Discriminated against for mental health disability.

Rose76 · Oct 19, 2013, 02:51 AM

Not only does Goodwill pay a pittance to many of its disabled employees, but it lobbies extensively to protect that supply of cheap labor. Here is a link and an excerpt: https://nfb.org/blog/vonb-blog/sin-o...yments-workers

Quote:

The most offensive use of the revenue received by these sheltered workshops [operated by Goodwill] is paying their lobbyists to persuade members of Congress to continue to allow them to legally pay these workers pennies per hour.

I would expect that any large organization is going to be the target of some bad press. At first, I figured that the Internet articles I found critical of Goodwill Industries were just that . . . a certain amount of sour grapes that can always be found against any big entity. But, honest to heaven, there is just an avalanche of negative press against this organization. I mean, I have been trying to pull up positive stuff. I'm finding that hard to do. What complimentary stuff that I have found is put up by Goodwill Industries about itself.

Rose76 · Oct 19, 2013, 02:59 AM

Quote:

These organisations and initives will sell the pretty picture to the public, governments and anyone you may fund them, that they are doing an amazing job helping people improve their lives.
I have a long believed that it's all down to funding on results. The question they ask is "can this person make us money?" rather than "can we improve this person's life?"

by dumburn

This is so healing for me to have this kind of insight shared with me. I can't tell you how devastating it was for me to get the call today from Goodwill telling me that I could not participate. Maybe their decision says more about them than about me. I tried to tell myself that earlier today. I just couldn't believe me, though. I really felt like a complete "reject." Thanks so much for the support. Maybe tomorrow I won't feel so awful.

avlady · Oct 19, 2013, 06:15 AM

They should not even be looking at your medical history, medication wise, or otherwise. They should give the jobs out with faith if a person does have the requirements met, and their should be no prejudgement until an employee can prove themselves adequate and or doable.

easygoing54 · Oct 19, 2013, 08:52 AM

I agree with you I have had that happen to me many times that is why when I meet someone new even doctors I am afraid to say much because they label you...Gary

ultramar · Oct 19, 2013, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rose76

ultramar This was a training program specifically for persons who face a low chance of succeeding in the workplace without supportive help. They said they needed to know explicit details about the nature of my mental health diagnosis, in order to know how to best support my success in the program. I really appreciate you saying that this all sounds like "a very strange process." The more I think about it, the more it seems that way to me.

When I was first contacted by this organization, the person who called asked about my circumstances. She asked if I had a disabillity. I answered, "Yes." She then said, "Can you tell me about it?" That seemed a bit strange to me. I responded that I didn't what to give a lot of personal information out to someone callling me on the phone whom I had never met. (This was a program I applied for over 2 years ago. I never heard anything for 2 years. So I was skeptical about how interested they really were to take me on as a client. I should have stuck with that skepticism.)

At the orientation, they asked that I bring them a note from a doctor. I asked if this was really necessary, since I was a recipient of SSDI. The answer was, "No." One of the presenters of the orientation said it was only needed that they make a copy of my award letter from Social Security.

Then, at the meeting with my assigned coordinator, the "fishing around" started again. I had provided them my psych diagnosis and med list in writing. The coordinator asked for a note from my doctor. The coordinator had read a lot of my intake info, so it seemed strange that this fishing continued. I mean, I wondered what more they wanted to know? It was a long interview that seemed to involve a lot of fishing. I even said that the Social Security Administration does not grant SSDI lightly and that they had deemed me as having a disability.

I don't think all this repeated querying is exactly legal. Maybe it falls in that grey zone between perfectly legal and illegal.

My understanding is that it is appropriate to focus on what sort of "reasonable accommodation" will the participant/employee need. To clarify that, I said that it always takes me longer to become oriented to a new work situation than it does most people. I said that I have anxiety that is very tough, until I have become acclimated to a new work environment. The interviewer asked, "Do you become overwhelmed?" I said that I would not say the problem was quite that bad." I tend to be slow at my work when it is new to me.

I said that I thought that lack of computer literacy was a big impediment to me limiting job opportunities. We were discussing me being placed in a position where I would be answering phones and making copies of things. That is way less demanding that the professional jobs I've done in the past.

Then the interviewer asked if I was interested in "administrative" work or "teaching." That seemed a bit ambitious for me, at this stage of the game, and I said that I did not think I had the confidence for that level of responsibility, but that, with some success under my belt doing something less challenging, that it might be a future possibility.

