Being denied because of being an Aspie.

Post Reply New Topic

I think you should report them for that, I mean claiming not to hire anyone with mental impairments is bad enough but then using a derogatory term to describe people with certain mental impairments is definatly taking it way too far. If you have it recorded then that is substantial proof I would think.

lol how is discrimiating against someone disabled under the catagory of racial discrimination? no wonder people think americans are stupid.

Um... what?

I have severe problems with my communication hence I sometimes mix my words up. I was merely making light of a situation I find embarrassing. As for the other thing... I don't think you understood me at all...

Basic observation of my stats on the right hand side would also show you that I am not, in fact American, I am English and actually I am accepted very nicely by other Brits. Yes. I do embarrass myself because I have TOURETTES.

Okay my appologies. I guess I just assumed you were American since most of the people on the internet are for some reason. Plus, when I look at your account your location is "Wyboston, Bedfordshire, Yookay", which are the places I never heard of before. So I wouldn't know you were British unless I were to google that location or something along these lines.

But anyway, my feeling is that probably Britain is subject to similar propaganda America is subject to, since whenever I apply to either Britain or Canada, both countries have similar anti-discrimination quotes I see while applying to USA. I have heard occasionally that the other two countries don't share the same values that Americans do. I even heard that Canadian dislike Americans. But somehow it is just hard for me to believe. To me both countries "feel" quite Americanized.

Regardless, I did not intend to attack you or any other member of this forum. When my tone appears aggressive, it is only directed at the situation in general. Perhaps it is part of my Asperger that when I am focused on some concept or an idea, I tend to forget that I am speaking TO someone, so it might come across as if i am attacking the person I am speaking to, unless I am very careful.

Speaking of you as a person (or anyone else here as a person), It is certainly not the fault of anyone on this forum that American (and possibly British) education has propaganda in it, so there is no reason for me to attack anyone even if they WERE subjected to that propaganda. All I did was to try to point out to you the "fact" that you could have been subjected to propaganda and, therefore, you should evaluate more carefully your world view. That is not an attack at all. It is the same as, say, a teacher in quantum mechanics course points out to students that they could have been "brainwashed" by Newtonian physics and now they have to take their preconceptions aside.

Anyway, I am sorry if it came across a wrong way or if you felt attacked. By the way, congratulations for getting along well with "your fellow brits". Regardless of a country, how did you manage to get along with people despite your Asperger?

Umm, isn't illegal to ask about disabilities at job interview? I know its asked on job applications if one needs assistance (for example, being wheelchair bound), but I'm pretty sure there a law about asking about mental and health impairments at job interviews.

Since you have a tape of the interview, you can extort him for lots of money!

But don't tell employers about Asperger's in the future... It won't do any good for you.

I'm sure the manager asked the particular question to make sure that any needs could be filled in.
While it is different in some way, similarily an interviewer could ask whether the applicant is smoking or has any allergies or medicinal needs. While the question in itself is not discriminative, his later comments sure are, even though he seems to mix up Aspergers with ie. Schizofrenia or other mental conditions.

Nontheless, if he hired 10 people with Downs for simple tasks, i'm sure it would better his image in the community giving jobs to someone who would otherwise have big problems getting a real job... while it does cost more, it would be a price worth paying for the PR.

as for the outcome; the manager would either get to pay a hefty fine and/or spend some time in jail depending on how the court sees things. If you're lucky, he may get to keep his store, but he may also be forced to hire you for at least x months... the last opton would IMO teach him the biggest lesson

I've been asked if AS is something that makes people 'skitso'. An Adecco woman said hiring people with 'mental problems' was as bad as hiring sex offenders or drug addicts for company image so that wouldn't accept my details on file.

I wouldn't call AS a mental problem on par with schitzophrenia, while there may be problems with communication and the social aspects of the workplace, productivity is rarely impaired so much as to justify not hiring an AS person at all.

