Community Forum Archive

The Epilepsy Community Forums are closed, and the information is archived. The content in this section may not be current or apply to all situations. In addition, forum questions and responses include information and content that has been generated by epilepsy community members. This content is not moderated. The information on these pages should not be substituted for medical advice from a healthcare provider. Experiences with epilepsy can vary greatly on an individual basis. Please contact your doctor or medical team if you have any questions about your situation. For more information, learn about epilepsy or visit our resources section.

Causes of Underemployment.

Wed, 08/20/2008 - 13:38

For those of you who are able to work, but cannot find employment, I was wondering what you think the cause of this might be. For example, is it lack of transportation, experience, education, etc.? By "employment" I mean something commensurate with your abilities and experience. Something that you think is reasonable and beneficial for you.

Comments

Re: Causes of Underemployment.

Submitted by 3Hours2Live on Tue, 2008-11-25 - 05:57
It is important to distinguish between "social skills" in the workplace and university versus "social skills" in a job interview. And certainly, speech impediments are not a lack of "social skills," even though a Federal District Court Clerk once refused to listen to one of my relatives read to him over a telephone what I was writing down on paper since a seizure stole my voice that morning; once, a Federal guard also refused to read my written word in response to his security questions, and refused me entry to the court building since I "refused" to orally answer his questions before I could attend a hearing by the EEOC addressing possible accommodation for my handicaps. Another EEOC judge terminated a conference call for a hearing, and the hearing, because of sporadic speech gaps from seizures I was sufferring at the time; how does discrimination in the address of discrimination cure the discrimination? I hope it is not a fact that people who can't speak at all don't have any legal rights and are held to lack "social skills" overall, especially since I am frequently in that group from the effects of epilepsy, but it certainly appears that way, and all promises of accommodation are just tokens for a very select few to be flashed about for publicity. I believe social skills in the university more closely match social skills in the technical workplace than either match social skills in the job interview (my university wasn't a mail order unversity); the first two never ask why a person wants this job and other general job interview questions, personal relationships with the interviewer are generally frowned upon (especially when a TLE sexually apathetic Tadzio is before them), you don't split work with the interviewer, and the interviewer is suppose to be objective and address valid factors, not subjective "feel good" sensations judged by illusory skills in "reading people" with self-assured blind guesses based on, at best, a very limited history. Prospective appealate lawyers, who warned me of the futility of seeking any justice with discrimination laws in a Catch-22 society, joked that the the FDIC wanted someone with bulldog tenacity to elicit incriminating information from recalcitrant bankers (what a great Social Skill!, but probably better than just giving them a few trillion dollars to trickle down with) and got me, who bit them in their Catch-22 hindquarters and took them ten years to finally beat off! But my voice is so TIMID! Aspects of psychological testing in an oral interview are polluted by many more factors, mainly the interviewer and his/her own bag of luggage, than written psychological testing (though you have to be aware that a person with eye problems instead of speech problems might suffer from the inherent bias of the test, but with "eye-contact" being so important otherwise it is the catch irrelevent). Even then, as the MMPI so greatly illustrates with Temporal Lobe Epileptics, social skill "cookbooks" are better at cooking the cook than the subject. By the way, since my time's up for now, which part of the social bus does this great society dictate the epiletics to ride, so we can try to minimize the tension epilepsy gives to other people?

Re: Causes of Underemployment.