The interviewer did not make this decision. Her supervisor did. When I said that I understood that the program did help people with very serious impediments to getting back in the work place, the supervisor said that they could not discuss personal information about other participants. Now, to me that was just a red herring. I was not the one trying to violate anyone's privacy - kind of ironic for them to take that tack. It got to be just another instance of fishing around for something.

I think their approach to recruiting participants is deplorable.

I actually misunderstood, I thought you were being interviewed directly for a position of training people in this program, not interviewed to be *part* of a training program.

In any case, since this is specifically for those with difficulty in the work force --really odd. It seems that, in their view, it's a matter of degree of difficulty. It occurs to me that, especially since it's a federally funded program, in order to prove that their program is effective, they have to have a good success rate, in order to continue functioning/to continue receiving federal funds. In this context, maybe they thought you wouldn't be a success story and thus would negatively skew their stats. Not saying this is right at all, just something that comes to mind now that I understand better what this is about. Like those drug trials that only use the most healthy and uncomplicated subjects: more likely to get results that benefit the research team and/or pharma company, even though the subjects don't reflect the average patient.

Did they give you information regarding the requirements for admission into the program? Are there certain things that disqualify a person (certain diagnoses, not having had enough work experience, for example, etc.)? I'd be curious about this -whether they have some sort of specific parameters or if it's largely subjective. How demoralizing --I hope you can find another program that will help you.

Rose76 · Oct 19, 2013, 01:25 PM

Hi ultramar. They gave me a folder of handouts explaining in detail all the things that could get a person kicked off the program. They went over that in orientation and I re-read everything carefully.

I believed I had been admitted to the program. That's where there is much confusion. I would never have discussed very personal things prior to being accepted. I thought I had been accepted. I filled out paperwork for how to get my pay direct deposited and for how much tax to have withheld. Now they say that "this is not an entitlement and we don't have to continue with you." So I never was actually accepted, in the first place. They are saying that they did not kick me out. They are saying that I am not appropriate for the program at this time.

To me there is some phoniness here. I was led to believe that I was accepted. I was told to provide as much detail as possible about my disability to the coordinator assigned to me. I did that. Then I was told that the program cannot place me at this time. They set it would be a "set-up for failure."

Hi easygoing. Now I know to never give personal information about my mental health history to anyone. Like you, I am now very afraid. I tended to trust that people can best help me, if I tell them as much as possible. Other psych consumers have told me in the past that I share way too much. I have made this mistake repeatedly. That is the worst of all. I feel like I am so stupid that I do not know how to protect myself. I feel I cannot depend on myself to have any judgement about what to do in these situations. I feel like I ruined an opportunity that could have been good for me, if I had just been sensible enough to keep my mouth shut. I feel like I am an idiot. I hope I can learn from this and remember what I've learned.

Hi avlady. I wish I could have had a chance to go to an assignment. I think I could have done a good job.

I have been crying all morning. I don't ever want something like this to happen again. It's like they took all my clothes off for no reason. No one should have the right to do that, if they have not already accepted you in some capacity. It's too degrading.

Nobodyandnothing · Oct 19, 2013, 04:27 PM

Was Goodwill one of Social Security's "Ticket to Work" programs in your area? If so, I would report them to SS.

Rose76 · Oct 19, 2013, 04:59 PM

Thanks, nobody. I don't think so, but I'll check. I have already contacted the Department of Labor, which funds this program (SCSEP.)

They supervisor repeatedly told me, "This is not an entitlement." Like as if to say, "you have no rights and we are under no obligation to you." I think that is a simple minded way of looking at it. What entitles them to the millions of dollars in federal funding they receive? They must have some corresponding responsibilities. I am sure they have teams of lawyers advising them on what they can get away with. I did get upset. She said, "You may need your medication adjusted."

What entitles them to know all my financial and medical information, if they have not implied a relationship with me . . . a commitment of assistance and support in the program?

Indeed Goodwill seeks out the most vulnerable of the vulnerable and abuses their power. I would not say I am the most vulnerable. I wonder how those who truly are fare under their auspices. Something here doesn't smell right. Well, the Internet is chock full of reports about their abuse of their position. And they sure line their pockets well.

Rose76 · Oct 25, 2013, 04:30 PM

I was contacted today by a disability rights non-profit agency whom I had asked for help. They are not part of the government. They do "protection and advocacy." It will be interesting to me to see what they can tell me as to whether I have had any of my rights violated.

Grey Matter · Oct 25, 2013, 05:20 PM

I am sure another has suggested it, but I would contact your states ADA immediately. Something seems extremely off here....

Menu

Discriminated against for mental health disability.

My Support Forums