In fact it's sad and outright pathetic IMO to not make use of the skills that AS people have while still respecting their terms. Co-workers may have difficulty respecting this if not told to do so and the AS person is still vulnerable to bullying etc.

I would say that the Adecco woman is an outright blithering idiot that has no concept of her work, and much less a viable concept of AS, sex offenders and drug addicts are something else entirely and can not even compare in the least to AS. IMO it doesn't give a company a bad image for hiring people with AS, as they're creating jobs for people who may have difficulty getting jobs elsewhere (ie. Specialisterne in Århus, who make good use of many AS people on their terms). While the image may be a black flag to some, it'll be a bright, white flag for the corporate world, at least for those who understand what AS is and what it entails.

I'm about to get a company up and running myself this summer (at the end of the summer holiday or shortly thereafter) together with my friend, and we have had quite a few discussions about hiring AS people in the future. While none of us have the experience working with autists, suffice to say his future boss (me) has AS, so there's already one there .

Racial discrimination is a one size fits all umbrella applying to all forms of discrimination. It is a hate crime to discriminate against a minority group. People with Asperger/Autism are a vulnerable minority group.

Eugenicist criminals carrying out hate crimes need to the be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

I guess my first reaction to this sentence is that it might be true about "A manager", but how can it possibly be true about "THE manager", given that you already know what that particular manager did with this information.

But then again, if I think further, you may be right. When professors refuse to work with me, a lot of them are simply too concerned about ME, they tell me that *I* (not them, but *I*) am not interested in their project, so they have to respect MY interests by "allowing" me to look elsewhere. Then when I tell them that *FOR ME* their project is interesting enough to work on, they still insist that it is not the case. In other words they care about MY interests a lot more than *I* do. But, at the same time, somehow they didn't care at all that I would be expelled if I won't find a person to work with (I ended up avoiding expulsion by finding someone at the very last day by some incredible luck). So in other words, these profs care about ONE ASPECT of my wellbeing, namely that I work on what I am interested in, but they don't care about another aspect of my wellbeing, such as my being expelled.

Perhaps that person who gave the interview is the same way as my profs. He really cares about disabled people in a sense that he wants them all to get appropriate accomodations, so they would never experience any slight discomfort; so, yeah, he asked about disability out of care. But, at the same time, he neglects their other needs, such as the fact that they need to have a job to begin with. So, as he is so overly consumed with their minuscule needs of being accomodating, he is thinking "hmmm, my workplace doesn't have a very good hygine; perhaps if a person is disabled htey might get slight allergy caugh out of being here, let me spare them trouble and not hire them". But then the aspie replies "I don't have allergy caughs, and even if I did, I don't give a s**t, I just want a damn job", but employers is like "no, you have to be honest with yourself; you won't feel completely comfortable in this workplace would you? You need to look for a job that will accomodate you better".

I have had these kinds of conversations all the time. Typically, I am the one who says "I will change! I will change!" But others typically respond to me "you shouldn't have to change; you should be comfortable just the way you are; therefore, look elsewhere, where your unique personality can be accomodated". Have you guys ever read "tyrany of freedom?" The jist of what they wrote is that our society "tames" people. Any "bad behavior" is being "punished" in such a severe way that "undesirables" end up "dying out". Thus, whoever is "left" is the one who doesn't have a need to do anything "wrong" and, therefore, they FEEL that they are "free".

Now lets ask ourselves this question: suppose instead of TAMING people, our society were to CHANGE them. In this case, the "undesirables" would be allowed to "live" but they would be asked to "re-learn" their behavior. Therefore, they will always remember how they really WANTED to do something else, but they are not going to to it because they "cant". So they will NEVER call our society trully "free". But, no, this is NOT the way our society operates. Our society doesn't teach anyone; it simply gets rid of people! In fact, if people (like me) insist that they CAN change, the society forbids them from changing by saying "no you have to be comfortable just the way you are". The reason, of course, is that they WANT them to be "just the way they are", just so that they can get rid of them and be left with people who are NATURALLY the "good ones".

