Lift broken in rented office with wheelchair bound employee

Debt_Free_Chick

In a fire, the lift IS used - normally by the Fire Service, to evacuate those unable to negotiate the stairs.

The only reason you're told not to use the lift, is so that it can be reserved for use by the Fire Service.

dumpy

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

In a fire, the lift IS used - normally by the Fire Service, to evacuate those unable to negotiate the stairs.

The only reason you're told not to use the lift, is so that it can be reserved for use by the Fire Service.

But only if it is an evacuation lift.

churchrat

At my last office a big song and dance was made about the fire proof lift--fitted so that a new member of staff could use the entire building. Damn thing was out of action for weeks at atime, she couldn't come to work and the rest of us got very fit.

About the correct name thing, wheelchair user etc. I really wish that there was some sort of announcment scheme so that each time the correct naming changed we were all up to speed and didn't offend anyone. It can be hard to keep up, particularly if you no longer work and don't get to go on fun trainging days. My nan used to call disabled people by many names"cripple" springs to mind, but she was the least judgmental person I have ever known.

neverdespairgirl

Alan2020 wrote: »

You can call him a disabled person. Don't mention in official writing or speech wheel chair bound as you can be sued!

Sued for what? Sounds massively unlikely to me.

Alan2020

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Sued for what? Sounds massively unlikely to me.

Not sued directly for it, but say if you mentioned in an email, wheelchair bound, and the employee was made redundant or not promoted and they took the employer to court, things like this can be viewed dimly. Apart from that if the employee took offence they can sue the employer for discrimination, similar to say calling someone fat etc

googler

If there's two Beckys (Beckies?), then all that's needed to distinguish them is to ask Becky Smith or Becky Jones to the tills. If there's two Becky Smiths then Becky Smith from Produce as opposed to Becky Smith from Frozen Foods......

googler

Alan2020 wrote: »

Not sued directly for it, but say if you mentioned in an email, wheelchair bound, and the employee was made redundant or not promoted and they took the employer to court, things like this can be viewed dimly. Apart from that if the employee took offence they can sue the employer for discrimination, similar to say calling someone fat etc

OK, you tell us - what is an acceptable description for someone who, unable to walk, gets themselves around in a wheelchair?

Which methods of description can we use that will not get us sued?

googler

...or, to take your example, I need to tell someone else in the company why Fred can't use the stairs. Without knowing the specifics of his condition, what do I say?

He's wheelchair-bound
He's a wheelchair user
He uses a wheelchair
He's bipedally-challenged
He's unable to walk
He's disabled

I'm sure I could find a few more variations, but -

Which of these are acceptable to you, and which do find to be thinly-veiled insults or perjorative terms?

All of them I think of as plain, neutral ways of describing the reason why he can't use the stairs.

However, I think the fourth is plain daft - from the same school of 'thought' that gave us 'vertically-challenged' or 'height-impaired' (again, don't forget the hyphen) instead of 'short' .....

Alan2020

googler wrote: »

If there's two Beckys (Beckies?), then all that's needed to distinguish them is to ask Becky Smith or Becky Jones to the tills. If there's two Becky Smiths then Becky Smith from Produce as opposed to Becky Smith from Frozen Foods......

Exactly my point you can call the wheelchair user by name

Alan2020

googler wrote: »

...or, to take your example, I need to tell someone else in the company why Fred can't use the stairs. Without knowing the specifics of his condition, what do I say?

He's wheelchair-bound
He's a wheelchair user
He uses a wheelchair
He's bipedally-challenged
He's unable to walk
He's disabled

I'm sure I could find a few more variations, but -

Which of these are acceptable to you, and which do find to be thinly-veiled insults or perjorative terms?

All of them I think of as plain, neutral ways of describing the reason why he can't use the stairs.

However, I think the fourth is plain daft - from the same school of 'thought' that gave us 'vertically-challenged' or 'height-impaired' (again, don't forget the hyphen) instead of 'short' .....

Look Googler if you cannot understand how you can hurt another persons feeling etc by calling them in crass callous use of the language, perhaps you need to grow up. You can read how someone using a wheelchair feels by reading this http://www.bbc.co.uk/ouch/messageboards/F2322273?thread=7253985&skip=0

I was pointing out from my own working with disabled people and do as you please if you want to be an ignorant person and just argue for arguments sake. Many people have told you the correct usage and I am not going to repeat myself to a callous person like you.