First, let's take this on the familiarity basis.  You
work for the federal government.  Your knowledge base
is that of one who works there, and what may be
obvious to you with respect to federal jobs may not be
obvious to the population at large.

Secondly, you are a supervisor.  You have indicated
heretofore you have responsibility for hiring.  If you
have no idea or at least not enough of one to
communicate how the term reasonable is defined, how
can you know if you are executing your full-faith
responsibilities as a supervisor for your employer?
You act as an agent for the aforesaid entity and
should have some comprehension of the terminology that
you use.  Albeit, you may have HR screeners along the
way to assist you in your decision-making process;
however, you, yourself, may come across an employee
who requires accommodation and, unless you understand
how reasonable is defined, how can you be sure you are
doing the right thing?  Remember, an employee does not
need to state they have a disability nor that they
require accommodation unless and until there is a job
offer and, at that, they don't have to divulge
immediately unless they are requesting accommodation.

It was not inappropriate nor a challenge to you to ask
you how you define the term "reasonable."  That is the
sole word to which I took exception purely because of
the judgmental nature of the term.  That, juxtaposed
against other commentaries heretofore demonstrated
expressing judgment, set off an alarm bell that
demanded I ask how the term was used.

Further, I have spent the better part of the last 10
years becoming fairly well read on employment matters.
 I regularly read the Findlaw Employment law matters
that come out throughout the week for both the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals and the California courts.
Once a week, I get the rulings from the whole of the
US and its territories.  I have quite a number of
friends who are, in fact, HR attorneys.

So, to say to a list of 2500 that I (without
specifically mentioning me by name but referencing my
earlier post) needed to consult with an employment
counselor seemed highly offensive and quite
inappropriate.  I hope you, as a supervisor, follow
along with the law as much as you can.

Further, 188 people are now enrolled on
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MuseJobs (our MuseJobs
list).  In addition to job postings, they get a
regular dose of HR tips and employment law to help
bring them up to speed.  I don't think I've made a
secret about the fact that list, or any of the others
found in my sigfile starting with the term Muse.

I broke the home computer on Monday when I downloaded
Windows media player.  I'm still working on trying to
get that fixed.  I am now going to two public
libraries, with a third targeted for Sunday, just to
keep up on my commitments to help others with their
quest for employment, and the response I received from
you was so demeaning that it demanded public response.

Further, I have privately advised a number here on
list with respect to references.

Hard-copy references, generally speaking, should not
be provided unless asked for specifically.  If
references must be provided, usually just name and
phone number are sufficient.  Conventional wisdom from
everything I have read relational to HR (having had
some responsibility for HR matters heretofore) says
that references are not included on resumes unless
specifically asked for upfront.

Salary history is another matter.  One generally
should not provide one's salary history unless the
document states applications without salary histories
will not be considered.  Those that provide salaries
too low may find themselves undercompensated.  Those
who provide salaries considered to be too high may be
precluded from the opportunity on the mistaken
assumption one would not work for less or, if they
would, they would easily be lured away by more
dollars.

Finally, on a number of occasions, I have suggested
that you use a readable font in your postings.  I
recognize you may be shortsheeted in that the font you
use is one you also use in the workplace.  But that
tiny font is a failure to accommodate those with
vision difficulties, and we have a number of people on
list with such matters.  Perhaps someone from your IT
area can show you how to change your typeface.

I have always had perfect vision until 1999 when, at
age 47, I was diagnosed with presbyopia (not uncommon
after many years, and though the eldest, I was the
last in my family to need glasses for reading).  Even
though I wear glasses while computing often, I still
cannot read what you post--and only what YOU
post--unless I take the document and act like I'm
going to respond so that the computer converts it to
legible type size.

Further, John Martinson is presumably in his 50s.  The
other person--I think it was Pam--who responded, is
not just a young person fresh out of college and has
been around the block a few times.  Your response was
worded--and you admitted you were frustrated--in a
manner that was condescending to us all.