I think that particular employer is the same way. He doesn't want aspies to CHANGE and be FORCED to act in acceptable way. He wants to get rid of all aspies so that the only people he has are NATURALLY acting in acceptable way. Now, if he REALLY wants the people in his workplace to be truly "natural", he has to do everything in his power to prevent any aspies from making ANY effort in "changing themselves", so that they can be easilly identified. Now, how can you prevent an aspie from desiring to change? The way you do it is by accomodating EVERY need an aspie EVER has, so that AS LONG AS ASPIE IS AROUND he is comfortable being an aspie (and then, of course, he will be "thrown away" later on). That would explain your quote

and how it might be relevant to this particular manager.

Another example of this same phenomenon is "catch a predator" show. The common explanation of that show is that they "bait" people who want to have sex with underage kids by having someone posing as underage who would invite them into their house, and then they get arrested. But I would like to say just a little further. Perhaps there is another purpose of that show. In particular, they want "child predators" to be comfortable "just the way they are", and they want to meet their EVERY need, including the need of interacting with underage kids. They would love to actually let them have sex, just like they want to. But, unfortunately, they can't, since their decoy is not attracted to them. But, instead, they get as close to that as possible: the predators are allowed to interact with decoy for few minutes when they get into the house. That way, at least, they can enjoy their fantasies. Of course, they don't care about OTHER needs the "predators" might have, such as their careers that are being ruined when they get arrested. But, at the same time, they are overly careful in trying to meet their sexual needs.

Don't you see a close parallel between "catch a predator" show and the employer who asks about disability? An employer is really concerned about trying to "accomodate" whatever needs the disabled might have. So he asks. But then when he gets an answer, he has to carry out his "duty" of refusing an employment because of Asperger. In the same way, in "catch a predator" show, they are very careful to try to meet the sexual needs of potential predators. But then, once these needs are met, they have to carry out their "duty" and arrest them.

I have two examples that would illustrate the point that "catch a predator" is not really about CHANGING people, but rather it is about TAMING them. First consider this chat log:
http://www.perverted-justice.com/?archi ... dreamy_doc
In particular, lets take this quote from the decoy:

As you see, the "predator" (talldreamy_doc) is wanting to "change". He wants to deny his natural desires of being with underage and simply not do whatever he was "instinctively" wanted to do. The decoy, on the other hand, wants to persuade him NOT to change and to be "just the way he is". Now, before you tell me that the decoy was just trying to "test him", look at the ADVICE LINE the decoy gave him

So, suppose he decided NOT to go see that decoy. He would be able to contemplate over the advice line that he has to "live sometimes" and thus be ENCOURAGED to have sex with real underage kids. Now, they don't mind it at all: he has to be just the way he is so why not encourage him? After all, if they can perswade him to have sex with real underage kids then yes, few of them will be hurt, but the good news is that eventually he will be arrested so we will be able to be "left" with the people that are "naturals" and all the "fakes" like him will be in jail. On the other hand, giving him advice that he should try to avoid being with underage kids is "bad" since then he won't be one of the "naturals" and yet he will "sneak into" this society. Yes, all of the underage kids will be spared their misery since he won't have sex with them; but that is not good enough, since his avoidance of sex isn't "genuine". They want EVERYONES needs to be COMPLETELY accomodated; they don't want anyone to restrain themselves from anything. Just like that employer wants EVERYONES needs accomodated and he doesn't want to hire an aspie who would "get adjusted" (and, therefore, negate one of his own needs).

