If you are a designer and have looked for work, you’ve know doubt seen something like:
…exceptional skills in creativity, design strategy, leadership, print and electronic production, and verbal and written communications… (emphasis mine)
So I understand that there are plenty of designers and artists (and well just plain folks) that couldn’t communicate their way out of a paper bag. But is listing “verbal communications” right off like that discriminatory? Is that akin for the Deaf/HH job applicants to “[blank] need not apply?” That’s the way I read it.
I can talk up a storm for now — although I make no predictions on my future. Should non-verbal communications strategies really stop me from getting the job or an interview? Really? Because, honestly, as a designer I think that be more attuned to my sense of observation comes in really, really handy. I research by looking and watching.
It does give me pause, though, when I see it. Not only that it makes me angry, but I question whether I’m already persona non grata.
It would certainly seem so.
Do others of you just ignore that and assume they mean some sort of undefined intelligence that they want you to be able to proof your own work?
Has it kept you from applying for a job? Is it even, in the era of accessibility laws, legal?
-
- Captioning Sucks!
Now let’s fix it!
![[Advertisement] Captioning Sucks! Now let’s fix it!](http://nonedesign.net/upload/captioning_sucks.jpg)
What I'm Reading- CCA Engages IDEO for Strategic Planning Process
- The Four Lessons of Lou Dorfsman
- Heartland, a walk into the art scene of the U.S 'Third Coast'
- The company they keep
- Like… selling hip hop, for real!
- CCA Faculty Member Walter Kitundu Named MacArthur Fellow
- ‘Launchpad’ Rockets Its Way to a Million Visitors
- "You give out too many stars"
- Life saving Peepoo bag
- visualizing carbon emissions at the UN
20 October 2007 at 3:28
Verbal or written can be used either way. You can have them hire sign language interpreter to handle verbal communications at work. This is if they can afford it and the size of their budget. They ought to make reasonable accomodations for you.
=)
20 October 2007 at 8:14
Good article!
20 October 2007 at 11:42
I don’t see what’s discriminatory about it. I can communicate verbally. I sign, the interpreter voices it, and there’s your verbal communication.
*shrug*
20 October 2007 at 12:29
Employers assumed that requiring verbal communication from prospective candidates generally meant that they are seeking someone who are able to speak verbally well and apply verbal skills in dealing with fast-talking or extremely busy clients in most job situations, whether in person or over the phone. Small or mid-sized design firms are not the best place for deaf graphic or production designs to begin with, due to these firms’ limited budgets and modest client bases and they may not be able to afford to have an interpreter on a daily or weekly basis. I recommend large-sized firms or companies that have stronger budgets and large client bases, and that they may afford an interpreter at all.
It does not mean that employers think candidates who are deaf are not intelligent enough but for the fact the majority of prospective candidates are hearing and should have appropriate verbal skills and seldom get a deaf candidate ever now and then applying to work for them.
Technically, requiring verbal communication implies a discriminating preference, as these employers are being careful with screening candidates based on a range of communicative skills and capabilities and being mindful of their clients paying large amounts of money for a company’s proven talent base, productivity and success. They could not afford to hire someone who speak very badly or poorly and could embarrass their clients.
Think, if you would run your own company that have deaf and hearing employees, all sign ASL proficiently well, would you hire somone who sign ASL very badly or poorly and just only prefer to speak?
Perhaps employers would just put down in a job ad, “should have appropriate communicative skills in an understandable manner,” or something like that to an effect.
20 October 2007 at 21:46
Rob, to answer your question, yes, I would hire someone who wasn’t able to sign ASL proficiently and hire a sign language interpreter. To do otherwise could be considered discrimination. Now, if there was another candidate that had better ASL skills, that person would probably most likely be hired instead.
21 October 2007 at 0:18
Rox, given the choice, you have two candidates before you and you would have to hire only one, which one you would choose?