--- Audra Oliver <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> If I made any assumption about your post, Indigo, it
> was to try to credit it with being an honest
> question.  It indicated no knowledge of the language
> of ADA or of federal recruitment practices. In fact
> it seemed to challenge them.
> Your initial question was "who determines reasonable
> accommodation?" I responded to that and to where it
> would logically travel if challenged for ultimate
> legal determination. You ask the question, I gave
> you an honest answer. If you care to consider that a
> slam, that is your option.
> If someone successfully challenges this wording or
> the EEO/AA form the numerous agencies that use them
> will be advised to change their practices. As you
> probably know but your initial post in this regard
> did not indicate, that is generally how legal
> matters change.  As my initial post regarding the
> opening stated, the federal personnel office is the
> office to contact.  I simply posted the opening to
> the list as a courtesy.
> You may be discouraged that my font size is the
> default on the company computer.  However, your
> posts come to me the same size.  Perhaps that is a
> consolation.
>
>
>
> >>> [log in to unmask] 02/28/02 03:04PM >>>
> Well, that's two slams in a row.  Three if you'd
> like
> to count the fact that the very typeface your
> response
> comes through to the list in is not very
> accommodating.  So small that it's blinding, but
> then
> I guess that has about as much credibility as the
> concerns folks round here have about using HTML.
>
> First, it assumes that some of us know nothing about
> standard hiring practices.  That would also assume
> that some of us do not follow employment law
> practices
> and issues surrounding how frequently employers
> attempt to skirting around employment laws.
>
> The ADA was put into law more than 10 years ago.  To
> this day, those who require its protections have to
> regularly stand up against a system that either
> chooses to demonstrate or feign ignorance of the
> law.
> Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
>
> Secondly, I let the first response fly by in the
> interest of attempting to sustain peace of some
> sort.
> Since you posted the app, it was presumed you had
> some
> understanding of the verbiage that was attempted to
> be
> passed off.
>
> Reasonable is clearly a subjective term.  What may
> seem reasonable can be based upon the whim of the
> hiring supervisor, their particular mood, or some
> other folly.
>
> Now, since you've really danced on my absolute last
> nerve in this matter, there are other employment
> laws
> that are clearly on the books.  HIPPA and it's
> California counterpart and one better AB 2222
> (having
> to do with whether one does or does not have to take
> an employment physical--if one already has insurance
> under COBRA or privately held and there is no
> business
> necessity, and not all the employees of like
> classification are required to take the same exam,
> one
> doesn't have to, at least not in my state) were
> abjectly flaunted by a major employer with holdings
> in
> California and a parent company back east.
>
> Even though it was brought to their attention as an
> oops, you may not have been cognizant that the law
> changed, the company opted to flaunt the law saying
> that it wouldn't make the front page of the LA Times
> or the Wall Street Journal.  In other words, unless
> the employee was willing to and had the resources to
> take on the major corporation, they were going to
> reneg on their responsibilities as a corporation to
> obey the law.
>
> Boilerplate verbiage in offices may not always hold
> up
> in a court of law.  That standard language may not
> have been modified along the way to keep up with
> more
> recent court rulings, and if you ask someone--just
> as
> I asked you--you get the very ignorant response that
> basically equates to "I dunno, that's what we've
> always done."
>
> A job is a two-way street.  Powerplaying as a
> prospective employer and standing up to trite
> responses presuming that some AG along the way gave
> blessing to long-ago-written verbiage does not
> guarantee its sacrosanticity.  Condescension,
> instead
> of simply saying I don't have the answer--or more
> probably I don't want to give YOU the
> answer--doesn't
> help either.
>
> For the record, I run an online discussion group
> with
> a number of ADA attorneys and advocates and have for
> well over a year.  That particular topic is a sore
> spot for me, attempting to ensure equal access to
> all,
> and I truly resent the double volleys of "geez
> you're
> stupid" your response infers.
>
>
>
> --- Audra Oliver <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Those of you who have suspicions about these
> > standard practices (earlier post challenging
> > "reasonable accommodation" comes to mind) may want
> > to discuss the job application process with an
> > employment counselor. Until you are well-versed
> and
> > comfortable with these procedures,  you may come
> > across as unduly suspicious of your prospective
> > employer.
>
>
=========================================================
> Important Subscriber Information:
>
> The Museum-L FAQ file is located at
> http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may
> obtain detailed information about the listserv
> commands by sending a one line e-mail message to
> [log in to unmask] . The body of the
> message should read "help" (without the quotes).
>
> If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one
> line e-mail message to [log in to unmask]
> . The body of the message should read "Signoff
> Museum-L" (without the quotes).
>


=====
Indigo Nights
[log in to unmask]

Looking for a job?  Try:
Check out the REVISED Got Links, your one-stop portal
http://victorian.fortunecity.com/stanmer/414  Updated 02/14/02

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).