Matilda Ziegler Magazine for the Blind the source for blindness news and information since 1907

For those of you who thought that the Verizon Center for Persons with Disabilities would help a blind consumer with a major computer issue, think again.

I’ve been having problems sending out my publication because Verizon decided to tag it as spam material. When I called the Verizon office, a very nice woman answered the phone, and as I explained my problem to her, she tried to refer me back to tech support. I told her that being blind, I wasn’t able to work well with tech support, and furthermore, neither tech support nor their supervisor admitted any responsibility on behalf of Verizon for the problem. Despite what I told her, the woman could not help me any further because she didn’t have the resources.

If Verizon has an office exclusively to assist consumers with disabilities, shouldn’t they have some kind of accommodation process? Tech support people who work for Verizon do not know how to help blind people with computer issues because they aren’t trained in adaptive methods. I feel that this office needs to be a bit more progressive if it’s going to live up to its title.

In order to properly serve the blind, they could easily reach out to a number of agencies for the blind to offer sensitivity training to the Verizon administrators and tech support staff. As great as this sounds, and as much as it would solve the impasse between blind consumers and Verizon, it would be very tough for the agencies to train a tech support staff spread all over the world. If it’s easier than I’m making it sound, then I hope our readers can tell me what I’m missing.

Another possibility is for blind computer users to offer their own workshops for the Verizon staff. Verizon could pay for these one-on-one sessions as they could with any contractor, and the tech support staff could get hands on training with someone to see how they use a computer without sight. This might be the better solution, so long as there are enough people worldwide who are able to host a tech support member for this type of session.

Either way, Verizon will then have enough knowledge to work with a blind person, because right now, they don’t know how, even though they call themselves the Verizon Center for Persons with Disabilities. If they take even a little bit of initiative, they could set the bar for many other corporations who could use some help in this area as well.

As always, your comments are welcome in the Reader’s Forum.

This morning on a local radio station, people were saying that the national anthem has worn out its welcome, and shouldn’t be sung before every sporting event in this country. One of the reasons why they feel that way about the national anthem is because some of the people who sing it make mistakes or make the anthem into something that it’s not.

When I was six years old, I learned the words of many patriotic songs in Kindergarten, and as far as I’m concerned, no song is more difficult to learn than any other, especially if you hear it often enough. I’m not writing to complain that we sing the national anthem too much. No, I’m writing to complain that we don’t hear it enough. When I was growing up, radio stations would make sure you heard the anthem being performed before every baseball, basketball, hockey, or football game. Now, the anthem is preempted by a stream of commercials, so that we don’t hear it.

At a time when many people in this country believe that we’re losing our patriotism, I feel the anthem, as well as other patriotic and freedom songs, should be heard as often as possible, and should be sung whenever the opportunities present themselves.

What are your thoughts on the matter?

Most of you know that I am vocal about modern society and how it has affected our old school way of thinking.

Last night, I attended a softball rules committee meeting. As you know, a meeting–by definition–is important, and when we sit in on a meeting, we’re supposed to pay close attention to what’s going on in order to resolve problems and establish new policies. Well, the chairperson of the meeting decided to bring her 3-year-old, her 10-year-old and her 12-year-old daughters. Just for giggles, I dare you to assure me that if I bring a 3, 10, and 12 year old to a meeting, that we’re going to accomplish a lot.

Last night, while the chairperson was speaking, there were numerous occasions when she was interrupted by one of her kids about homework, food, or going to the bathroom. Before I continue, I don’t want anyone to misunderstand me. Not only do I love children, but I know these particular kids pretty well. This is not about the kids. It’s about parents making plans. It’s not even about last night. I find that in general, in today’s society, more and more parents feel that they can take their children to their jobs, to meetings, and to whatever else.

While the meeting affected me personally and spawned the topic of this article, there are other situations where distractions can be much more disruptive. I’ve known personal care attendants who have brought their children to the client’s house quite often. I’ve heard cases where the PCA is trying to work on the client, but is distracted by the child. Of course the parent is going to be distracted by the child, though. Several years ago, a woman came to the house to give me a haircut. She brought her little daughter with her. The child had a serious ear ache, and her mother was so distracted by the situation that she left a big pile of hair on the floor after my haircut. Before parents go to work, they should have their children settled. To me, a job is a job. You can’t bring your child into the operating room if you’re a surgeon. You can’t bring your child to a law office if you’re the secretary, you can’t bring your child to the restaurant if you’re the short order cook, you can’t bring your child to the insurance office while you are the insurance adjuster, and you can’t bring your child to your bank teller’s job while you handle millions of dollars behind a desk all day long. So why do people who perform personal care justify bringing their children to the job when the object of distraction is evident?

Your thoughts are welcome in the Readers’ Forum.

Thanksgiving is a Holiday for families. As a traditionalist, and as someone who believes in the meaning of Thanksgiving, it is important for friends and loved ones to bond together, and to give thanks for what they have. While the tradition still exists, it is in direct competition with anxious shoppers who prefer to leave their Thanksgiving dinners in order to camp out in front of stores, waiting for them to open at Midnight. Have we become too much of a commercial society? Do people need that 42-inch television more than dinner with their loved ones?

The day after Thanksgiving, also known as Black Friday, isn’t worth the aggrivation. It’s gotten to the point where shoppers have used pepper spray in order to cut through lines to get to the item of their choice. People have died as a result of violent behavior from anxious shoppers who only think of themselves.

Business owners should realize the trend that’s developing as more and more people want to take advantage of Black Friday. These owners should have several bargain days, giving shoppers a choice as to when to make their purchases. Furthermore, no store should open at midnight.

We need to preserve family tradition as much as possible. If I arranged a Thanksgiving dinner, and before the turkey is carved, one of my relatives announces that she can’t stay for dinner because she has to go wait in line for 10 hours in order to buy a smart phone, I would not take it very well. Before any of us should be thankful for our cell phones, Ipods and television sets, we should remind ourselves to be thankful for our health, our loved ones, and the happiness we are blessed with. I believe that it’s the stability, the security, and the blessing of family and relationships that help make us better human beings.

As was the case with our editor, I have had similar problems sending out bulk emails from time to time, particularly if the documents I send out are quite lengthy. I am not going to talk about the email problem, but about how technical support representatives from major email providers can’t work very well with blind computer users, because these technicians aren’t trained the way we are. The technicians use a mouse. I will assume that most blind people don’t, because the mouse is a visual tool. This is why we are trained by agency reps or others who have knowledge in key board training.

Yesterday, as I was talking to my Verizon technical support person on the phone, it became clear that I could not follow his instructions when trying to navigate on Internet Explorer. I wanted to stop Verizon from treating my lengthy word documents as spam, but when I was asked to go to the top of the page, go to an address bar, or click to a corner of the screen, I got lost. Then there’s the problem of JAWS not allowing you to type within certain edit boxes. How many of you are familiar with the phrase, “There are no frames on this page”, a phrase that JAWS will frequently say when you try to type inside the edit box. At that point, you have to press the space bar in order to switch the forms mode so that JAWS won’t interrupt your work, but in case it continues to interrupt, you may have to shut it off, resulting in you not being able to navigate on Internet Explorer or any other web site. The Verizon representative doesn’t understand this, because he was never trained to teach blind people.

If, as a blind consumer, I need to continuously call my email provider for tech support, knowing full well that most, if not all of their technicians aren’t familiar with how I have to use a computer, how can we blind people solve our problems effectively? Sure, we know technicians who are trained to understand accessible navigation on web sites, but as soon as these technicians ask us to call our providers, we’re in trouble.

As a result of my dilemma, I now have to depend on a sighted person to work with Verizon for me, unless you may have other ideas as to how I can get on the same page with these Verizon technicians.

Your thoughts are welcome in the Readers’ forum.

I am proud that we have a State Commission for the Blind in Massachusetts. I believe that when lobbyists fought for an agency separating the blind from other disabilities, they meant well. It’s not that persons with other disabilities don’t need a supporting agency–of course they do. However, it is the fear of many people in the disability community that if you lump the blind in with others with disabilities under the same agency umbrella, the blind will drop to the bottom of the barrel as far as support and attention are concerned. I don’t know that for a fact, but I agree with this public fear. In fact, I know many people with other types of disabilities, especially those with developmental disabilities, who have jobs, no matter what that job is. Can you say that about a majority of any sample of blind people in this country, no matter how hard they try to be employed?

