The general decline in standards today

[Dennis Young]

I think I misspoke. Apparently Wayne was classified 3-A (family deferment) at first. But there seemed to be some other things going on. Wayne's secretary recalled making inquiries of military officials on behalf of his interest in enlisting. He repeatedly wrote trying to get into John Ford's military unit too, but it kept getting postponed until he made one more film for Republic. I've read that Republic was extremely resistant to losing Wayne espeically since they'd already losst Gene Autry to the war effort. Correspondence between Wayne and Herbert J. Yates (the head of Republic) indicates Yates threatened Wayne with a lawsuit if he walked away from his contract.

In May, 1944, Wayne was reclassified as 1-A (draft eligible), but the studio obtained another 2-A deferment (for "support of national health, safety, or interest").[SUP]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wayne#cite_note-roberts213-38[/SUP] He remained 2-A until the war's end. Thus, John Wayne did not illegally "dodge" the draft.

Thats all interesting to me because I'd always heard Wayne was 4-F because of a knee injury he suffered when playing college football at USC.

 

[sheeplady]

I had a strange experience with this, and I still don't know what to think. Maybe I can get some thoughts.

I went to my local Tim Hortons one night with my aunt. This one had an ice cream service. There was one person in the coffee line, and no one but my aunt and I in the ice cream line. One of the counter staff walked over to me and asked what I wanted. I said I hadn't decided, and I would like a minute. He drew a sharp breath and walked away... Then he turned back, looked me in the eyes, and gave me the finger.

Once I processed what had happened, I told my aunt, who called over the counter for some service. The same guy came back and said to me "Have you [expletive] decided what the hell you want now?"

We hunted down the manager. She came over to talk to us, and the server who was rude to me stood with her, red in the face. We asked if he would leave us, but he wouldn't. My aunt was outraged, and asked if there was something wrong with him. The manager replied "Yes, there is. He is mentally challenged." I said that there was still no reason for him to speak to me like that, especially since I hadn't done anything. The manager, in effect, said that it was their policy to hire special needs people for serving staff and if I didn't like it, I would have to go somewhere else. I left, and haven't been back since.

I get the equal opportunity policy - In fact, I think it's great. But this really tried my capacity for understanding.

Warning, big wall of text: :eeek:

I've known a large number of people with special needs throughout my life- when I was a young child I spent a lot of time- a few hours every day- with people who would fit the description. This really shaped my view on this issue. I support opportunities for these individuals to be employed, because at least in my country (US) work is considered a vital part of contributing to society. I think blocking people from participation in the workforce just because they are special needs or have different ability levels when reasonable accomodation exists is unjust.

I've got two problems with the system as it is implemented. While I support those employers who do employ someone who has special needs, often times these organizations do not pay these individuals minimum wage and instead pay a few dollars an hour. This is allowed because these individuals also receive support from the state: it is seen as a way to give these individuals a chance to work while also giving employers an incentive.

The second problem I have is that these individuals have to receive reasonable accomodation. If this man has issues with swearing at customers, reasonable accomodation would be giving him a job where he doesn't interact with customers. Essentially, that business is setting that young man up to fail in that position. Even worse, as Rue brought up, they could be endangering his life. It also bothers me that it doesn't seem like the manager was going to discuss this issue with the employee. While we don't know what this individual's special need is, there is no problem with talking with him about his behavior, even if he couldn't have understood his behavior is wrong.

The fact is that you were offended. The fact that he was special needs does not remove the fact that the way he treated you was offensive. As a customer, you have the right to a safe environment without being sworn at. He might not have intended to offend you, he might not have known what he did was wrong, but that doesn't remove the fact that what he did was offensive.

What I would do, personally, is write a letter to corporate. I'd state that the company should seriously consider the level of accomodation they are providing to individuals with special needs, because it seems as if they are not effectively setting their employees up for success and therefore endangering their entire special needs hiring program. While it is a very generous thing to hire people with special needs, that manager needs to realize that she is responsible for her employees' behavior on the job, special needs or not. She should have apologized, explained the situation, and apologized again. She basically told you to "go flip off" (and given her manager status) this is even more offensive. Even worse, she is furthering the stereotype of special needs people as being violent and abusive with the general public.

 

[Nathan Dodge]

In May, 1944, Wayne was reclassified as 1-A (draft eligible), but the studio obtained another 2-A deferment (for "support of national health, safety, or interest").[SUP]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wayne#cite_note-roberts213-38[/SUP] He remained 2-A until the war's end. Thus, John Wayne did not illegally "dodge" the draft.

Seems more like the "interest" of Republic Pictures came before the interest of The Republic itself!

IMO Wayne could've served had he really wanted to. I'm not saying put him in the Hurtgen Forest or on Okinawa, but at least get the guy in uniform for real and doing something.

