So...I'm trying to figure out..does your reply mean that you tend to look down your nose at blue collar workers-or am I just mis-interpreting your feelings?
I'm a former blue collar worker-now disabled-I was always hard-working..maybe too hard working..in fact..I'm sure that's why I became disabled..is it wrong to work too hard?
I have a GED and over 2 years of college-and I'm a veteran..when I went to college..I was also working 2 jobs..a real grind..yet I wasn't able to "break" into the white collar world..am I a failure in your opinion?
I have 2 fused discs and degenerative arthritis setting into my spine..is that my fault..or the fault of profit hungry companies that often ignore OSHA regs regarding max weight limits on blue collar workers backs and skeletal frames?
You see... I have a tendency to not trust those who've never worked hard physically a day in their lives..because few of them ever appreciate the blessings and breaks they've had..that many of us blue collar workers never get..anyhow..I'm just curious..don't mean to offend..have a good one....
No. I'm challenging the gist of the article which seems to be that blue collar workers are quick on the trigger to go for disability benefits and perhaps are not really as deserving.
My points were that a white collar person like myself gets turned down for disability benefits based on the exact same standard as blue collar workers because my particular skills are not as affected by physical disability.
The author seems to think that blue collar workers are getting disability for injuries that white collar workers are not. This is obviously true but the author makes the fundamental mistake of judging the disabilities equally rather than judging the disabilites effect on the work requirements of the individual in question. Two bad knees destroyed the career of my friend whereas two bad knees would not affect my career materially. He should get disability for the same injury that I should not. The author doesn't seem to understand the distinction.
The author seems to have a suspicion that this is somehow unfair or unseemly of those blue collar workers and that maybe something fishy is going on. Thats because the author has preconceived notions, probably based on his own situation, of what is and what is not a disability. I seriously doubt that the author lifts heavy objects for a living.
Thats not to say its all fair. My sister-in-law should indeed get disability insurance because her disabilities are such that her (realistic) career opportunities are reduced to nil. She doesn't get it because her (theoretical) career opportunities are reduced to "almost" nil. This is certainly not the fault of blue collar workers however.
I see that a lot here are all fired up about this as a government give-away. Its not supposed to be. It is supposed to be an insurance policy and God knows we pay a lot of premiums into this particular insurance policy. You should not blame the beneficiaries of the insurance policy because the insurance company can't run its business correctly or has executives that steal all the money to pay for other things. That is what we have with Social Security and its not the fault of the disabled who paid premiums. Blame your Representatives and Senators and blame yourself for electing them. But collecting on what is purported to be an insurance policy is not grounds for being called a "welfare recipient".