“Again, we want to make clear our unreserved apology to Anna Landre and we are making every effort to ensure this doesn’t happen again.”
That’s the thing though, isn’t it? The entire point of her advocacy…of anyone’s advocacy when it comes to their disability…is for able-bodied people to think ahead to make sure that the same services they enjoy and places through which they can travel can also be accessed by disabled people as well.
Apologizing ex post facto and “making every effort to ensure this doesn’t happen again” really just means “we’ll make sure we have ramps available next time.” It doesn’t mean they are committing to choose well-contrasting colors in their documentation for ease of reading for color blind people, or that as a matter of habit they will have sign language interpreters on call for every event, or any number of other things. The “Oops, We Dun Goofed” apology promise is almost always just to not to do that particular goof no more.
I worked with a company some time ago contracted in as support services as they weren’t equipped (see: trained) to work with individuals with barriers. My job was to support those they had hired and get staff up to speed on how best to work with them. I’m of the opinion they were doing fine given that they had a fully blind not-from-birth individual working for them and doing great but hey, paycheck. Part of my service was to identify areas that need improvement. Sometimes this is often crowded doorways, or floor obstacles, and shelving that is too high/deep/unstable, etc.
So I’m there working with staff and leadership to get them up to ramming speed, we reach comfortable threshold, my time is done. Off the clock I request a meeting to speak with them about some potential improvements. You see, at this particular location they utilized a color-coded system for everything. This was to support individuals with dyslexia and poor reading comprehension. Pretty cool, right? They had come up with a way to minimize issues for people who may not even want to admit they have barriers. Some of you may already know where this is going.
In my report and the meeting I outlined a major flaw that was costing them employees and they did not even know it. You’d be surprised how many people are colorblind and don’t even know it themselves. So in my report I pointed out that along with typical shorthand and their color system, which they should absolutely keep, they should add simple symbols. Circle for yellow, triangle for red, square for blue, etc. I also pointed out that they could also consider adding single indents that match with colors and symbols, which would support older populations and individuals with ocular degenerative diseases. Basically open themselves up fully to a population other employers turn down.
Last I checked they had implemented these changes, or some variation(s), and word came back that they were receiving TOO many applications with most of their workforce having one or more barriers that would normally force them into some larger financial assistance structure, with all the red tape and bullshit that comes with it, cause boy are the limitations and expectations in these programs bonkers at times.
Point being that even those who have put thought into solutions for problems they themselves don’t have, it is specifically because they don’t have the same limitations that solutions are often half finished. Some people, and yes some institutions, try to do what they can. At the end of the day some fixes are better than none at all. More can always be added later.
That’s the thing though, isn’t it? The entire point of her advocacy…of anyone’s advocacy when it comes to their disability…is for able-bodied people to think ahead to make sure that the same services they enjoy and places through which they can travel can also be accessed by disabled people as well.
Apologizing ex post facto and “making every effort to ensure this doesn’t happen again” really just means “we’ll make sure we have ramps available next time.” It doesn’t mean they are committing to choose well-contrasting colors in their documentation for ease of reading for color blind people, or that as a matter of habit they will have sign language interpreters on call for every event, or any number of other things. The “Oops, We Dun Goofed” apology promise is almost always just to not to do that particular goof no more.
I worked with a company some time ago contracted in as support services as they weren’t equipped (see: trained) to work with individuals with barriers. My job was to support those they had hired and get staff up to speed on how best to work with them. I’m of the opinion they were doing fine given that they had a fully blind not-from-birth individual working for them and doing great but hey, paycheck. Part of my service was to identify areas that need improvement. Sometimes this is often crowded doorways, or floor obstacles, and shelving that is too high/deep/unstable, etc.
So I’m there working with staff and leadership to get them up to ramming speed, we reach comfortable threshold, my time is done. Off the clock I request a meeting to speak with them about some potential improvements. You see, at this particular location they utilized a color-coded system for everything. This was to support individuals with dyslexia and poor reading comprehension. Pretty cool, right? They had come up with a way to minimize issues for people who may not even want to admit they have barriers. Some of you may already know where this is going.
In my report and the meeting I outlined a major flaw that was costing them employees and they did not even know it. You’d be surprised how many people are colorblind and don’t even know it themselves. So in my report I pointed out that along with typical shorthand and their color system, which they should absolutely keep, they should add simple symbols. Circle for yellow, triangle for red, square for blue, etc. I also pointed out that they could also consider adding single indents that match with colors and symbols, which would support older populations and individuals with ocular degenerative diseases. Basically open themselves up fully to a population other employers turn down.
Last I checked they had implemented these changes, or some variation(s), and word came back that they were receiving TOO many applications with most of their workforce having one or more barriers that would normally force them into some larger financial assistance structure, with all the red tape and bullshit that comes with it, cause boy are the limitations and expectations in these programs bonkers at times.
Point being that even those who have put thought into solutions for problems they themselves don’t have, it is specifically because they don’t have the same limitations that solutions are often half finished. Some people, and yes some institutions, try to do what they can. At the end of the day some fixes are better than none at all. More can always be added later.
“we want to make clear our unreserved apology to X and we are making every effort to ensure this doesn’t happen again”
Is a standard bullshit response in Britain, which unvariably doesn’t get any follow through.
See also “lessons have been learned”.