TSA mess and the police

[LuvOrlando]

No, it is your condition stopping you.

So if a wheelchair bound person wants to get into work but the place has no ramp access who assumes the responsibility for the dilemma?

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

So if a wheelchair bound person wants to get into work but the place has no ramp access who assumes the responsibility for the dilemma?

We are talking about the TSA here. We can't solve all of the world's problems on the internet.

 

[LuvOrlando]

We are talking about the TSA here. We can't solve all of the world's problems on the internet.

LOL, I agree... we could try though

In all seriousness, if the logic applies to one disability it should be extended to all

 

[JLTraveling]

So if a wheelchair bound person wants to get into work but the place has no ramp access who assumes the responsibility for the dilemma?

Exactly. That falls squarely within the bounds of reasonably accommodation under the ADA. So under those standards, would employers be required to accommodate employees who cannot perform a basic job function (flying) because of a medical condition (PTSD, phobia, etc.) due to the new TSA procedures? Or is it, in fact, the TSA that would fall under the purview of the ADA and be required to provide reasonable accommodation to flyers who cannot undergo the new procedures? I don't know the answer, but it something that will have to be addressed.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

So if a wheelchair bound person wants to get into work but the place has no ramp access who assumes the responsibility for the dilemma?

I'll offer an example that equates to the TSA dilemma:

My wife is a Type I diabetic. She has lost sight in both of her eyes to one degree or another to retinopathy. 9 laser surgeries later, she can see better than me - but she is not allowed to scuba dive. She can't get certified in the US - haven't tried anywhere else.

Now - who do we blame for that? She can see perfectly fine, but there are regulations that do not allow her to get certified. She could blame the government or the insurance companies or the companies that refuse to bend their rules. In the end, the only thing to blame is her diabetes. It is her medical condition that rules out scuba diving.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

But I think you have to take the ability to get another job into consideration. If someone who can't fly due to panic attacks on the plane itself takes a new job knowing that he'll have to fly for work, that's kind of his own fault. But if a rape survivor with PTSD triggered by the new security procedures was able to fly for work, but can't now, that's a whole different ball game. The person WAS able to do the job at the time of hiring, but now the rules have changed. To use your example, suppose you were happily working on the ground floor of a Manhattan office building. The next day you went into work and your employer had expanded the job requirements--now you HAVE to be a window washer one day a month. What do you do? In this case it isn't the employer's fault, but it isn't the employee's fault either. I don't know what should happen. But it doesn't seem right for the employee to be out in the cold.


.

Hypothetically...since it truly is subject to the disability insurance the employee posesses...

I think it would fall under STD. Employee is unable to presently perform duties (air travel) due to documented condition (PTSD). Unlikely that it would fall under long term--probably b/c as it was posted, there are many jobs where air travel and/or full pat down is required for the job. Just as unlikely it would qualify as a permanent disability since it didn't prior to this--and finding something without a pat down would fix the issue.

Now--I heard an explanation on the Dave Ramsey show once--that I really am not qualified to rehash and it would take someone familiar with how disability claims work (and not the health care professionals that provide the evidence)....

But there are different levels of disability--that which prevents you from doing a job temporarily, short term; that which prevents you from doing it temporarily, long term (say recovering from severe injuries in a car wreck), that which disables you from doing that line of work (say--fire fighter), and that which prevents you from doing ANY kind of work (my mom).

Now--bring in Bamafan's co-workers still on disability....

Some people's trauma is so great...that it doesn't matter what they do--they cannot escape it.

But barring an actual situation where the victim's we are talking about actually went through the pat down--it would seem unlikely that they would be permanently disabled as a result of the potential of a pat down (as they were employed before all of this and were working just fine).

AS far as I know in my limited knowledge of the system, it doesn't matter if it is your favorite job, the only one you want to do, or if the economy is crappy making finding a new job difficult.

I was out of my job for mental health reasons way back yonder in 2000...my job was held per FMLA, however--I wasn't disabled long term. I wasn't disabled at all. (not going to go into it). Eventually, my grace period ran out and that was fine.

