[Brian_K_White]

You know, employees are not actually property, and there are actually limits on what an employer can tell an employee.

Everything an employer might possibly try to say about using any other software or tools to collect, handle, and redisplay "their" data, applies exactly the same to a blind employees screen reader.

Hell it applies to glasses.

Thank deity for blind people and other disabilities making it actually illegal to be as huge dicks as some companies would be if they could be.

I do not understand the the desire to even try to defend AA's position here, but am glad it's a failed attempt at least.

[OJFord]

I'm not sure why it reads as 'defending [the employer]'s position', but that's not my position, I don't care at all. (I'm not American, I may very well never have anything to do with the airline even as a customer.)

If you are its employee, jolly good luck to you with your 'well if I were blind what I've been provided with while not blind would not be adequate and I might need to use a different tool to this which works similarly' argument.

[Brian_K_White]

"I'm not sure why it reads as 'defending [the employer]'s position'"

Saying that the employer has the right to dictate those terms is literally and explicitly doing nothing else but defending their position that they have the right to dictate those terms.

[DiggyJohnson]

You’re making the classic mistake of confusing explanation for defense. It happens all the time with the Ukraine crisis as well.

[Brian_K_White]

I grant that's possible.

[OJFord]

They can 'dictate those terms' - doesn't mean I think it's good! (Doesn't mean I don't either, I haven't commented on it!)