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?

  • In the US, interpreters for the deaf are generally provided by charitable groups at no cost to the employer. Feb 7 at 15:21
  • It occurred to me a while after passing that it could in the Uk well be provided by a government grant such as access to work (for the disabled). Feb 7 at 16:06
  • 1
    Why would a mute need a sign interpreter? Do you mean a deaf person ?
    – Neil Meyer
    Feb 7 at 19:34
  • Is the question about the law, or about common business practices?
    – user6726
    Feb 7 at 20:03
  • @NeilMeyer I’d think to communicate with others. If one cannot verbally speak, then signing to an interpreter who can speak to the other person would help Feb 8 at 15:15


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy