I've worked out how sneaky employers are

Post Reply New Topic

They know that people are frightened to come out and say about their disability at the interview in case it might hold them back from getting a job, so they ask ''do you have any health conditions that may affect the way you work?'' at the interview, and 8 out of 10 applicants with any invisible disabilities would say no, then they may take them on and then the employee finds that they are having difficulty what the employer (who thinks they are ''normal'') doesn't understand, and accuses the employee of being lazy or ignorant or odd, and then they make them redundant, then the employee then says ''by the way I am diagnosed with [name of health condition]'', and the employee can't get the company into trouble for discrimination against people with disabilities because then the employer would argue that ''the applicant did say no when we first asked them if they had any health conditions at the interview''. Sneaky, eh?

Sneaky, yes. But consider this: What if you were evaluated and diagnosed only after you had held the job for a period of time? You would not have been dishonest at the interview, but would still require accomodation.

Welcome to life.

Capitalism drove us to this point and it doesn't look like it's going to improve for people with autism and asperger in any way, in fact it will get worse.

I guess if it's recorded on paper with a signature it could be used against you. If it was a verbal statement, you could deny it later...well, ok, seeing as there are usually three people at the (panel) interview...might cause trouble.

Personally I really don't agree with such statements being used. If I'm not mistaken, at one time the onus was on the person with the medical condition to disclose it up front, then due to the stigma, the law (at least in some Western countries) pulled that and put the onus on employers to ask. Which, I guess they are, given what you say!!

But think about it. What if the candidate had cancer or AIDS and only had a couple of years to live but could otherwise function fairly well. They'd be out an employee before long which is what would concern them most (yes, I am cynical about some of the manifestations of capitalism...) Of course, nobody with that condition would want to disclose it due to the stigma attached. So too should it be the same way for Aspergers, which also carries a stigma (unless somebody is VERY enlightened and knowledgeable about the condition).

How the heck would a person know they would be able to do the job better if they were neurotypical? Also if the employers does not put I have to lie for the job and can otherwise do the job normally but they did not put that on the job description how am I supposed to answer that question.

Very crafty they are. Sadly the laws still don't protect disabled people because there are loopholes. Anyone who thinks they do are naive. Same as if they think they can't fire you for something. Yes they can, they find ways so it's a real reason to fire you so you can't sue for discrimination. Or they can start bullying you at work so you can get tired of it and quit.

This is why they purposely hire sociopaths for the positions juuust high enough to have the authority to fire front-line grunts. Only a sociopath can be so heartless as to purposely bully people out of their jobs.

I too agree with this last one, based on my own experience and that of other Aspies whose stories I've read. The bullying usually escalates after disclosure, it did in my case. I disclosed to a former boss due to being bullied, as a pre-emptive strike, because if I waited till after disciplinary measures were taken then they could just turn around & say "you never told us about your condition".

So that's where you have to document all the abuse that happens after your disclosure (and before) to identify any patterns of retaliation. To prove that you were being set up for failure.

Look at it this way - if the bully boss REALLY thought you were incompetent and useless etc, then he/she wouldn't need to sabotage or belittle you into failing - he/she would have just let things run their due course.

It's mainly bosses and supervisors that do it. It even happens to NTs too. They will start bullying their employee just so they will quit. It's their way of getting rid of them so they hire someone new so they pay them less money. I knew someone at work but was bullied for two years at work and she guessed it was so she would retire since she was over 65. My mom was bullied at her job when I was in high school because they wanted her to quit so they hire someone new so they pay them less. They did it to other employers too after they had been working there for a few years and they would always quit. But with disabilities, they will do it just to get rid of you. Sure it happens to NTs too but I am sure it be more common for us.

Yes, I totally believe what you're saying about the harassment of people on the brink of retirement - not only does it mean that they can hire a new person & pay them less, but they can avoid paying more severance for the senior employee by doctoring their performance/attitude as "unsatisfactory" through relentless bullying then letting them go on that trumped-up pretext. Of course, not all organizations are like this, but some are, especially, those who have a sociopath at the helm of such decisions.

Corporations make decisions based on "risk vs. reward" and this situation is, sadly, no exception. Often times it takes something major like a lawsuit settlement in the 6-figure range for the victim, to get them to fundamentally rethink how they go about handling such issues.

Some employers as "do you consider yourself to have a disability" which makes it even more complex.

I am always wary of disclosing since I don't need any accommodations to be able to do the job I apply for.

Wrong.

If a person is hired with the expectation that they are both able and willing to do the job, and they seem to be slacking off, then the employer is right to insist that the employee actually do the work they are being paid to do.

This is not sociopathy; this is business.

That is not what we are talking about. What you just wrote was entirely different than what we were discussing.