Deaf Helped or Hurt by SSDI?
I've never gotten SSDI, and I know that a deaf person can get it if they are out of work. During the recession of 2001 when I was laid off, I was faced with the choice of quitting About.com so I could qualify for SSDI or full unemployment benefits, or scrambling to find a new job. I chose to scramble, searching 24 hours a day until I found one after three to four months of unemployment (don't ask how I managed to keep the Deafness.About.com site going during that difficult, stressful time).
Today's New York Times had an article, "Men Not Working, and Not Wanting Just Any Job," that reminded me of a recent blog post in the You Have to Be Deaf to Understand blog, "When a Door Closes, a Window Opens." In this posting, Julia (hearing) reports that her deaf husband has just quit his job because of a boss who would not take the trouble to learn how to communicate with a deaf employee.
Just like that, her husband gave up a job that he had fought for a long time to get. His reasoning was that quitting was justified due to the boss's attitude. The boss had been offered training by Vocational Rehabilitation, on how to work with a deaf person, but turned down this training. Even Julia offered to help, but her husband chose to quit the job.
When Julia first reported her husband was considering quitting, I referred Julia to two articles at About, "Information on Deafness for Employers" and "Making Supervisors and Co-Workers Comfortable with Deafness and Hearing Loss."
In an earlier posting, "Social Security - Devil's Tool?" Julia complains about the SSDI system. Her husband did not want to lose SSDI until making sure the job was going to work out. After reading that New York Times article mentioned above, and thinking about the situation for Julia's husband, I am wondering if the availability of SSI/SSDI makes life too easy for some deaf people? I believe that if I had chosen to quit About.com back in 2001 and depend on SSDI, I would not have the good job that I have today.
At the same time, judge not, lest ye be judged. Bob is dependent on social security because he can not risk losing the health benefits that come with social security, until he finds a job that comes with health benefits. There's something wrong with a system that literally traps deaf people because they can not find jobs with health insurance (or that gives people more money than they can earn through working).
What do you think? Was quitting the right thing to do given that the boss did not have a good attitude about deafness?
Comments
He should stay with his job even though his boss did not have a good attitude. I had a supervisor who had bad attitude, but I am still with my job for 31 years. I have gone through 5 supervisors. I got promoted trhough hard work. I am so thankful that I didn’t give up.
My honest opinion is if he finds it intolerable working for someone who has a poor attitude, either he deals with it or find another job. Quitting and going on SSDI is an abuse of the system. It is for people who are too disabled or too sick to work. Being deaf doesn’t mean one is not able to work.
Have you ever filled a complaint with the cival rights dept.for individuals with disabilities?
It does seem that SSDI provides sort of a safety net that allows people to quit jobs as described in your article.
It also, as you described, creates a ceiling of sorts — some people are afraid to tackle new opportunities lest they lose their “safe” SSDI.
By the way, how’s this for an exact opposite situation: there’s someone in my family we’ve been bugging to retire. The benefits she’s eligible for will EXCEED her current salary. Yet she loves her job so much she’s staying put. We’re banging our heads on the wall but it’s her choice… more power to her.
Is it possible to draw SSDI checks wothout a work history? If you are deaf and have never worked or have a very limited work history, you will get SSI, not SSDI. When a deaf person who has had sufficient work history loses a job and then applies for SSDI, it can be rough going because SSDI is based on ability to work, not unavailability to work.
Eaach of us is different. Most of us spend at least one third of our lives working for a living. If the atmosphere in the workplace is intolerable because of the behavior of others in that workplace, then one has the volition to move on. Whether one seeks another job or becomes dependent upon charitable institutions is a matter of individual discretion. Who really knows another’s heart well enough to determine how the other should live or what decisions the other should make?
I am a 59-yr old computer programmer who has been receiving SSDI for about four years. I am not deaf, but I suffered a stroke nine years ago. I wanted to continue to work, but after a number of unsuccessful attempts to work I finally applied for SSDI, which was granted after an appeal. I was reading some of the comments on this blog, and it seems that some people feel that SSDI or SSI is some kind of ‘racket’ for those people who don’t want to work. There may be a small percentage for whom this is true, but the vast majority of people on disability are like me, who would rather work at any job if they could.
I am normal hearing. I have a muscle condition that causes clumsiness. There is a big differance between some type of therapy and working. Speech therapy is a situation where I could focus 100 percent on my speech. I can’t do that at work. I also can’t focus 100 per cent on my other balance issues, so I had to give up and apply for ssi. As a disabled person I probably get tired twice as fast as more abled-bodied people because I have the extra burden of tryng to balance myself using damaged muscles.