Conservatives, i have a question regarding affirmative action and the disabled?

[ZOMGSTFUGTFO]

Disabled people are not likely to get hired in the free market compared to "normal" people because of the supposed stigmata that they are less "cost-efficient" and need more support. What other mechanism other than affirmative action would replace this? If you abolish such policy, the severely disadvantaged would not even be able to financially support him/herself. Conservatives dont even believe in social welfare, so how would the disadvanaged survive in the conservative utopia?

[grandma zaza]

They don't fall under AA. They fall under the Disabilities Act.

[Cactus Jack]

There is such a mechanism. It is illegal to discriminate in hiring. The remedy is a federal lawsuit.

[Roy Rogers]

Wrong. Look up "SDVOB" and their growth in spite of the Democrat economy.

[Khefri]

They believe in Social Security. If you are disabled i am sure you could apply for that. Affirmative action? We don't need it tbh. More minorities are working in the country and having no problem getting a job. Some places less educated white people are gettting the shaft.

[piscopera]

They wouldn't. It's their fault that they ended up this way to begin with don't you know? Sink or Swim or stfu. This from the same group of people who claim their Christianity as their moral high ground. They want to give to the poor themselves not have the gov't do it. Sadly when they do it themselves, they don't seem to do too well at it.

[Bill G IV]

The disadvantaged, many of which were far more injured than many of today's "disabled", have survived for millenia before the "liberals" "saved the day" and they would survive quite well after these programs were abolished. If anything these programs make it more difficult for the disabled to fend for themselves.

[Chris]

hmm

[Nobody special]

Lets turn it around a little. How about if you own a business that employs more than 15 people. You need someone to handle specific tasks, that require.. lets say two arms/hands.
A one armed man applies for the job, and a two armed man applies for the job. Not hiring the one armed man, even though he would not be able to perform the required duties, would amount to "discrimination".
So, to satisfy the liberal laws requiring you to not discriminate, you hire the one armed man. Now, the task he was hired for does not get done, though you are paying for it.

How in the world can such a severely disadvantaged business, that is required to hire less than capable people, hope to survive in this working mans paradise?

Please try to understand that you are not forcing "big companies" to hire less efficient people. You are forcing small privately owned companies to operate in a manner which their owners do not care to, and forcing them to pay for work not done.

We are already heavily taxed to support the "severely disadvantaged". We should not be forced to endanger the long term prosperity of our small businesses by adding people unable to do the job they were hired for to the payrolls.

There are plenty of jobs out there that a one armed man can do, at least as well as a two armed man. I have known several successful amputees, and many heavily disabled people who manage just fine to find a great paying career in a field that is not hindered by whatever their disability happened to be. The present laws, however, make it virtually illegal to not hire someone applying for a job that they are incapable of performing efficiently.

[julvrug]

You are talking about two totally different policies, the disabled are protected under several labor laws, I suggest you look them up. NLRA, ADA, Title VII are all good sources. Not all disabled individuals require more support nor are they "less cost-efficient" in a majority of cases. AA does not protect individuals based on race, there are no allowable quotas in the policy. Again do your research. The disadvantaged as you are calling some group, but I fail to understand who, are only disadvantaged by the fact they do not exert themselves to be productive and contribute to society. AA does not protect the disabled, AA was meant to level a playing field years ago that has since been realized to have been leveled and now is no longer required because of other Acts that have replaced the concept of AA.
On the topic of social welfare, again AA was not put into place to be a welfare program. Social Security is not a social program as workers are required to pay into the program in order to obtain benefits. The only true social welfare programs that assists the "several disadvantaged" in being able to survive are nongovernmental controlled nonprofits that actually teach a person to be able to survive and obtain required skills in the marketplace. This is something no government program provides to the point of insuring personal responsibility and survival.