Then you have your war vets who are at present on disability for PTSD. Such a wide range....

It really just all depends.

This is really just all conjecture--but people don't typically get workman's comp, disability or a free ADA pass on a "what if" scenario.

Sorry if this is all gibberish--baby crying and not really able to type my thoughts out properly.

 

[LuvOrlando]

I'll offer an example that equates to the TSA dilemma:

My wife is a Type I diabetic. She has lost sight in both of her eyes to one degree or another to retinopathy. 9 laser surgeries later, she can see better than me - but she is not allowed to scuba dive. She can't get certified in the US - haven't tried anywhere else.

Now - who do we blame for that? She can see perfectly fine, but there are regulations that do not allow her to get certified. She could blame the government or the insurance companies or the companies that refuse to bend their rules. In the end, the only thing to blame is her diabetes. It is her medical condition that rules out scuba diving.

Subtly different. First, there is no reasonable alternative to scuba diving? If your wife were employed as a scuba instructor and could no longer dive due to threat of life or limb she couldn't make her way around that. Similarly, if a person suffering from mental or physical illness could not endure the real world demands of the act of flying, suppose he/she was a chronic sufferer of Deep Vein Thrombosis or suffered from Aviophobia or Aviatophobia where these issues prevented the primary act of flying we could also say there is no reasonable alternative to that either. However, that's not what is happening. What we are talking about is a human created construct which limits access. Steps, doorways, bathroom size and parking arrangement are human created circumstances which can be modified therefore fairness demands that they be modified and if the requirement applies to these modifications then they apply to procedural ones as well... at least to my mind they do. One for all and all for one

 

[Jennasis]

Please tell me you are not saying that the PTSD that retired so many of my friends who survived 9/11 is not in their imagination because it sounds like you are saying their pain isn't real. I really hope I just misread you but I'm not sure what to think.

PTSD is real and it causes ongoing pain for many people, I don't think its ok to make light of real disabilities, any disabilities whether they are visible or not.

How in God's name did you get THAT from my post???

Of course PTSD is real. Of course so very many survivors of 9/11 suffer with it. Is it time for you to step away from the computer again? I wasn't being facetious. Bama seemed to be comparing people "traumatized" by a patdown to the same trauma those who lived through 9/11 experience (he has since clarified that it was not his intention.)

 

[JLTraveling]

This is really just all conjecture--but people don't typically get workman's comp, disability or a free ADA pass on a "what if" scenario.

Sorry if this is all gibberish--baby crying and not really able to type my thoughts out properly.

You're making perfect sense. My parents both went through the disability retirement process, and it was extremely tough. More so for my mom, because hers was based on a combination of chronic illnesses that together added up to no longer being able to work. Dad has a couple of conditions that are each considered "primary," as in "if you have this you're automatically approved," so his was a good bit easier. But still, it was a process, and I don't think being unable to fly would qualify. Short term disability or FLMA leave makes sense, but it doesn't really help unless there are changes coming down the pipeline. Someone who can't handle the pat down or scanner now probably still won't be able to in six weeks, even with intensive therapy.

Subtly different. First, there is no reasonable alternative to scuba diving? If your wife were employed as a scuba instructor and could no longer dive due to threat of life or limb she couldn't make her way around that. Similarly, if a person suffering from mental or physical illness could not endure the real world demands of the act of flying, suppose he/she was a chronic sufferer of Deep Vein Thrombosis or suffered from Aviophobia or Aviatophobia where these issues prevented the primary act of flying we could also say there is no reasonable alternative to that either. However, that's not what is happening. What we are talking about is a human created construct which limits access. Steps, doorways, bathroom size and parking arrangement are human created circumstances which can be modified therefore fairness demands that they be modified and if the requirement applies to these modifications then they apply to procedural ones as well... at least to my mind they do. One for all and all for one

You're making perfect sense as well. There HAS to be a certain level of reasonable accommodation. The ADA does not permit anyone to be barred access to any public building, mode of transport, etc. based on their disability. The scuba diving example is a bit different, since it is the nature of the sport itself not, as you mentioned, a human construct that bars access. But who is responsible for the ADA accommodation in this scenario? Shouldn't it theoretically apply to all who choose to fly, not just those who have to fly for work? In that case, it seems that the TSA would have to make the accommodation...

