SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the good-things-coming-from-bad-situations dept.
Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956
Universo Santi in the southern Spanish city of Jerez is dedicated to helping people with disabilities join the mainstream workforce
The first thing that strikes you is the calm, the light, the modern art on the walls – and then of course the food.
It's only later that you realise there is something different, and a little special, about Universo Santi, a restaurant in the southern Spanish city of Jerez.
"People don't come here because the staff are disabled but because it's the best restaurant in the area. Whatever reason they came for, the talking is about the food," says Antonio Vila.
Vila is the president of the Fundación Universo Accesible, a not-for-profit organisation dedicated to helping people with disabilities join the mainstream workforce. He has also been the driving force behind Universo Santi, the haute cuisine restaurant whose 20 employees all have some form of disability.
[...] The 20 staff, whose ages range from 22 to 62, were recruited from an original list of 1,500. To qualify, applicants had to be unemployed and have more than 35% disability.
[...] The Jerez restaurant takes its name from Santi Santamaria, chef at the Michelin three-star Can Fabes in Catalonia until his sudden death in 2011. Can Fabes closed shortly afterwards but his family wanted to carry on his name and culinary tradition and were keen to support the Jerez project.
The family's enthusiasm attracted the attention of Spain's top chefs, among them Martín Berasategui, Roca and Ángel León, all of whom have contributed recipes and their time as guest chefs at the restaurant.
Disciples of Santamaria helped establish the kitchen, whose equipment was transferred in its entirely from Can Fabes, and several of the dishes on the menu de degustación are Santamaria originals.
The restaurant has been visited by Michelin Guide personnel and may soon have its first Michelin star.
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/10/universo-santi-spanish-restaurant-disabilities-jerez
(Score: 5, Touché) by coolgopher on Wednesday June 12 2019, @05:04AM (10 children)
... discriminatory hiring practices.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by coolgopher on Wednesday June 12 2019, @08:27AM (8 children)
I was really curious what the first mod would be for that comment. And to whoever modded Disagree, I don't begrudge you in the slightest. While I do think that this sounds like a fabulous project, it is still as far as I can see, explicitly discriminatory. Most employment regulation I've come across expressly forbids using "ableness" as part of the hiring decisions, which a project such as this would seem to run afoul of right off the bat.
Of course, one could argue that all hiring is by necessity based on "ableness" assessment. You need someone to be able to do the job at hand. You need someone with appropriate experience and skill, and in many professions skill implies certain physical or mental traits.
What riles me is how certain segments shout loudly about regulating against any form of discrimination, while gushing fondly over "positive inclusivity drives", which explicitly discriminate based on whatever-the-flavour-might-be (gender, religious affiliation, etc). Now personally I think many of those "positive discriminations" serve a valuable purpose as stepping stone towards better equality, but to have the gall to say that they're not exclusionary is, to me, mind blowing.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by aiwarrior on Wednesday June 12 2019, @08:47AM (1 child)
I normally disagree with the positive discrimination based on race or gender and others, because i consider that those are not disabilities therefore no special favor should be done. I also agree that there should not be negative discrimination for non disable people.
People with actual medically verified disabilities are indeed vulnerable and their social ailments need to be taken care of. If they are veritably disabled then there is scientific and medical evidence they need help, and society improves by making them independent, even if at a cost. Hopefully the cost is lower than having them completely dependent.
Every other discrimination is just fighting prejudice with prejudice, even legitimizing prejudice.
(Score: 2) by Popeidol on Wednesday June 12 2019, @05:05PM
I got half way through a reply and realized I was just repeating what you said, it's a good summary.
Something like this is probably cost neutral before you even start figuring in societal benefits and the the improved life for the workers. It costs a lot to move somebody from government support to supporting themselves, but it's a lot cheaper than supporting them for life.
Nobody is about to lose their job because every restaurant wants disabled chefs, and there is no cool new disability-exclusive chain restaurant spreading around the country. Nobody is getting overrun. This might change some assumptions and get people hired for jobs they have the ability to do. That improves their lives and the lives of those around them.
Disclaimer: I work in the disability employment sector
(Score: 4, Interesting) by c0lo on Wednesday June 12 2019, @11:16AM (3 children)
Offering people with disability a job they can do has usually higher benefits for society than offering the same position to an able person.
First, the fact that the job can be done with a person with disability means that the able person can move into a job a disabled person can't do.
Second, the fact that a disabled person is productive means the cost of welfare is lower for the society.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Interesting) by coolgopher on Thursday June 13 2019, @02:48AM (2 children)
Reductio ad absurdum would say that all jobs should then go to the lowest qualified (but *qualified*) applicant for every job, leaving those most qualified out of a job. Hmm.
Would such a scenario lead to advancement in society because "the best" would be free to to focus on advancement? It's an interesting question.