As a blind consumer, and as someone who wants to live as normal a life as possible, I have certain expectations of a Commission for the Blind which I feel are quite reasonable. While I don’t think that Commissions for the Blind should figuratively hold our hands and guide us through life in every way possible, I feel that when we have obstacles put in front of us because we are blind, that Commissions should advocate for us more than they do in order to help us face these obstacles. For example, if I go on a job interview, and if my potential employer refuses to offer me a reasonable accommodation to help me on the job, I would much prefer that a powerful agency, who is responsible for knowing the laws, should step in and help. While there are blind people with enough knowledge to be their own advocates, many are not trained to be, yet they have the same rights as those of us who are.

On one occasion I was asked by a potential employer to describe the nature of the adaptive technology that would help me with my job. Where I knew I couldn’t explain it to his satisfaction, I counted on the Commission for the Blind to explain it, because the Commission employs computer engineers in this field who know all there is to know.

If I decide to go for an extended period of job training at a company that will ultimately reward me with a job, either on their premises or here at home, I expect the Commission for the Blind to play a role in the process, especially where it comes to easing the employer’s doubts in every way possible. Many employers will think of ways not to hire a blind person, and will exercise these ways in a manner where we can’t prove they are practicing discrimination. Commissions for the Blind have many professionals who can motivate employers to think outside the box by considering blind people for jobs.

What are your feelings about the involvement of Commissions for the Blind?

How many of you receive emails from various companies asking you to consider their job offers in order to make loads of money? Though many of these offers are tempting just because most blind people are out of work, the fact is that a vast majority of these offers are the result of scams. The question I am asking is: How do we, as consumers, determine what is or isn’t a scam? We would like to take advantage of many of these offers at some point, but we don’t know how true they really are. Is there a technique by which we can find out the validity of these emails?

If it is determined that these emails are bogus, it is very disappointing and sad. Though these scammers don’t necessarily target the blind, it’s a shame that the blind, along with everyone else, are being used as pawns in order for scammers to get information out of us. We, as blind consumers, have a tough enough time trying to make a living based on our financial limitations without scammers trying to stick their nose in our business.

If the emails are for real, then the question is different. Though many of us could use the income as a result from working at home, is the income sustainable enough where we can get rid of our supplementary disability checks? What if we think that the income is sustainable, but then we find out that it varies from month to month? Now we face a double edged sword. We don’t want to eliminate our supplementary checks if they are the source of our livelihood, yet we don’t want to spend weeks at a time not making enough money to live, either.

I know blind people who receive financial assistance from the Government, yet they join these home businesses in order to make extra money. Though I admire their determination, I hope they gave my earlier question some thought. If I work at home, I must be careful about how I manage the Government assistance against my new income, and I absolutely have to know which is going to help me the most. It’s not about preferring Government help; it’s about making an honest living.

If we didn’t have an eighty percent unemployment rate among the blind in this country, I would probably not be having this discussion right now. Of course, most of us would rather not receive help from the Government. I’d like to think that we’re proud enough to go to work and support ourselves and our families based on what we make from our jobs.

Your thoughts are welcome in the Readers’ forum.

At one time, there were disability support groups everywhere, no matter what type of groups they were. People would join others with similar issues, and share problems and solutions. Recreation groups were formed, consisting of persons with disabilities, and there was no problem recruiting new members. Support groups for the blind, as well as the major organizations of the blind, had no difficulty finding young and ambitious members. With that said, society has made it more difficult to establish these types of groups or to recruit members into the national consumer organizations today. Though the major issues that persons with disabilities face are pretty much the same–especially the unemployment rate of the blind–there are three factors which make it harder to form groups or to add to existing ones.

First, it is more difficult to find volunteers to transport people to meetings. Second, younger people seem to have their own agenda, despite the fact that many problems that were evident decades ago still exist today, and third, there seems to be more integration between persons with and without disabilities, which is a good thing.