I don't know. I'm rambling a bit. But I know that there is not reasonable accommodation being provided here, and it's not morally, ethically or legally right.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

... What we are talking about is a human created construct which limits access....

But there is no physical construct that keeps disabled people from flying, is there?

I used my wife's example because regulations keep her from diving, even though she has a desire and ability to dive. She cannot get certified, so she cannot dive - this because of the risks associated with her medical condition. The problem isn't the regulation - it is there to protect people (and the industry itself) - the problem is her disease.

Similarly, if a person has a condition that does not allow them to meet the federal guidelines for flying, they cannot fly. It isn't the guidelines that are the problem - they are also there to protect the people and the industry - it is the condition.

There are many people who are suggesting that this makes it impossible for people with certain conditions to fly. That simply isn't true (IMO). It is their medical condition that creates the hurdle. The rules apply equally to everyone. Not every condition can be accomodated by every industry.

 

[JLTraveling]

But there is no physical construct that keeps disabled people from flying, is there?

I used my wife's example because regulations keep her from diving, even though she has a desire and ability to dive. She cannot get certified, so she cannot dive - this because of the risks associated with her medical condition. The problem isn't the regulation - it is there to protect people (and the industry itself) - the problem is her disease.

Similarly, if a person has a condition that does not allow them to meet the federal guidelines for flying, they cannot fly. It isn't the guidelines that are the problem - they are also there to protect the people and the industry - it is the condition.

There are many people who are suggesting that this makes it impossible for people with certain conditions to fly. That simply isn't true (IMO). It is their medical condition that creates the hurdle. The rules apply equally to everyone. Not every condition can be accomodated by every industry.

But in your wife's case, the regulations didn't take away something that she previously had. In other words, your wife wasn't certified to dive post-surgeries, diving as part of her regular habits, or even her job, and then suddenly new regulations took away her ability to dive. Instead, the regulations were there when she developed her medical condition and had the surgeries. Normally people are grandfathered in when new regulations would otherwise preclude them from doing something they've already been doing. For example, when the drinking age was raised to 21 from 18, people who were ALREADY 18, 19, or 20 were permitted to drink. Only those who were not yet able to drink under the old law were affected by the new law.

In this case, a portion of the population WAS able to fly and now new regulations prevent them from doing so. Their access was not limited and now it is. Going back to the ADA example, some historic buildings were grandfathered in when the ADA was passed. They were not required to become accessible if doing so would damage the historic nature of the building, or if the costs would be prohibitive. But new construction must be ADA compliant. Additionally, if any of those historic buildings make substantive changes to the physical property, then access must be added at that time. You can't go backwards in accessibility. The TSA has, in fact, gone backwards. And that's not right.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

...In this case, a portion of the population WAS able to fly and now new regulations prevent them from doing so...

Actually, she was able to dive until her eye problems at age 19. The new regulations don't keep people from flying - their conditions do - just like my wife/diving.

 

[C.Ann]

But in your wife's case, the regulations didn't take away something that she previously had.

In this case, a portion of the population WAS able to fly and now new regulations prevent them from doing so. Their access was not limited and now it is.

You can't go backwards in accessibility. The TSA has, in fact, gone backwards. And that's not right.

I was wondering how long it would take before someone brought up these points - and you did it so much better than I could have..

 

[Trixieplus2]

May I ask if you are a mental health professional? Because I am, and I am seeing in your posts as well as others a distinct lack of understanding of the very real trauma that these scanners and pat downs can inflict on those with certain mental health issues (phobias, PTSD, panic attacks and numerous others). Whether a chain of events can be established that leads to disability payments, who knows? Sadly, probably not, given the rampant disregard that our society in general displays for those with these issues. Instead, it's more likely that they will lose their jobs and not receive the benefit of disability payments.