My last word on the Wayne issue...for this thread, anyway.

 

[scottyrocks]

I love the Brady Bunch! Please see my comments as well as LizzieMaine's about "All in the Family" earlier in this thread. It's a brilliant show and different from the shows that began the decline in quality content.

I've written elsewhere that I believe the downward slide of children with bad behavior on TV began with a TV show called Diffrent Strokes. That kid was the first wise-cracker who had the 'attitude.' Sure, there were moral lessons involved, but that show began, or greatly accelerated, the idea that children could mouth off the way adults might.

Now, this is not to say that children have never been characters on TV with problems, who have expressed displeasure with their significant elders. But looking back at three iconic TV shows, The Brady Bunch, Dennis the Menace, and Leave It to Beaver, the children never had that attitude that is so pervasive from children today. The children spoke respectfully, and on the rare occasion that maybe Greg Brady didn't, you knew it was a rare occurrence, often to make a point, and not a built-in character trait, used for comedic effect at every opportunity.

For those of you that mentioned, or are familiar with Family Guy, take a look at the Cleveland Show. It kind of makes Family Guy look like The Brady Bunch.

 

[sheeplady]

I am not for censorship, in the sense where certain things are just not allowed to be made. I am for descriptive rating of movies and television in order to help parents and guardians choose content for children (and themselves). I avoid those things I think I will find in bad taste.

Movies, if they are going to contain violent scenes, should be realistic about the costs and consequences of violence. I want people to understand that violence and war is not glamorous. Sometimes necessary, but never glamorous. In my high school, a movie about about drunk driving was banned for following years because it showed a crash scene (just rumpled cars), grieving family members, and survivors with scars and missing limbs. Because, obviously, in a class full of students with their driving permits, heaven forbid these kids realize the lives they could destroy if they decide to get drunk and kill somebody on the road. :eusa_doh:

If someone has children, I believe it is up to the parent to censor what their child watches and also explain things that they do see in an age appropriate way. The problem becomes that many parents plunk their child in front of the TV as a baby sitter, not monitoring or explaining what they see. When a huge amount of people do this with their children, should the government step in and censor for parents? What about those who are doing a good job of monitoring what their children see- is this removing their parental rights? What about the vast majority of TV watchers who are adults, can they not have access to content that is not appropriate for children under a certain age? And how do we set that age- should it be age 5- age 10- age 14?

 

[C-dot]

It does no one any good to hire someone to do a job they aren't capable of doing -- which, if your incident is typical of this guy's performance, he isn't.

I agree completely, but you can't say things like this to people because you have to "accommodate." I did a lot of study about reasonable accommodation in employment law, and it seems to me the limits get pushed further and further all the time. I have no problem with special needs employees... Only when people are subjected to this behaviour.

I should probably point out that this fellow had no outward signs of whatever his disability is, and I had no idea he had one until I was told.

I hope, at the very least, the manager offered you a sincere apology.

Oh no - I was branded the villain. The only apology we got was a sarcastic "Well, I'm sorry you feel that way."

Political correctness run amok.

Tell me about it. I don't think anyone can be completely PC, because no matter what innocuous terminology you use to make your watered down statement, someone is going to be offended, and you'll always be branded a bigot.

If this man has issues with swearing at customers, reasonable accomodation would be giving him a job where he doesn't interact with customers. Essentially, that business is setting that young man up to fail in that position. Even worse, as Rue brought up, they could be endangering his life. It also bothers me that it doesn't seem like the manager was going to discuss this issue with the employee.

When I mentioned the incident to my older brother, he told me that he and his friends have been in that Tim Hortons a number of times and the guy was very jovial, so I'm not sure if this is typical of his behaviour. However, it's obvious that, as Lizzie said, he can't be depended on to be courteous - Also, the manager wasn't a bit surprised. I gathered she wasn't going to have a word with him when I left.

If I was a violent person (which I'm not), I'm sure punches would have flown. It's not a rough neighbourhood, but there have been incidents of violence and a few deaths very close to there. Wait for some thug with a few beers in him to walk in there one night when this guy is feeling cranky.

Thank you to everyone who gave an opinion.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I agree completely, but you can't say things like this to people because you have to "accommodate." I did a lot of study about reasonable accommodation in employment law, and it seems to me the limits get pushed further and further all the time. I have no problem with special needs employees... Only when people are subjected to this behaviour.

I guess the operative word, then, would be "reasonable." How many incidents have to occur before it becomes "unreasonable?"

