Ace Frehley from Vancouver, Canada writes: To this editorial I can only respond: Amen!

Nobody has ever said that you have to do everything possible to accommodate mental illness (or religious practice or anything else). The human rights tribunals don't haven't been saying this, and in the few cases where they went overboard the Courts of Appeal have been quick to smack them back.

All you have to do is be reasonable. Oh yeah, and as this editorial points out, at minimum you have to TRY.

• Posted 27/08/08 at 12:47 PM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment

Boyd of the North from North of 60o, Canada writes: I agree with the editorial and Ace's synopsis... the real trouble in the real workplace is the stigma and the fear of repercussions.

I mean how many people want to admit to their employer that they are 'different' in a way that immediately conjures up for the employer images of dysfunction, padded cells, people slipping off meds, etc., let alone asking for some accommodation or at least acceptance?

It requires going out on a limb and trusting someone who you probably have no experience with on this kind of trust-level. Risky indeed. Especially when you consider that even if your problem is understood, resolution may not be possible. Of course, not taking the risk has huge implications, too.

Ciao

• Posted 27/08/08 at 1:45 PM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment

Hugh Andrew from Ottawa, Canada writes: I agree that 'society' that is the public / taxpayer promote equal opportunity for all; but, all are not equal in fact and it is wrong to make businesses pay for an individual's problem. If the publc have the obligation, they should pay. A handicap is not the fault of the employer. I know this is a lost argument; but the current burden on business is wrong. When an employer hires someone there should not be hidden obligations. If the employee is worth it, business will employ. i don't know that the person in the Adga case was hired as a consultant or not; but, a consulting company would not win many contracts if it were known that the contractor from the company would cause the contracting company to incur costs that would not be there if they chose another company. A company should only pay for contracted value representd and received.

• Posted 27/08/08 at 3:36 PM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment

Werner George Patels from Calgary, Canada writes: While it's true that people with mental illness should not be discriminated against, they too have a duty to let the people around them know what they are dealing with. Lane, when applying for his job and during the job interview, was dishonest: he kept his terrible condition to himself and did not inform his future employer until after he had been hired. In some jurisdictions, that's a 'sackable offence'. Surely, if Lane had been upfront with his future employer, the company would have had more time to figure out how best to accommodate him and his condition. Instead, he sprung the news on his boss out of the blue and then expected some sort of miracle. His boss must have felt extremely cornered and pressured, so it shouldn't be surprising that Lane was dismissed summarily right there and then. We're all human, and that includes Lane's boss. We all react to unpleasant news that are just dropped in our lap like that in less than optimal ways. The problem is that many potential victims of discrimination approach their respective situations with a sense of entitlement and even arrogance, and are then bewildered when the response is not as positive as they had expected. Interpersonal relationships are two-way streets. Employers are not monsters, and if they are approached in a reasonable (and honest) manner, most of them will do their best to accommodate the realistic demands of their employees. If Lane had given his boss the courtesy of collecting his thoughts and figuring out the best way possible to help his employee, Lane may might still have a job there today. Neither party in this case is without fault, but by embarking on his working relationship with less than the full truth, Lane should clearly shoulder more of the blame than the court has found.

• Posted 27/08/08 at 5:04 PM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment

Colleen Henderson from Saint John, Canada writes: I am a lawyer with bipolar disorder. I retired 15 years ago at the age of 38 due to my illness. If more accomodations had been made for my illness, I might still be working. People with a mental illness are as entitled to be in the workplase as people in a wheelchair , people with epilepsy, or people who are pregnant. At one time, not so long ago, all three of these catgories of persons were not to be seen 'at work'. As far as the financial responsibility, it's just a cost of being in business.

• Posted 27/08/08 at 6:02 PM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment

Paula Conning from Orangeville, Canada writes: Werner George Patels says, 'Surely, if Lane had been upfront with his future employer, the company would have had more time to figure out how best to accommodate him and his condition.' C'mon- the company would never have hired him. But, they determined that he was competant to do the job, then, when they realized he needed supports, they fired him. Clear discrimination.

• Posted 28/08/08 at 9:10 AM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment

Tom Paine from Cape Verde writes: What's with the stale-dated editorials? This one is yesterday's and today's isn't posted.

• Posted 28/08/08 at 9:13 AM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment

Tom Paine from Cape Verde writes: Colleen Henderson ... writes: .... If more accomodations had been made for my illness, I might still be working. People with a mental illness are as entitled to be in the workplase as people in a wheelchair , people with epilepsy, or people who are pregnant. At one time, not so long ago, all three of these catgories of persons were not to be seen 'at work'. As far as the financial responsibility, it's just a cost of being in business.

________________

I think your last sentence reveals where the real problem lies.

The laws essentially force random employers into the position of unwilling insurers. The effect is unfair to individual businesses and builds in an unfair and wrong but unfortunately real disincentive against hiring people whose conditions impose burdens on the business. The better solution would be for the state to devise a program to offset the cost of accomodation so that the cost/risk is spread wider and more fairly.

• Posted 28/08/08 at 9:18 AM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment