 |
 |
Hi.... at long last. First off, I want to thank you all for your comments and suggestions -- all of which helped me sort out a number of issues concerning my current position and what may be looming over the horizon. Second, I apologize for not replying sooner, but it was a "barn burner" of a week which has kept me at the office past 8 pm every night. While this presents quite a paradox with respect to the "negotiated 4:45 pm departure time", be assured that the long hours exacted a price -- migraine and exacerbated symptoms which side- lined me through the weekend. Next, my reply to each of the respondents to my original posting (Sorry if I missed you, but the daily volume of posts necessitates some pretty slipshod scanning on my part.) To Jeremy Browne: The one major complaint I have about the long hours I've been putting in recently is that I have had precious little time to play on my "invalidity". Seriously, I realize that your intention was to offer a perspective on the CEO's response to my condition, and in so doing, you have essentially underscored the premise of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1992 (sounds like the UK has yet to enact similar legislation). And while I still enjoy a solid rapport with my boss, he has set the precedent of dealing with my medical condition on a formal, documented basis (for which I find no fault), compelling me to respond in kind. That doesn't entail a confrontative approach but rather objective, business-like correspondence stating my case for the next "accommodation". Jeremy, while I had some initial difficulty digesting your message, I appreciated the "wake-up call". Per your follow-up note, the CEO is aware if the nature of my PD through observing the progression of the disease for five years from the time he became officially aware of my condition in May of 1992. I should also point out that the boss had responded in a supportive manner -- recognizing the hardship it imparts at home as well as at work -- and also stated that the firm will make every effort "to accommodate me" in dealing with the PD. Now, in rather short order, I'll be finding out the extent to which the words will translate into deeds. To John Morey: Your observations as a former consultant were sobering to say the least. You could be the "star on your team" but if your win-loss record starts to falter, your days are numbered. While the ADA does not insulate disabled Americans from that fate in the longrun, it affords them the opportunity to affect changes (aka "reasonable accommodations") in the workplace which will extend their productivity within the firm. Importantly, the onus rests squarely on the disabled employee to proactively lobby for these changes. Thanks for writing, John. To Don Anderson (aka Sandrodent): Your response to Jeremy's observations were a much more socially acceptable rendition of my initial reaction. But after a three-day cooling off period, I was able to see that Jeremy's aim was to represent a brazen attitude that probably characterizes the CEO "norm". Moreover, seeing that it took me 7+ years to finally discuss the PD "publically" (in conjunction with a now battered state of denial), I can sense Jeremy's attraction to the opportunity of a brief sabatical from the otherwise full-time role of PWP. I enjoyed the Dicksonian references, Don, as well as your "pen name" (there's got to be a story behind that!). To Nancy Mullen: Hi, NEIGHBOR! I'm out in Highland Park and have a sister-in-law in Skokie, my wife works at Rush North Shore Med. Ctr. so I'm very familiar with your locale. We should compare notes on neuro's, especially the ones to steer clear of. As to napping at lunch hour, I do occasionally close my office door and hold calls in an effort to nod off for a few minutes. I find that a short catnap sufficiently re-charges the batteries where as a full- fledged siesta will put me in a fog for the rest of the day. The mini- snooze preceded by low-protein lunch and followed by a walk around the block seems to be an effective combination in my case. Regarding the notion of moving to the city, I'm fortunate in the sense that I'm not yet experiencing any major problems with mobility/commuting as long as I time the meds right. Also, working downtown, public transp eliminates the need for me to drive (and the world is a better place for it). As for my wife, Carol, becoming the primary wage earner, we're assuming that will eventually be the case. For eight years, she's been employed with a medical practice, serving as office manager since '94. Based on the progression of the PD, I hoping to string out another 2-3 years full-time -- assuming I can "negotiate" part-time telecommuting as an "accommodation". I'm in the process of investigating free-lance options in the event I part ways with my curremt employer. Your suggestion concerning vocational counseling/rehab is intriguing, and I plan to follow-up on this at the next local YPSN meeting (3/18). Nancy, thanks for writing. To Dennis Green: The "Catch 22" situation is a big part of my frustration on the job. In order to keep pace with my productivity of, say three years ago, I have learned to "work smarter" (delegating more, scheduling tasks in line with peak energy/performance periods, etc.). But inevitably, I'm slower -- certainly in terms of motor skills (e.g. reading and word processing) and to some extent, thought processes during "off" periods or when functioning with under four hours of sleep. And how do I compensate? I work longer hours than most managers at my firm, but hey, I STILL HAVE CLEARANCE TO LEAVE AT 4:45 pm!! .... uh "when circumstances permit". Go figure. Per your follow-up note regarding the "easing out process", I fully intend to exercise my rights under the ADA in terms of seeking and being granted reasonable accommodations aimed at extending my employability. The trick is to be well-versed on the parameters of "reasonable accommodations", which are more protective than one might think. As for considering a demotion on order to buy more employment time, I'm known as somewhat of an "independent thinker" (aka has a problem with authority figures) which doesn't make this option very amenable in the long-run. I appreciated your insights, Dennis. To Ida Kamphuis: Unfortunately, your note was one of those which I inadvertently zapped in wading through the 75 or so daily postings. However, I spotted Jeremy's reply to your correspondence repudiating his "management perspective" and the admonishment of "not playing on (my) invalidity". I think at this point, Jeremy has been fully censured for briefly (and I believe innocently) "jumping to the other side" (as a MW/OP, "manager without Parkinsons"). Beyond this, Jeremy's views probably are an accurate portrayal of the workplace in the 90's and beyond -- where the disabled (or challenged) employee must meet the objective, "bottom line" corporate mentality with an equally pragmatic assessment of his/her performance and legal rights. Thanks for joining in the discussion.