as no surprise that the weakest provisions were in employment. Certainly the most visible sign that most people see are the physical accomodations in buildings. And that can't be bad even if money would be better and more equitably spent on supported employed, assisted living, etc.
At 11:53 AM 1/20/99 , Chuck Grimes wrote:
> (Posted by Doug on the ADA)
>>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
>
When you're too old for the swings you tend to choose the slide
It'll take you much lower than you ever would have asked 'Cause as soon as you sit down the slide has got your ass
A pile of broken souls at the bottom it denied Don't take the slide, don't take the slide
--Paul Heaton from "The Slide"