ADA & HR: Preventing That Bridge with One Ramp

Back in the day, I went to a college that overlooked a pretty major state highway. 4-lanes across, chain linked fence dividing the two sides so you couldn’t cross, major overpass directing traffic over, onto, and off of said highway. Major stuff.

There were reasonably busy side streets running on either side of the highway – one surrounded by shops, the other was the road leading to the college. And linking those to sides of the highway was a pedestrian bridge.

This campus had gone through some major expansion projects during the early 1970’s, right about the time of the passage of the Rehabilitation Act, so I figure this bridge must’ve been built in that era. On the side closest the shops was a fully articulated wheelchair ramp. It dutifully snaked around to give those in wheelchairs safe access to the shops from the bridge.

A most remarkable feature.

HOWEVER, in classic state project fashion, the college side of the ramp ended with on step and a drop right onto the roadway – a drop of 12” or so. Can you imagine? What is the thought process here? Can you imagine the poor soul who carefully made his or her way up the ramp and across the highway to come to the other side and find no possible way of getting off that bridge without falling flat on one’s face into on coming traffic? I simply cannot fathom the decision making process that made this a reality.

Note the absence of any Braille on the sign

In walking around, it’s not hard to see similar examples: cross walk lights designed to trigger not only a “Walk” light, but also an audible tone to announce the walk light is on without any Braille indicating what the button may be. Perhaps the thought was that the people who would be using the cross walks would be local and would therefore know the button is there. More than likely, though, there was no thought put into it at all.

Catching these examples along the way got me thinking about the Americans With Disabilities Act. It was designed to force a more thoughtful approach to those with disabilities and in the end; it has probably done as much for the Human Resources profession as it has done for the disabled. It was, in my opinion, the critical mass toward HR having a seat at the table with decision makers and moving from the old school “personnel” function to that of “human capital” in a way that just hadn’t been forced before.

The primary means by which accommodations are made in the workplace is through job analysis – knowing what the job exists to do, what knowledge, skills and abilities are required to meet the end goal of the job. In other words, it forces a focus on results and less on the how. It forces us to know what our jobs look like and what it takes to do them. It forces an interactive conversation with employees and applicants – a communication process that cannot be overstated in importance; either you communicate with your employees or a union will be more than happy to.

To be sure, this does not always lead to a satisfactory conclusion on an individual basis, but it does have the tendency to create best practices and force thoughtful implementation – unlike a half-baked bridge – will lead to a more productive, and perhaps even innovative, workplace.

Sometimes forced remedies, such as the ADA, will lead to such examples as Braille instruction on a drive up ATM, but if adopted in the workplace – not just complied with – these same processes can be used to more effectively run a workplace. Better yet, most accommodations aren’t overly burdensome and the process, if done properly, really can lead to a more positive workplace. Which has its economic benefits as well.

My bet is that a lot better business decisions are being made now than when it apparently made sense to build bridge with a ramp that goes unused because of lack of access or risk of certain death if used. It benefits everyone if everyone is included in the work place. It benefits everyone if we stop thinking about why someone can’t do something and instead think about how someone CAN do something, which is what the ADA forces employers to do. The ADA has focused our attention on what a job exists to do.

As an HR practitioner, it’s not hard to look at that ramp as an example of how not to accomplish something.

I was by the campus recently and noticed that somewhere along the way a less carefully articulated ramp had now been added to the side which previously had none – doubtlessly due to an ADA audit revealed this non-compliance. As late as 2001, when last worked near campus, that ramp was not there.

The thoughtless, half-conceived efforts to convey compliance with the mandate of inclusion without truly having to be inclusive leads to a remedy that requires such things as Drive Up ATM’s with Braille instructions. Good implementation guided by good HR practice also leads to the realization that most accommodations are not only not-overly burdensome, but are often times good business practice. It’s just sad that it took government intervention to force the issue. How many other problems in the workplace have remedies that we all know should happen and would ultimately lead to better practice, but will wait until we’re forced to comply?