This is sort-of in response to Jed Lewison's latest front page post, among many others posted here lately. This is not intended to call out Jed. I'm actually a big fan of the guy's work, usually. But I think that on this one, Jed may have stepped in it.
In an embedded video in the post (for those of you that didn't read Jed Lewison's latest post), Rand Paul, perhaps, seemed to question the ADA's usefulness considering the problems that can arise when a company is forced to install an elevator, when less expensive remedies may be available to accomodate a disabled employee.
I have a much different take on the subject than Jed has. I was laid off from my job last November because the company I was working for was forced to install an elevator in their new building. An elevator that cost so much, this company couldn't afford to employ their 9th employee any longer.
The company had just built a new facility to manufacture their wares and sell them out of (wholesale, that is - no retail space) when the municipal building inspector said they could not have an occupancy permit without an elevator to access the lower level (apparently the no-step entrance to the lower level from the outside and the 4 plus foot wide interior stairs weren't enough).
The company employed no disabled persons, nor could anyone that required an elevator do anything useful on the lower level where the manufacturing took place - just not the type of work someone that needed an elevator could do.
Jed was right about the exceptions written in the ADA, but there is obviously a problem somewhere, otherwise I'd still be selling an innovative, energy efficient (dare I use the ever so outdated "green" label to make my point) product that's made in the USA.
The problem, at least in my case, came from the municipal level.
For those not in the know, there are competing building codes out there. There is the tried and true National Fire Protection Association (obviously my favorite given those adjectives). It was started by firefighters who thought there should be some standards on how to build so that buildings were less likely to catch on fire, and if they did happen to catch on fire, the people in said burning buildings could get out quickly and easily.
Everyone thought, "Hey, that's a good idea. Let's get the townsfolk together and tell 'em about this. We could even make a law that if you want to build here, you have to do it according to these rules. This'd be good for all sorts of reasons." And it was. I don't know anyone that would want their buildings to burn down because it wasn't put together safely, let alone be stuck in said, unsafe burning buildings.
Adopting the NFPA building codes in your municipality (what a good reason to be interested in local politics...) saved lives, has contributed to longevity of buildings, and any number of things. And making it unlawful to build in a manner not adhering to the NFPA codes was something everyone agreed with.
Then someone (probably an elevator manufacturer, for all I know - who I imagine him with a George W. Bushish voice, for effect) got this interesting idea. They though to themself, "Self. There's laws saying stuff has to be built according to some codes some folks wrote... I could write some codes myself, call them "a code to compete with the NFPA codes" or something all panty-creamingly free market like that, convince municipalities' gullible and stupid city councils to adopt them over the NFPA codes, and my elevator business could sell more elevators!"
Let me give you a minute to digest that...
...
Got it? Nefarious, isn't it? Scheming, no? Well, that's what cost me my job last year. A $125,000 elevator, a nefarious businessman of yesteryear, an uneducated city council (or a bought and paid for city council) and everyone's interest in a good hatefest.
How, you may ask, did this "everyone's interest in a good hatefest" make it onto the list of things that cost me my job last year (and a damn cool job, might I add - best job I've had in my life)? That's because the hate got the best of Jed, and it's got the best of a lot of you.
Should we hate Rand Paul for not knowing enough about the American's with disabilities act? Perhaps, I guess - if we really wanted to bust a guy's balls for not knowing enough about the specific legalese relating to when an elevator is required, from a specific piece of legislation that was passed 20 years ago. If you recall from the video (if you watched it), it was not Rand Paul's example, but the anchor's question.
And my brief attempt of an explanation above barely scratches the surface of the important bits and pieces of the argument. An argument I have no time for since I have to work overtime now, to maintain what I had at a better paying job that I got laid off from because my boss at the time was essentially strongarmed, by a "government goombah" in this case, to buy a friggin elevator.
This is why I go elect representatives - to worry about the important bits and pieces of when an elevator should be required, among other things, for me, so I can earn a living and worry about the important bits and pieces of who's going to be a smart and loyal representative.
The hate gets in the way of that, you know? How about a little grown-uppedness? How about outsmarting the "enemy?" (who, in this case, let's not forget, are our neighbors and countrymen - even Rand Paul) How about not wasting time steaming over something that at first makes your blood boil, but instead doing a little research so you can speak the truth instead of just insults?
Not just Jed (who, like I said, I really am a big fan of and have been for years) but all of you.