Maybe it might be more productive and civilized if you actually informed the posters, like me, what your interests are, perhaps we humble posters could actually attempt to appease or sate your hunger for 'real' news.
As for the clitoris analogy, i'll counter with:
Opinions are like a$#holes, everyone's got one.
As for the flame wars and childishness and the general state of what you belive the General Forum section to be, the GT area is a free-for-all, within in reason, to debate, to discuss, to share ideas, to inform, to invite discussions and viewpoints about subject matter from members from all over the world.
I for one, find that free-flowing information of ideas and view points very interesting, and that is one reason i both share and post what i belive are real world issues, such as discrimination, justice, politics, science, nature and many many more.
I know that some threads have been a little heated and have perhaps been a little heavy for the reading, however that is because people are passionate about their beliefs.
I would rather people/members be passionate about their beliefs rather than a collective group of members where a topic is posted and everyone agrees wholy and souly on everything that is posted.
What a boring world that would be.
The invitation of discussion from members from all around the world is in my view interesting and welcome, because it allows people to acknowledge and respect differing views and ideas.
What may be a good idea in one country may not be a good idea in another.
I for one would love to know and be educated about why it isn't a good idea in another country.
It's all about education and freedom of speech.
If freedom of speech were frowned upon here at SUBSIM and in particular the GT section, i for one would find that worrying.
And wrong.
As for the childishness and immaturity, as you claim it to be in threads of late, the Moderators do a fantastic job in keeping in check everything and anything that is considered borderline, or indeed overstepping the line.
I'm sure all agree with that sentiment.
Also, the moment where a topic is posted, you can hover your mouse over the title and get an indication, in most cases of what the topic will be about.
In short, and to the point, if you feel a topic is not worthy of your attention and interest, then ignore it.
That is what i do.
Otherwise my post count would be more than Jim's or Sailor Steve's.
There are many many posts being posted here in this section, and not all will capture my interest.
But, the diversity and freedom that SUBSIM allows it's members to post should be congratulated and encouraged for many a time to come!
My 2 cents worth.

EDIT: Not attacking you Lord magerius, just replying.

some folks might see disability employment laws as stupid or pointless.

it doesnt change the fact that it is the law black and white.

the girl has a federally recognized disability

her employer is required to accommodate her within reason.

they failed to accommodate her and chose instead to terminate her employment. - I would hate to be in starbucks position right now.

now... i could understand firing her if she asked for a $2500 motorized cart to wheel around in and serve customers.

I could understand firing her if she asked for a $40/hour personal assistant for her whole shift

but she didnt make any unusual or outrageous requests...

all she asked for was one of these

http://www.conveyorsolutionsonline.c.../StepStool.jpg

people use step stools in the home and work environment all the time.

and it seems a fair number of our esteemed gentlemen at subsim are prepared to join Starbucks in taking a dump on this girl.

does anyone see how stupid this is?

a young lady wishes to contribute constructively to society by getting a job - and because the 5'5" to 6'2" world wasnt designed for her... she's just SOL because of a stool.

a stool people.

and every day we ask "what is wrong with the world today"

read this thread, and there is your answer.

I suppose some of you would refuse to hold the door for a paraplegic lady in a wheel chair... because after all "this world belongs us non handicapped people. she knew the risks of leaving her specialized house. she was stupid to even go outside in the first place, to hell with her."



shameful

I'm on your side GR.

dont get me wrong... i wasnt calling anyone out by name.


its just that the general feel of this thread is that she is a moron that should have known better and got what she had coming.

I'm sure she probably went home and cried her eyes out for being fired over something so petty, and something so permanent in her life.

There is no doubt in my mind that she probably did experience a lot of emotions and got stuck with a lot of self doubt when they dropped the hammer on her because of her disability

yea i know who you are referring to.
It just boggles my mind as to why they would refuse to help her.
And i'm wondering what the Starbuck's head office is thinking right now.
At the end of the day, and correct me if i'm wrong but even with a franchise, not independently owned, that the store manager has the right of call for hiring and firing?
What i am trying to say is, does that then fall back on the store manager's inability to assist a disabled employee?
Do we question Starbuck's as a whole to be (allegedly) discrimitory towards disabled employees?
Or do we conclude, that when this is settled in court that the manager is to blame.
I'm probably analysing this way too much but putting another slant on it.
I'm certain that Starbuck's would have a employee's handbook and a code of ethics and a hr department where the manager of the store should be familiar with, so prior to making such a decision, that he should or could have consulted with their (i'm assuming) extensive employee assistance and resources available.
And unfortunately the name attached to that store is Starbuck's. Ie store manager makes a discrimitory (alleged) decision and it goes pear-shaped very very quickly.

I'm quit sure OSHA might have a different view of one of those step stools when used around hot machinery and hot liquids. And if she fell and someone was hurt the lawyers most certainly would. When you start employing people you soon learn to consider these things. If you don't you'll pay a very high price.

It is true that people use step stools all the time and they also fall off them all the time and hopefully not with scalding hot liquids in their hands. He just might have saved her from a serious injury. The step stool just might not be such a good idea after all.

Could the store manager or owner and that is who we're talking about here not Starbucks the corporation, have lowered the machine and any thing else she needed lowered safely and within building codes. I would guess yes, may have cost a couple of thousand+ but there would have been other benefits to consider. Namely getting a good employee who no doubt would have worked there for a long time. Let's face for someone three+ feet tall jobs are not that easy to come by and getting a good employee at that pay scale is also hard to come by and getting one that will last is even harder. Some good PR would no doubt have been a positive result as well. It was really a win situation for him.
Did he do the above, no he fired her and opened up a big can of worms.

Once he hired her he was committed to a set of responsibilities by law and in my option good judgment and decency. If he wasn't up to this he should not have hired her. He may have hired her with all the good intentions in the world but when things didn't work out as expected he took the easy way out or what he though was the easy way out.

Hope she gets the proper satisfaction that he deserves.

Magic

OSHA would have a problem with one of their own OSHA approved step stools?

probably not - but it wouldn't surprise me

but either way you slice it, either side will have to prove their case in court one way or another.

My assumption is that this is pretty cut and dry. the law is simple in its statement that the person must be at least considered for employment, and if hired every consideration must be made to provide reasonable accommodations for the individual.

pretty simple.

I dont know if this will be a bench trial or a jury trial - i dont know enough about these kinds of proceedings to say, but if it is a jury trial... these things go to the plaintiff a large percentage of the time.

sure there are a number of things to consider, and there are some contradictory issues in this case, but i think that judgement will likely be made in favor of the plaintiff in this case.

then again, until a gavel is pounded and the case is concluded - this is all opinion.