I have seen chapters of major national consumer organizations fold up because younger people don’t want to join. I have seen Catholic Guilds for the Blind deteriorate for the same reasons, and every time I try to form a visually impaired persons support group in my city, I can’t keep it going.

As for the first determining factor, there doesn’t seem to be as much volunteerism today due to the fast paced lives we are all forced to live, and this results in a lack of available transportation to and from meetings and events. As for young people with disabilities, I am very pleased that they have no problem leading lives outside of these groups, though they neither have the time nor the interest in joining. As for recreation clubs like the one I was involved in 20 years ago, I would guarantee you that most of those members wouldn’t need a support group of this type today because they have figured out a way to live their lives without it.

Based on what I believe, I am concerned about the future of the major national consumer organizations. Will they continue to grow in numbers, or have they peaked due to the circumstances I just described?

I welcome your thoughts in the Readers’ Forum.

We live in tough times. Many of us make just enough to put food on the table and pay our bills. Most of you would agree how extremely difficult this is. When we are not paying our bills or managing our limited funds, many of us like to enjoy recreation and sports, such as basketball. I am a Boston Celtics fan, and, at this time every year, I look forward to listening to the play by play as the Celtics try to win another championship. However, I take issue with the owners of the National Basketball League’s teams, who actually have the nerve to sit in a room and argue over millions of dollars, while we, the average consumers, can only dream about having that kind of money. Being that these owners can’t agree on a fat salary, they have decided to take the joy of basketball away from us for a while.

What crazy times we live in! Many of us are afraid to ask our boss for a small raise, while people in professional sports not only demand millions, but go on strike if they don’t get their way. Haven’t these basketball owners, or the owners of any other sports teams, realize that we, the fans, support them financially? If I own a sports team, and I am not satisfied with the percentage of revenue that goes into my pocket, the first thing I’m going to realize is that if I don’t keep my mouth shut and cause a lock out, fans won’t pay me. Isn’t it better to accept an eight digit figure that you’re not happy with rather than nothing at all?

A solution to this problem should be a general boycott of basketball, but of course, we all know that won’t happen. It took a few years after the baseball strike of 1994, but many stadiums were sold out in 2011. I just don’t think it’s fair that while I struggle to make ends meet, and while I deserve to listen to basketball games as some kind of reward for how I care for myself, I need to be denied that privilege because the big wheels can’t decide whether they are happy with fifty million dollars or a hundred million dollars. Hey, give me what you’re not happy with. I’ll gladly take it, and give it to my family and friends so they could make ends meet a lot easier.

Your thoughts are welcome in the Readers’ Forum.

We live in a society which has allowed sports corporations to give away so much money to their employees that it’s the employees who call the shots. It seems that when a sports team loses too many games or if players on the team do something that is questionable, it’s the manager’s fault. I think it’s totally unfair the way managers are made to be the scapegoats, and are fired because of what the players do.

Let’s imagine, for a moment, that you own a small business in your home town. My coworkers and I go to work for you every day, and we receive a nice fat pay check from you at the end of the week. However, during our working hours, we show up late to staff meetings, we bring food into the office to snack on, we look at inappropriate websites on the computer between tasks, and we smuggle beer into the office. As the owner of the business, you do not appreciate this kind of behavior from the people who work at your company, so you decide that the best way to solve this problem is to fire our boss. After all, we belong to a union, and despite how we perform on the job, we hide behind our fat pay check and feel that we have all the authority in the world, so that firing the boss is supposed to change the atmosphere within your business. As someone who works for you, I’d feel I have it made. I can wake up any time I want, show up late, goof off all day, and think nothing of it because you will simply fire the boss in order to solve your problem.

I gave this example to prove how the system has affected professional sports corporations. It’s bad enough that, in this poor economy, these athletes are allowed to make millions of dollars a year while you and I have to struggle, but I think it’s pathetic that the athletes, because of their outrageous salaries, can’t be fired when things go wrong with their organization. So the owners have to act like they need to make some kind of change, even if it’s a token change, so they fire management.

Something needs to be done quickly in order to restore order, because if nothing else, these big sports corporations are setting a poor example for the average blue collar citizen who tries to make an honest living.

Your thoughts are welcome in the Readers’ Forum.