Contrary to what many here seem to believe, mental health issues are every bit as real, as painful and as difficult to overcome as any physical disorder. Yet those are being minimized nearly to the point of exclusion. Some people would love to just "get over it" but they can't. And that shouldn't mean that they simply cannot fly.

Thank you.

 

[LuvOrlando]

How in God's name did you get THAT from my post???

Of course PTSD is real. Of course so very many survivors of 9/11 suffer with it. Is it time for you to step away from the computer again? I wasn't being facetious. Bama seemed to be comparing people "traumatized" by a patdown to the same trauma those who lived through 9/11 experience (he has since clarified that it was not his intention.)

To err is human to forgive is divine

I will go back and delete, dumb internet limitations

 

[Jennasis]

To err is human to forgive is divine

I will go back and delete, dumb internet limitations

Call me St. Jennasis...of course I forgive you.

 

[LuvOrlando]

I'll blame it on a Wrackspurt Thanks for understanding Jennasis

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I understand if therapy wouldn't to help them to fly. But that would mean they get to find a job where they dont have to fly. The distress alone does not make them disabled. The distress is isolated to a specific scenario.

If their job requires travel in person, then it is not reasonable to make accommodations for this one employee over another.

Let us take pregnant women. To an extent they are protected by law except where accommodations are not made for anyone for any reason. If in a job, where all employees must be able to perform duties such as lifting 50 pounds, but she cannot--she can be treated in accordance with company policy if other employees (saymone with a broken arm) are treated the same way.

So if employee cannot fly for whatever reason and said employee would be terminated, then it doesn't matter why a now disabled employee cannot fly if all are treated the same way.

This is not installing and ramp or dedicating a bathroom as unisex or providing an accessible work station.

It is unlikely that an employee who no longer can fly understandably due to a trauma that inhibits them from receiving a pat down would have much of a leg to stand on in terms of saving their job if travel is imperative to the position or make them eligible for disability if they could easily do any other job that doesn't require travel.

As you well know, not all victims of PTSD are equal. Some can functionmto some degree while others are incapacitated.

Someone who is electing to not get a pat down is not going to be disabled no matter what their doctor says. What it will amount to is that they will have to find other work. It would be ideal if there was a workaround, but I cannot think of any case that would require the employer to change the position permanently to meet the needs of someone choosing to not be pat down.

Disabilities and ADA do not work that way. It has and always be about reasonable accommodation. A quadriplegic isnt going to be able to be a lifeguard. (extreme example)

You're making perfect sense. My parents both went through the disability retirement process, and it was extremely tough. More so for my mom, because hers was based on a combination of chronic illnesses that together added up to no longer being able to work. Dad has a couple of conditions that are each considered "primary," as in "if you have this you're automatically approved," so his was a good bit easier. But still, it was a process, and I don't think being unable to fly would qualify. Short term disability or FLMA leave makes sense, but it doesn't really help unless there are changes coming down the pipeline. Someone who can't handle the pat down or scanner now probably still won't be able to in six weeks, even with intensive therapy.



You're making perfect sense as well. There HAS to be a certain level of reasonable accommodation. The ADA does not permit anyone to be barred access to any public building, mode of transport, etc. based on their disability. The scuba diving example is a bit different, since it is the nature of the sport itself not, as you mentioned, a human construct that bars access. But who is responsible for the ADA accommodation in this scenario? Shouldn't it theoretically apply to all who choose to fly, not just those who have to fly for work? In that case, it seems that the TSA would have to make the accommodation...

I don't know. I'm rambling a bit. But I know that there is not reasonable accommodation being provided here, and it's not morally, ethically or legally right.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Call me St. Jennasis...of course I forgive you.

She's back in the pulpit. Hallelujah!

 

[LuvOrlando]

Actually, she was able to dive until her eye problems at age 19. The new regulations don't keep people from flying - their conditions do - just like my wife/diving.

I'm going to leave it go now because its not something to fight over and as Kipling so wisely pointed out, sometimes:

"Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet."