Do you find that this is morally wrong?

Post Reply New Topic

i think in this day and age you have to take any advantage you can get.

and they call it a disability for a reason. it's a disadvantage in NT society. whether someone has a disability or not, they still have to be able to do the job (accommodations not-withstanding). you aren't exploiting a loophole. government jobs have good bennies. i'd go for it.

No, there's nothing morally wrong. The idea of using affirmative action for this as for any other class of affirmative applicant is to address current and historical issues of underemployment, under-compensation, and discrimination in promotion as much as it is address total unemployment. Obviously, though you aren't mopping floors for a living, you feel you are being held back in some way in the private sector. Also, if you are going for a job for the highly skilled, you would likely be competing with people from somewhat similar circumstances. Also, your old position would open up for someone who would be glad to get it. I haven't had a chance to use it yet, but I had my psychiatrist do a Schedule A letter for me. Here I am sitting currently with a Master's level education, over 18 years of professional experience, sharp as a pin, but now I'm on disability retirement and applying for anything and everything that will help make ends meet after my former employer discriminated against me for doing the right thing and informing them of my ASD diagnosis, staining my reputation in the process. Which is moral, taking a cashiering job away from someone who lacks the education and experience to find anything better? Or, using me Schedule A letter, if possible, to find something that more fully uses my capabilities?

Also, the reason Obama signed the Executive Order implementing the current process is that the federal government was doing just what the private sector was doing, discriminating in hiring in defiance of the ADA. It's almost impossible to prove discrimination in hiring (it's hard enough to prove it in termination -- it took me over 6 months and an EEOC charge, just to get myself reinstated and get disability retirement). The only way for the federal government to clean things up in it's own backyard was to institute a hiring quota and put watchdogs in place.

That's a silly kind of question.

Morals don't enter into it, really, as it doesn't involve injury to anyone.

Ethically, I think it'd be fine.
If you can turn a disadvantage, which autism certainly is, into a slight advantage in this instance and potentially be happier as a result, I don't really see where the problem would be.

What exactly would be wrong about it?

always do what is best for you, personally. That is the common theme of the political atmosphere lately and also the competitive job market. If you limit yourself based on a sense of duty to others you find yourself left behind. If the moral sanctity of feeling that you have helped someone is worth the difference in pay, location, stature or other job benefits to you then by all means stand aside. Understand, however, than helping someone else, unsolicited, will net you absolutely 0 material rewards. They likely would not even want to be friends or even have a conversation. Saying: "You owe your job to be because I chose to step aside, so be thankful" is kind of a logical fallacy to begin with.