On 31/01/2010 21:05, Jason Grant wrote:
Now for us to say that a solution costing £26M to develop, should have another £1M invested into accessibility (testing, implementing, etc.) is a bit of a far fetched argument to be honest. The way the given PLC looks at it is that 'we just won't employ disabled people for this role as they will not be able to meet our targets anyway - we will sign-post them to another role they can do'.
Which, in the UK, is a very clear-cut case of discrimination. The DDA mandates reasonable adjustments in the workplace, which should normally be taken pre-emptively. The "'we just won't employ disabled people for this role" is a potent mix of ignorance and arrogance.
P -- Patrick H. Lauke ______________________________________________________________ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ ______________________________________________________________ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ ______________________________________________________________ ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *******************************************************************
