Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by dudul 3666 days ago
Nice post, but I was kind of shocked by this part: "A question going through your head is probably: Did we underpay him?"

Seriously? What kind of human beings do you think your readers are? Did anyone here really think about that while reading the story?
2 comments
charlieflowers 3666 days ago
The readers would not have to be rotten human beings ... merely non-naive. He didn't suggest we readers _wanted_ him underpaid. Just that we might wonder if they did. Many _would_ underpay him, so it's a reasonable thing to wonder.
link
macspoofing 3666 days ago
Not just you. That jumped out to me immediately as well.

The whole article felt too self-congratulatory as it was.

link
DanBC 3666 days ago
I started reading it from a UK perspective. I couldn't get past the "we didn't break the law!" self-congratulatory feel.

But then I realised that discrimination is common in the UK, and there are absolutely employers who pay people less because those people have disabilities; so I switched into enjoying reading about a company learning that employing someone with a disability isn't a big thing.

link
stevetrewick 3666 days ago
Quite distressingly common.

>"9 out of 10 employers rate blind and partially sighted people as either 'difficult' or 'impossible' to employ" (DWP, 2004) [0]

Which is stupid beyond belief to anyone who spends much time with folks who have a visual impairment. Just off the top of my head I can think of a barrister, a librarian, a bunch of IT and development types and several qualified and practicing tennis coaches who are VIPs. And that's just out of my personal acquaintances.

So while I almost bounced off this for the tone, in the end the tl;dr is 'we overcame our bias and it turned out to be no biggie'. As someone who spends a lot of time working to generate positive PR for VI I'll take this as a net gain.

[0] https://actionforblindpeople.org.uk/about-us/media-centre/ke...

link
Rapzid 3666 days ago
I find it interesting that they pay everyone at the same level the same amount. Unless that's an even more ambiguous statement than it reads; "level" being extremely subjective and analogue.. Their answer about pay is very open to interpretation. It has been a sellers market for a while now.

I also agree with you about the feel of the article. Something just doesn't sit right with me about it.

link