Check out this correspondence from one of the people involved in my job loss. I strongly feel this particular person could play a much more positive and significant role in making things right had she the will and desire to do so. Company names, product references and the names of people have all been changed to protect both the good and the bad guys in this situation.
Hello Darrell,
I do sympathize with this situation and really hate to lose you from the XYZ account. You have been a valuable member of the team.
We continue to investigate what it will take from a Siebel standpoint. It’s not as simple or inexpensive as it appears. We are still investigating options with our Siebel contacts and await their input. Further, we have a very small Siebel development team (two people). There work is 100% prioritized right now in bringing up functionality
for our new X and Y product lines as well as rolling out
the Siebel sales solution through Africa. It’s unfortunate, however we
have to look at our resources and our pressing business needs and
prioritize them accordingly.
I know John is working hard to possibly engage you on other projects. You can count on us for a positive referral.
Once again, as a blind person needing reasonable accomodations, I am at the very bottom of the list of priorities. It appears dedicated, loyal service is not good enough. We are all just “resources”, to be thrown away once it has been decided we are no longer useful. I am a person who also has “business needs” to continue putting food on the table. Does that count for anything, especially given my solid job performance over the years? Is it right to throw me away rather than spending an hour or two of programming time to make Siebel accessible? The answers to these questions are apparent in the letter I received. They should speak loudly and clearly to the character of the corporation involved in this problem, who will have to remain nameless for the time being. Does anyone out there have a copy of the book or the movie “The Cold Equations”? It seems quite appropriate right about now.
My thought is at the very, very least why couldn’t be something considered where the individual needing accomidations and the people needing to make the changes involving just a few hours of work are getting so bent out of shape about it, why can’t it be an option to be considered where Darrell in this case could offer compensation for the man power for those changes to be made? I completely support the fact this is not completely appropriate to be required by any stretch, but it is a better loss than the loss of the job completely. I personally would quickly agree to pay a few hundred dollars in such a situation to keep a job. If there are other issues to be concerned about, why can’t they be addressed for what they are? My guess is it all can boil down to a much more reasonable solution. People are so completely selfish these days and want to quickly throw away any reasoning at all.