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, 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.