I still think this type of situation is more about saving the company a few bucks thru some sort of subsidized hiring scheme than it is about actually helping someone with special needs. The whole thing smells of cynicism and exploitation to me.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

Now, this is not to say that children have never been characters on TV with problems, who have expressed displeasure with their significant elders. But looking back at three iconic TV shows, The Brady Bunch, Dennis the Menace, and Leave It to Beaver, the children never had that attitude that is so pervasive from children today. The children spoke respectfully, and on the rare occasion that maybe Greg Brady didn't, you knew it was a rare occurrence, often to make a point, and not a built-in character trait, used for comedic effect at every opportunity.

For those of you that mentioned, or are familiar with Family Guy, take a look at the Cleveland Show. It kind of makes Family Guy look like The Brady Bunch.

As a lad I quickly discerned the difference between real life and the way it was portrayed on TV because I recall that one of the things I hated about The Brady Bunch was whenever Greg, Peter or Bobby screwed up, it seemed like the only punishment they received was a mild "I'm-disappointed-in-you" lecture from Dad. If I misbehaved half as badly as they did when I was growing up, it would be in full stereo and I would never hear the end of it.

 

[sheeplady]

I guess the operative word, then, would be "reasonable." How many incidents have to occur before it becomes "unreasonable?"

I still think this type of situation is more about saving the company a few bucks thru some sort of subsidized hiring scheme than it is about actually helping someone with special needs. The whole thing smells of cynicism and exploitation to me.

I agree with your second statement Lizzie, especially after having read C-dot's further explanation. It sounds like the manager has the attitude of "I have to deal with it- so do you" rather than actually wanting to help her special needs employee. The exploitation aspect is one of the reasons why I have a problem with these types of programs. If a person with a special need is capable of performing the same job as someone without, why aren't they paid the same? (Of course, I am not familar with Canadian law, but in the US the pay is often not equal.)

Reasonable accomodations, under the ADA in the US, only are expected of employers with more than 15 employees. (I believe one exception to the 15 employees rule is educational institutions, which must provide reasonable accomodations to students.) Typically how I have seen it applied is that the interviewee/hiree asks for reasonable accomodation(s) either while being interviewed or during initial hiring. Reasonable accomodations are things like asking for a desk/ office that can accomodate a wheelchair, a braille keyboard or voice recognition software and appropriate microphone, materials to be OCR-ed or recorded, asking for meetings to be held in quiet areas (rather than in noisy restaurants), etc. depending upon the issue. The idea is that these are relatively easy accomodations that allow the person to do a job that they are capable of doing if they have these aids/ accomodations. It's not a total re-writing of the job desciption to fit that person. Obviously, these things do cost companies money, but it is seen as a cost that benefits greater society.

 

[C-dot]

Obviously, these things do cost companies money, but it is seen as a cost that benefits greater society.

When deciding what constitutes reasonable accommodation, the relevant judge/adjudicator/tribunal will have to look at the individual situation and decide. For example, a large company with a multi-floor building and elevators can probably install a wheelchair ramp for a disabled employee to enter the building, however, a small company in a narrow building with steep staircases wouldn't be expected to have an elevator put in to accommodate one employee. Of course, this discussion would only take place if said employee filed a complaint.

As for the pay packet, a friend of mine has a family member who is has special needs and works at another Tim Hortons. In 7 years, he's never had an issue. He makes just over minimum wage.

 

[scottyrocks]

As a lad I quickly discerned the difference between real life and the way it was portrayed on TV because I recall that one of the things I hated about The Brady Bunch was whenever Greg, Peter or Bobby screwed up, it seemed like the only punishment they received was a mild "I'm-disappointed-in-you" lecture from Dad. If I misbehaved half as badly as they did when I was growing up, it would be in full stereo and I would never hear the end of it.

Yeah, I hear ya. Same here.

As a child, I didn't dare mouth off. It wasn't in my nature. In fact, I wasn't likely to speak up at all.

I interact with different 'classes' of people in my day-to-day. Without pinning any particular attributes on any particular group, I will say I have noticed that these different 'classes' react in distinctly different ways in the face of adversity. The amount and type of criticism during conversation is distinctly different, as well. Of course, I am generalizing, but it tends to run this way according to what I see and experience.

 

[C-dot]

As a lad I quickly discerned the difference between real life and the way it was portrayed on TV because I recall that one of the things I hated about The Brady Bunch was whenever Greg, Peter or Bobby screwed up, it seemed like the only punishment they received was a mild "I'm-disappointed-in-you" lecture from Dad.

The same with Leave it to Beaver - Wally and Beaver would often remark that Ward was yelling at them, or was going to pound them, when all he ever said was "Son, you have to do the right thing." They sure didn't know what pounding and yelling was...

 

[sheeplady]

When deciding what constitutes reasonable accommodation, the relevant judge/adjudicator/tribunal will have to look at the individual situation and decide. For example, a large company with a multi-floor building and elevators can probably install a wheelchair ramp for a disabled employee to enter the building, however, a small company in a narrow building with steep staircases wouldn't be expected to have an elevator put in to accommodate one employee. Of course, this discussion would only take place if said employee filed a complaint.

