Or, for that matter, click on the link to see what lies beyond.

17h32 UTC; FRIDAY, 8 AUGUST 2014: A couple of years back, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in a case entitled Olmsted v. C. J. that the sheltered-workshop system in its traditional form of training disabled persons for employment and the jobs market was a form of unlawful discrimmination for the purposes and intents of the Americans with Disabilities Act 1990, which is theoretically designed to open further doors to opportunity for those with physical, mental or emotional disabilities (with employers expected to provide "reasonable accomodation" in the workplace to consider the special needs of the disabled).

Which, when all is said and done, may mean even more difficulty for disabled persons expected to wean themselves off "unhealthy government dependency" in line with conservative ideology and articles of faith insisting, for one, that a nil rate of unemployment can be achieved consistent with the core principles and disciplines of ons styl ekonomesie vryheid in its Luscious Glory of a "natural and mutual interconnexion" unto Our National and Sovereign Identity as a Peculiar Among the Nations by His Grace and Favour, to be further reinforced by a"healthy respect" for the Dignity of Labour itself expected to supplant the need for State welfare.

Especially so in traditionally conservative working-class communities where old-school sheltered workshops still seem to be the rule and policy for getting the disabled in the proper frame of mind for employment, reinforced by such tropes and paranoia fed to clients of same, usually deployed in doing contract or subcontract pis aller tasks mainstream employers want farmed out "for tax reasons", such as these:
  • "Employers in the community would like to hire the disabled--but are being prevented from doing so because of outdated and archaic rules, laws and policies that stand in the way."
  • "The only way legitimate companies are willing to hire the disabled is if they were allowed to use Independent Contractors, and then only on an 'as-needed' basis, paying in cash."
  • "Companies don't want to face complaints of 'unfair labour practices,' 'union-busting' or 'reverse bias' if they have to let able-bodied workers go just to employ you."
  • "Even where tax incentives and wage subsidies are available, such are time-limited and provide no real incentive for employers to keep you on the payroll when they run out."
  • "Companies are very sensitive about their good name and image being compromised if word gets out that they're hiring disabled people."
  • "The only way mainstream companies want to hire your kind is if it were in a low-visibility position/on the owl shift/on Independent Contract."
  • "Mentioning disability on your employment application or your CV is more likely to be seen as a liability, and subjects you to more serious scruitny."
  • "Disabled persons being all the more dependent on welfare makes them unlikely to have decent credit scores essential in certain lines of employment these days."
  • "Smaller businesses especially can't afford to employ disabled people without risking their image, reputation and/or credit being compromised."
  • "Remember what happened when a cigarette plant hired a leprosy case?" (Alluding to a dubious urban legend which held that the makers of Spuds, an early brand of menthol cigarette, employed a suspected leper on their production line in the early 1940's. It's not known whether the leper was an escapee from the Federal Leprosarium at Carville, Louisana, for years the only home American lepers knew--that, or the Kalawao Leper Colony on the Hawai'ian island of Molokai. Anyhow, within six months of the rumour first circulating, Spuds cigarettes disappeared from the market.)
  • "Like does best with like." (A possible euphemism for "local custom and tradition" dictating what amounts to a de facto segregation of the disabled in a milieu of halfway, three-quarter-way and board-and-care houses operated under "social contracts" to serve the "homeless and friendless," in particular the disabled.)
  • "Sheltered workshops will lose access to precious subsidies they rely on all the more now than ever if they're forced to put more disabled people at jobs in the community."
Not to mention where disabled people, generally unable to hold down gainful employment for extended periods, are all the more open to exploitation by "work from home/online," "MLM/binary/network/matrix marketing," "cashflow gifting" and similar scams targeting the unemployed and unemployable. Made all the more galling by a latent and inbred unwillingness to complain or otherwise speak out to apropos channels for fear that any such could be regarded as "troublemakers" or otherwise could preclude their chances for employment and/or welfare emouluments by some form of a super-secretive "blacklist" privately circulated and issued on an "Eyes Only" basis to local employers through local Chambers of Commerce or Citizens' Committees, and then in plain envelopes to avoid attracting suspicion in the mailroom.

No wonder Olmsted v. C. J. could make employing disabled people, or even training such for employment, all the more difficult and/or costly. Not to mention being especially lucrative to the mountebank and the carpetbagger profiting from such uncertainty and using the proceeds to produce over-simplified to the point of glowing infomercials for the latest in "innovative home income opportunities" at 2 in the morning.

So till next time, folks: "73"
(Which, incidentally, was railroad telegraphers' shorthand for "goodbye.")

Especially when it comes to these posts:

Got Facebook?
Then please to leave some comments on the preceding:

Got smartfone?
Then why not download our free(!!) smartfone app?
(Which, BTW, will work on both iOS and Android smartfones.)