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Thursday June 13 2019, @03:07AM (1 child)
What, you think it's something new and disruptive? May I remind you of the Peter Principle [wikipedia.org]?
Translation: except for transient periods, all positions will be occupied by people with barely enough qualification for the job.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Thursday June 13 2019, @05:58AM
Oh god, how did I not see this when I wrote my comment?!
I want a new civilization now.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday June 12 2019, @01:01PM (1 child)
Of course it's discriminatory. But hiring decisions are almost always discriminatory. If I'm hiring a typist, I discriminate against people who can't type. The question isn't whether it's discriminatory -- it's whether discrimination of this type or in this case is a bad/immoral/illegal.
This is in Spain, whose laws I'm not that familiar with, though a quick search seems to indicate the concern there is with DISabilities. In the U.S., the law is explicitly framed in the ADA (and in most state laws I'm aware of) as a concern about discrimination on the basis of DISability (not "ableness"). If you know of a statute that is framed in terms of "ableness" in general, I'd be interested to know. (Sincerely... I'm curious.)
Why do I make this distinction? Because it's important in this case. With other protected classes it doesn't come up in the same way. In the U.S., this sort of thing would definitely NOT be illegal as long as prospective employees weren't discriminated against for other protected reasons, and -- importantly -- as long there was no illegal discrimination of some disabilities over others. (Someone else mentioned an all-deaf business. I don't think that would be a legal problem, but it would be if they excluded employees who were deaf AND had other disabilities.)
So, it's probably not a legal issue. Is it a moral one to hire only disabled people (and perhaps should it be illegal)? I don't think so, though I'm willing to entertain other arguments.
The issue is that we hire people all the time based on their skills ("abilities") as well as other issues that are not legally protected. A receptionist is hired both for good personal demeanor/people skills and because she's kinda cute. Perhaps she has other talents or traits on her resume that aren't strictly necessary for the job, but they are viewed by an employer as a positive -- she has a degree from a good college, she has good typing skills (even though that's not a big part of her job), etc.
Some of these things are things that can be changed ("mutable" in legal jargon, like typing skills), some are less so (e.g., "cuteness," though that's inherently subjective, and one could do things like dress better, lose weight, etc.).
Anti-discrimination laws should protect objective things people can't change but which are sometimes judged as negative, like race or sex or where you were born, or (as is discussed more frequently these days) age. They should not exist to require equality where there's no pervasive societal bias or rationale against hiring -- for example, legislation requiring "hair color" not to be considered seems an overreach. If a business wants to hire a bunch of redheads for a restaurant called "Ginger City", is that legally a problem? Considering how much discrimination in hiring occurs over appearance, I think that'd be the least of worries -- not to mention, hair color is "mutable" in a legal sense.
Anyhow, let's come back to the issue at hand. People are generally hired for their abilities as well as various other traits that are seen as desirable for whatever reason by employers. Sometimes employers choose all sorts of random ideas for hiring people. There is a local restaurant chain where I once lived that tried to hire ex-cons where possible -- those it deemed trustworthy, etc. Is that a laudable goal? Sure. It was well-known in the area, and I patronized the restaurant because of it. Lots of people get caught up in the legal system in the U.S. who are not necessarily really "bad" people, and this business gave them a second chance. Did I view their hiring policy as "discriminatory" because it strongly preferred ex-cons where possible? Absolutely not. It viewed a non-legally-protected part of an employee's background as a positive trait. Most businesses would NOT want to hire them, and this one went out of its way to.
Similarly, this restaurant in TFA privileges those who have the trait of a disability in hiring. Why should it be illegal or immoral to privilege such a part of one's background when so many employers privilege so many other aspects of one's background? And, legally, it's certainly "mutable." Go cut your arm off if you want to qualify to work at this place. Maybe sever your spinal cord and confine yourself to a wheelchair. I doubt many would deliberately inflict a disability on themselves merely to qualify for a job, though...
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @05:43PM
Excellent post and if I had mod points and weren't at work I'd mod you up. I do want to say that "ableness" isn't the criterion mentioned in the summary, it was " To qualify, applicants had to be unemployed and have more than 35% disability." and while I too don't know Spain's laws nor have I actively read recently my local ones, I recall disability being one of the "protected classes" as such, there is a completely valid argument to be made that means that it CANNOT be considered for hiring decisions, even if doing so serves a social good.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 12 2019, @08:36AM
It's outright communism, I tell ya.
It's contrary to the Darwin's law, hinders competition which is the core tenant⁽ᵍʳᶦⁿ⁾ of a free market. It's even contrary to the Constitution⁽ᵍʳᶦⁿ⁾, once one attains happiness that's the end of the pursuit.
Nuke it from orbit, is the only way to be sure the American Way is not under a treachorous and coward attack.
(grin)