Now lets consider another example ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiwulpMKu9A ) Just look at a title. It says "predator who wanted to be engineer" AS OPPOSED TO "engineer who became predator". I think the fact that they used the former rather than the latter is really revealing. What they said is that he was MEANT to be a predator. His MISTAKE was trying to be engineer. But now, FINALLY, he does exactly what he was meant to do. He is now the way he REALLY is: a predator. Believe it or not, this is EXACTLY what happened. After having been caught in that show, he re-offended like 5 times with other sexual stuff. Why? Probably because his life was now ruined so he had nothing to lose. So did they spare misery of any of the sex victims? Hell no! If they were to allow him to remain an engineer, he would have NEVER made these other 5 offenses, would he? So, they didn't "change him for the better"; they "changed him for the worse" AND they caused misery to his 5 REAL victims (as opposed to saving anyone from misery). But their goal of "taming" the society by "screwing him up" was fulfilled. Likewise, their goal of letting him be "who he really is" was fulfilled. Hey, he now meets all of his sexual needs as he makes one offense after the other (as opposed to before the show when he denied himself his own needs).

That perhaps also explains why the society doesn't like aspies. Lets SUPPOSE the employer knows enough about Asperger to KNOW that it doesn't affect productivity. In this case he would say "yes an aspie would be productive, but he doesn't carry a small talk, therefore he doesn't REALLY enjoy it" and then the conclusion is "we don't want productivity unless the intentions are genuine, since aspies intentions are not genuine, let us lose whatever contribution that employer WOULD have given us, no matter how great that contribution could have been". It is similar to saying "yes a given person will probably stop himself from sexual offenses but his intentions won't be genuine" and then the conclusion is "let that person go head and sexually offend; yes, few people will suffer, but at least everything will be genuine".

Last edited by Roman on 21 May 2011, 12:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

You should sue their pants off. That's probably gonna get you enough money to compensate for the time you were unemployed.

Seriously. Talk to a lawyer. There's no way your country doesn't have some law protecting you against that kind of discrimination.

I think over here you have just revealed your own prejudices. You assume that schizophrenia impairs productivity. This might and might not be the case. If it is a catatonic schizophrenia with stuppors and things like that then I can see how it would impair productivity. If, on the other hand, it is paranoid type of schizophrenia, then a person might be quite productive; he would just have some "beliefs" that society considers to be "wrong". I can see how SOME of these beliefs might impact productivity (such as if a person thinks he will be poisoned at any given moment); but there are a bunch of other kinds of beliefs that don't interfere with productivity at all. Yet, society still thinks a person with schizophrenia can't be hired simply because they are "different".

By the way, the "cures" of schizophrenia DO impair productivity. After all, the "neuroleptics" (the meds commonly used) are designed to BLOCK nerve endings. Obviusly the goal of "blocking" them is to stop hallucinations. But, logically, it can't just stop ONE thing; it rather "slows down" the entire brain functioning. So it is like saying "since the brain gives a wrong output, lets just ruin the brain altogether, so that it can't give anything at all". Shock therapy and lobotomy are even clearer examples of this. How can possibly a brain be "fixed" by these barbaric procedures? It is plain obvious that the philosophy is not to "fix" the brain but to ruin it further. Then, of course, as a result of neuroleptics/shock therapies/lobotomies schizophrenics become unproductive, their lives get ruined, which becomes self fulfilling prophecy.

With aspies it is the same thing. Aspies have a track record of not being able to hold jobs, hence no one wants to hire them. But if you ask WHY they can't hold jobs, the answer is that it is SOCIETY that DECIDES to ruin their careers. At least in case of aspies the society destroys them by outside means which in principle can be "undone" (albeit it is very difficult) whereas in case of schizophrenics they destroy their brain itself which can not be undone.

I won't care to sue him. I have an interview tomorrow at a GameStop and I of course hope that it will be better.

You can learn from your mistakes. Be more prepared next time and practice mock interviews so you do not feel stressed out and overwhelmed with nerves during the interview. Good luck!

Even if you do better on new interview you still should sue him "out of principle". By "not" suing him, the "final impression" is that he was "right" in not giving you job (just like it is assumed that managers are "right" by default). If, however, you do sue him, then you will get things straight and it will be acknowledged that you are "right", not him. I mean, even if you get new job it would still hurt you psychologically that you didn't get the old one. So the way to take care of it is to sue him.