dalurker wrote:
LennytheWicked wrote:
Neurotypicals are better at keeping their mouths shut in a work scenario. The majority of narcissists are neurotypical, as it is a personality disorder rather than a neurological disorder. Most narcissists do not have a diagnosis, nor awareness of their disorder. Many of them would deny having any sort of impairment.
Impairments can't be concealed in the long term. If there is some kind of impairment getting in the way of work getting done, they would lose their job eventually.
Narcissism doesn't cause impairments that would hinder work...unless the person has to display a significant amount of empathy, or humility. It's usually close relationships that they are impaired with.
Quote:
Quote:
I've been holding down a job as a cashier behind a window and, essentially, in a box. I don't know I could handle it in a store. [At least it ends next week.] I have the ability to do the necessary math, make change, and such. I am marginally slower than the other cashiers due to motor difficulty, but no one has complained. I sometimes mishear customers, but this is partly due to a faulty speaker and a lot of background noise.
Most likely, the autistics who apply for jobs and take the application and interviewer literally, as with my one coworker, are disadvantaged because they are too honest on the personality test required for most retail jobs, and too honest on the application.
For example, my coworker would not write that she had a disability on the application, because it asked if she had "Impairments that would significantly hinder work." She would answer that she had not. During the interviews, when asked, "Do you have any disabilities?" she answered, "I have autism."
The "lack of consistencies" would thus disqualify her from getting a job on the basis that she is "dishonest."
Disclosing autism diagnoses isn't a great idea. Employers don't know what it will mean. If one is competent at the job being applied to, there's no reason to mention autism to them.
That's the advice I gave my coworker. She took some convincing.
Quote:
Quote:
For those who get jobs in a less traditional method, IE through disabled-hiring programs, the scenario is different. The employers know that they are hiring someone with obvious impairments and difficulties.
To my knowledge, some of these programs take advantage by hiring people for several months and firing them, then rehiring them a few years later for a similar amount of time. I would assume they do this for a tax break.
That's messed up. I wonder what way such tax breaks are structured.
It's a loophole.
Quote:
Quote:
Some of these programs hire people for long periods of time, however, meaning that low-functioning autistics are capable of holding down boring, repetitive jobs. Yipee.
I've been thinking I may need some kind of repetitive, straightforward job that doesn't require many complex motor/spatial skills. There's not much I can handle out there. I hear that some sheltered workshops pay wages that are too low. I wonder what pay would be like if it was directly determined by quantity of work done and based on the market wage rate for the kind of work done.
Some places do that; it's called a commission. Usually they're in sales jobs. Funny story: my dad asked his boss if he could be paid in commission instead of a salary [he's an accountant]. His boss said, "OK, I don't see why not." Then realized that a .1% commission would on average give my dad about ten million dollars a month. Which was more than my dad's manager made. He did not get paid in commission.
Granted my dad does at least ten times the work that everyone else does.
I think wages would be too low for most people, who seem unable to fully focus on work unless in a distraction-free environment, to support themselves.
Thoooough it would probably force some compromise amongst our politicians.
21 Oct 2012, 7:03 am
