I visited a retailer and went through the self checkout till where I was assisted by a mute employee, who communicated with me through a sign interpreter whose job seemed to be to shadow and interpreter for the other man full time. From a cost efficiency angle it would seem considerably more effective to simply train and employ the man who would be the interpreter to do the disabled stockist’s job. Of course disabled individuals are entitled to reasonable adjustments from their employers to make work accessible to them, but is a company required to essentially pay two salaries to enable one person to do a productive job that could be done for one salary? What is the likely situation here, legally speaking?
Asked
Active
Viewed 140 times