A hearing candidate who cannot sign ASL but have highly valuable skills and well-rounded work experiences that your company really needed badly soon for a demanding, busy job position…
or
A deaf candidate who signs ASL proficiently but doesn’t have any strong work experience or competent skills that your company does not have the time or the luxury to train and supervise that candidate for a demanding, busy job position.
You cannot hire both due to your company’s budget limits and therefore you have to “discriminate” prospective candidates to find the right one. It’s like dating people with your own defined set of preferences and desires in a prospective mate.
Discrimination sucks, Rox. I know. It really sucks but that’s the way the real world work. Prospective candidates don’t really care for other job-seekers but themselves and the job positions they really wanted. It’s basically a dog-eat-dog world out there.
21 October 2007 at 0:37
If I may interject here: the question isn’t whether they have completely different skills, the question is whether people with equal training and ability should be overlooked for a job because they have a difference in communication strategy, especially if the difference is because of something they cannot control: hearing.
The idea behind nondiscrimination laws that there are certain traits that have at least a quasi-biological basis: race, sexual orientation, gender, disability. Many of those laws are state laws although the ADA brought at least disability, allegedly, to a federal level.
As for the other comment about the size of the firm. Almost all design firms fall into small to mid-size. And I know small firms that make big bucks and bigger firms that just do all right. I know small firms that would more easily handle difference, while bureaucratic big firms that couldn’t. It’s really hard to tell.
It’s completely illegal to say in a roommate or real estate ad (because of federal law) anything that would indicate that you discriminate based on gender, race and a whole host of other things — even income. Everyone gets a fair shake.
Employment ads should be the same way for the whole host of things, although federal law isn’t there yet, but at least disability. “Verbal” is what gives me pause here. And its either careless or discriminatory. I guess I’ll find out.
21 October 2007 at 9:39
good information! This surely makes us wonder!
deafk
21 October 2007 at 13:10
Rob, I’d pick the hearing candidate. Communication barriers can be overcome, but there’s no point in hiring someone who isn’t even qualified for the job, no matter what their communication barriers (or lack of) are. If I happened to be the deaf candidate, I have no reason to cry discrimination because the other candidate IS more qualified.
Discrimination sucks? No shit!! You’re telling me!?!?
If a company were to post a job description that included “must be able to talk”, (or hear) then that would be more of a discriminatory job description, because in most situations, this can be overcome by an interpreter or other means. I believe FedEx did this a while back and they were sued so they had to change their job description. This is why most companies protect themselves with the “verbal communication” phrase. Quite honestly, they do want someone who feels confident and comfortable talking to others. They don’t want to hire a shy, awkward person for the job.
21 October 2007 at 17:31
Topher, you would have to consider whether a company, small or big, can afford an interpreter on a daily or weekly basis for a deaf employee or two BASED on a company’s operational and employee expenses. In order to pay for an interpreter on such a basis, they would have to make few financial cutbacks or borrow more money from a bank (meaning another loan payment on the top of other loans they already have). There’s one common thing I’ve learned from my years working with few different companies is that they hate annual financial restructuring of their operational and employee expenses for the coming year or two.
The bottom line is that a company, large or small, have to look out for financial expenses for the long term based on two central questions: is the company making enough money for the whole year? And does the company have enough money to purchase independent services, equipments and/or hire few more people to reinforce staffing, increase pay raises to retain talent or to replace older/retiring workers?
Rox, I concur. “Verbal communication” is a bothersome term and should not be the sole reason for employers NOT to hire deaf people.
21 October 2007 at 17:40
Rob. I agree. But I do not need an interpreter. As a late deafened adult I don’t know ASL, really, anyway. Free technology works best — text, email, etc. Although if the cost is an issue — this exactly why accessibility costs should be government funded. I speech read when I can, and relay on notes from others when I can’t. And I agree, I think that the word “verbal” is bothersome and should come out of the ad. I also believe we need government sponsored healthcare and more employment protections. I actually think these things would be good for smaller employers. Its why places that have better access to these types of services also have more robust small businesses and freelance cultures: like NYC and California. Government is our friend.