As for the pay packet, a friend of mine has a family member who is has special needs and works at another Tim Hortons. In 7 years, he's never had an issue. He makes just over minimum wage.

That's interesting to me to learn how it is in Canada. In the US, a lot of the determination is up to the employer, unless it is taken into court. Also, in the US, if a business has more than 15 employees they need to be accessible (wheel chair ramps, elevators, etc.) regardless of their employees. There are exceptions to this for historical buildings/ sites. (New buildings on historic sites- such as visitor centers- do need to be accessible.)

I know for colleges at least if you have an old building and it is not accessible, it can be grandfathered in and you do not need it to be accessible. However, if you make any renovations to that building that involve code, the entire building must be brought up to code for everything and this includes things such as ramps.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The same with Leave it to Beaver - Wally and Beaver would often remark that Ward was yelling at them, or was going to pound them, when all he ever said was "Son, you have to do the right thing." They sure didn't know what pounding and yelling was...

My mother's favorite comment when we got out of line was "IF YOU DONT SMARTEN UP I'M GONNA SELL YOU TO THE BABY OIL FACTORY."

She never did, though.

 

[Atticus Finch]

I've not been following this thread recently, but there's something I'd like to share and maybe it best fits here.

As you know, Hurricane Irene recently visited our little neighborhood. Sunday, after the storm, I ventured into town to see how New Bern had fared. My next door neighbor, who never prepares for storms, asked me to pick up five gallons of gas for his generator. When we arrived in New Bern, we discovered that most of the city’s electricity was off due to the many trees and power lines that had been blown down. We found a couple of gas stations open, but they were surrounded by lines of waiting cars stretching far out into the adjacent roads. As we drove past one station, I saw two guys who were trying to get to the same pump at the same time. They were red-faced and screaming at each other, clearly about to come to blows. Needless to say, we decided not to stop and my neighbor had to eat by candle light again Sunday night.

Our office was closed Monday, but when I arrived at work today, I found that what I saw at the gas station was not unique. Sunday, there were a great many fights at gas stations throughout our district…as well as lootings and other storm-related crimes. Of course, by yesterday, power had been mostly restored to New Bern and the gas stations were up and running. Everyone could buy all the gas they could afford…and nobody had to fight for it.

It struck me that if we really did have a national emergency in the United Stares…one that affected the entire nation, or most of the nation…we would all probably kill each other trying to look after ourselves first. We have become so self-centered and so short-sighted that we can't even deal with a little forty-eight hour power outage without fighting among ourselves like starving rats.

AF

 

[AmateisGal]

My mother's favorite comment when we got out of line was "IF YOU DONT SMARTEN UP I'M GONNA SELL YOU TO THE BABY OIL FACTORY."

She never did, though.

LOL

Oh, Lizzie, you need to write a book. Seriously.

 

[Dennis Young]

If someone has children, I believe it is up to the parent to censor what their child watches and also explain things that they do see in an age appropriate way. The problem becomes that many parents plunk their child in front of the TV as a baby sitter, not monitoring or explaining what they see. When a huge amount of people do this with their children, should the government step in and censor for parents? What about those who are doing a good job of monitoring what their children see- is this removing their parental rights? What about the vast majority of TV watchers who are adults, can they not have access to content that is not appropriate for children under a certain age? And how do we set that age- should it be age 5- age 10- age 14?

I see your point. Would you agree that certain shows that are now on in prime time should probably be shown much later at night? Perhaps the Seth McFarland empire should be relegated to after 10PM?

 

[Undertow]

...It struck me that if we really did have a national emergency in the United Stares…one that affected the entire nation, or most of the nation…we would all probably kill each other trying to look after ourselves first. We have become so self-centered and so short-sighted that we can't even deal with a little forty-eight hour power outage without fighting among ourselves like starving rats...

(when I mentioned this earlier, people thought I was a lunatic. Just sayin' our current society is not prepared to survive well in a major catastrophe - no skills, no morals, no forethought...)

 

[Undertow]

Do it. Hell, threads like that would help me improve my dress sense.

I have to agree whole heartedly.

I've seen some people get real weepy over the criticism, but sometimes you need to wipe away your tears and be a man.

If I hadn't have posted foul picture of me with a notch lapel tux and red bow tie, I would have never suspected I looked like a ridiculous, overweight magician serving drinks at a funeral.

(well...no one quite put it like that, but you see)

I'll never forget it, and thus I've improved my sense of taste/style. It's invaluable.

 

[LizzieMaine]

If you do a bit of websearching, there are certain places on the internet where some of the very pictures people post on the Lounge are subjected to the most vicious mockery you can imagine. Nothing our Marc could do would even approach it. Don't search unless you can take it.