Submitted by 3Hours2Live on Wed, 2008-11-26 - 04:40
I reviewed my oral exam papers from the IRS again./977827 I am still trying to figure out what exactly triggers people to make adverse assumptions across the board as soon as they hear words like "epilepsy," "disabled," "speech impediment," and "handicapped." This has been a frequent phenomenon even at this web site. When individuals in authority base their reasonings on such adverse assumptions many absurd results generally follow, and there's no shortage of lemmings without any concern of such waters. My philosophy professor cited Bertrand Russell to me in his advice not to use reductio ad absurdum so freely, as I was no Aristotle, but with assuming authorities it is too easy and tempting, despite the dangers of offended authorities; with your studies you probably know many more instances in classical logic of it than I do. Well, the IRS used a four factor pass/fail oral exam as a ranking exam with the general key of: 5 = excellent, 4 = very good with room for improvement, 3 = good, improvement will come with practice, 2 = improvement needed, but satisfactory performance, and, 1 = less than satisfactory. Pass was defined as all factors better than 1, with an overall average of better than 2. Each factor's score was determined from the two interviewer's written evaluations recorded during the exam. There was a very strong correlation with the written exam, namely: a written exam score of 97% to 91% correlated with an oral exam score of 5, 90% to 86% with 4, 85% to 81% with 3, 80% to 75% with 2, and less than 75% with 1. My written exam was highest and scored at 97%, the most frequent written evaluation from the interviewers was "very good," but only in my case was the evaluation "very good" determined to be a numerical score of 3, and the numerical score placed me furtherest from the regression line as a statisical outlier. The "Certificate of Eligibles" was ranked from highest written exam score to lowest passing written exam score, so I was at the top with one exception of a veteran who had five points added to his score for being a veteran. The selecting official said he followed the "rule of three," where the first position is filled from among the top three applicants; of these three, the official said he selected the one with the highest oral exam score first then by written exam score, but no allowance for passing over a veteran, so the veteran got that position. For the next position the unselcted applicants were placed back on the certificate in their original position, and the "rule of three" was applied again. After an applicant was in a "group of three" by the "rule of three" three times, the official could exclude that individual from the certificate and from further consideration for selection, unless one of the three individuals selected was rescinded from selection then that excluded individual would be returned to the certificate for consideration for that position with the rescinded selection (what jargon!). Anyway, I was excluded from the certificate after the third selection, but I was not returned to the certificate when the third selection was rescinded, and a person with the same oral exam score as mine, but a written exam score of 82% was selected instead. Since I wanted the job I filed formal appeals, then formal complaints, over the incorrect use of the certificate and handicap discrimination complaints. Everyone involved made the assumption that my written exam score was very low, and that I failed the oral exam, as soon as they became knowledgeable that I claimed to be a protected handicapped individual under the Rehabilitation Act. When exam evidence to the contrary was presented to them, they would discount it as irrelevant for the matters at hand and argue about something else (such as I didn't look handicapped, and nobody involved could discriminate because they didn't even know what a handicap code was, that they weren't neurologists so they didn't know or assume I was epileptic and didn't believe me when I told them, since I was then speaking, etc.). One judge even told me that the interviewers, who both claimed to be totally ignorant of any of my handicaps and totally unbiased, probably rated me "very good" because they felt sorry for anyone in my physical condition; he told me that just after he told me I didn't present enough evidence to be found handicapped and/or regarded as handicapped. The EEOC engaged in the same conduct, as did their Administrative Law Judges, the lawyers, the Merit System Protection Board, Employment Counselors, Rehabilitation Counselors, Congressmen, casual observers (wasting tax payer's dollars), federal judges, and appellate judges (the Supreme Court refused to consider my appeals). The last printed legal citation to the oral exam cited that I failed my successful oral exam. I can still mention that I was not selected for a government job, despite my high written test scores and outstanding scholar status, because of discriminatorily lowered oral exam scores, and it is immediately assumed my "very good" performances (despite epilepsy), were failures beyond any possible accommodation and not to be tolerated in any working social situation. Sometimes I'm given the label "idiot savant" since it is impossible to argue about prejudice across every possible field all at once. And all I can expect is that nothing matters for gainful employment except something else that hides another absurdity for now, and by the authorities, all the previous absurdities are irrelevant, though they continue to be cited as absolute necessities by the very same authorities. Joseph Heller's "Catch-22" is overly optimistic, and maybe if I beat a dead horse enough the flies will stay away a while longer.

Re: Causes of Underemployment.

Submitted by Reiha_Y on Tue, 2010-02-09 - 04:03
Most workers are having a desire to have an extra income besides their job, and they are in a condition called underemployment. Underemployment is where a person has a job – they aren't unemployed – but they work for lower salaries or below what their aptitude would be – say if a lawyer can't get a job as an attorney, but works as a paralegal just to pay the bills. The number of under employed is almost double the number of unemployed workers – and that many more people are still worrying about if they need payday loans – though the security of employment is a comfort, they still are wondering when they'll be back in a job they were accustomed to.

Sign Up for Emails

Stay up to date with the latest epilepsy news, stories from the community, and more.