Is "Option" The New Term For "Accommodation"

Here are a couple of quotes from the report of the Occupational Information Development Advisory Panel (OIDAP):

There are some sedentary jobs where a sit-stand option is available. This identification borders on accommodation. (Physical Demands Subcommittee, page 30 of the PDF of the entire OIDAP Report.)

But a different emphasis later in the report.

We differentiate between accommodations and work options. Accommodations involve retooling of work space or interventions that an employer may provide for an individual worker for any reason, but most typically the accommodation is made to enable an individual with a physical or mental-cognitive impairment to perform a work activity(ies). We agree that the OIS should not include accommodation information as SSA cannot use this data for disability adjudication. However, we think that it would be helpful for SSA if the OIS included data regarding options for performing work activities that are typically found among a number of occupations as they are generally performed throughout the nation. The sit-stand option is a prime example, as is the use of tools such as a nail gun instead of hammer, etc. ... (User Needs and Relations Subcommittee, page 374 of the PDF of the entire OIDAP report.)

As a backdrop, Social Security decided long ago that it could not consider "accommodations" under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in determining disability. Here, one Subcommittee considers a sit-stand option to be bordering on accommodation, but another Subcommittee thinks that a sit-stand option is just a "prime example" of an "option" that should be considered in determining disability.

The consideration of "options" could easily be a subterfuge to allow the consideration of accommodations or even worse, to allow consideration of the fact that some employers put up with terrible employee performance. If one looks at a wide range of employees, one is going to find that a certain percentage are allowed to:

1. Show up for work at whatever time they please on any given day.
2. Leave work whenever they want if they are feeling poorly.
3. Do poor quality work that the vast majority of employers would find unacceptable.
4. Display productivity that the vast majority of employers would find unacceptable.
5. Regularly behave rudely to co-workers and supervisors.
6. Receive massive assistance from co-workers in completing job tasks.
7. Be assisted in doing work by relatives or friends who are not even employees.

If all of this happens in the world of work -- and any comprehensive survey will show that this and a lot more does happen -- are these accommodations, poor employment practices or "options?" Where does one draw the line? Consideration of this sort of thing could make it almost impossible for anyone to be considered disabled, since Social Security could always say that someone, somewhere is working with all the limitations that a particular claimant may have.

Social Security is going to need a good deal of money to create this "Occupational Information System" (OIS). They may have trouble getting the money if a significant number of "stakeholders" (to use a term that Social Security is using more and more) find it threatening. I quality as a "stakeholder" and I find this threatening. I have talked with a few other stakeholders and they also find this threatening. Social Security ought to stay away from anything like this if it wants to avoid the sort of controversy that might derail this entire project. The new OIS should describe work as it typically exists and avoid trying to find "options" in jobs.