<< 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>>>
I agree with Chuck -- in fact, the same argument has been used in eeoc cases: the passage of quotas hurt the employment of women, blacks, etc. maggie coleman mscoleman at aol.com