This is a really odd take and I am confused by the points you are trying to make.
>Of course, this sucks for the disabled
You question the obvious benefits -- the fact that business can't just fire/not hire you for say, a work related injury, or getting injured elsewhere, or being disabled in general, and then you provide absolutely 0 recourse except "Sucks for you bro."
>a disability will impact your ability perform general tasks (and require additional accommodation).
The entire point is _REASONABLE_ accommodation. With reasonable accommodation, most people who suffer from disabilities can do their jobs just fine. Your glasses are _reasonable accommodation_ against you not having 20/20 vision, so is a hearing aid.
Does me having a ?/10 vision corrected to 20/20 (just an example) with glasses affect my performance as far as me being a (software engineer, accountant, construction worker, truck driver, scientist, biologist, doctor, pharmacist, teacher etc.) goes? What about an accountant who uses hearing aid to listen? What about a wheelchair bound software engineer who doesn't really have to move to do their job?
Unless your alternative is just that disabled people should be out on the street starving, worker protections in general are a good thing.
> Your glasses are _reasonable accommodation_ against you not having 20/20 vision, so is a hearing aid.
People may be surprised that even civilian and military pilots wear glasses, although they must meet certain criteria (must not be long-sighted or colour blind).
There is a slight difference between glasses and hiring someone actually disabled - blind, deaf, can't do physical labor, autistic, etc.
Yes, you can try to assert fuzzy boundaries, but that doesn't mean that the thing we're pointing to doesn't exist. There are actually plenty of people that cannot do plenty of jobs.
Nobody minds hiring a software dev with a wheelchair or a person wearing glasses. This is not objectionable. Your proposed way to view this dilemma has to also be able to address the more problematic cases - what happens with an Amazon worker who can't stand up for longer periods of time? Or a blind person applying to be a QA?
>There is a slight difference between glasses and hiring someone actually disabled - blind, deaf, can't do physical labor, autistic, etc.
Except you can be legally blind, have glasses, and still have nearly perfect vision. You can be legally deaf, but listen fairly well with correctives etc. all of these are reasonable accommodations too.
>what happens with an Amazon worker who can't stand up for longer periods of time?
There's 0(generally -in most cases) justification for workers not being able to sit on their stations in amazon warehouses except for "we don't want you to," so nothing happens.
>a blind person applying to be a QA?
Believe it or not, blind QA people who work in accessibility exist.
>Of course, this sucks for the disabled
You question the obvious benefits -- the fact that business can't just fire/not hire you for say, a work related injury, or getting injured elsewhere, or being disabled in general, and then you provide absolutely 0 recourse except "Sucks for you bro."
>a disability will impact your ability perform general tasks (and require additional accommodation).
The entire point is _REASONABLE_ accommodation. With reasonable accommodation, most people who suffer from disabilities can do their jobs just fine. Your glasses are _reasonable accommodation_ against you not having 20/20 vision, so is a hearing aid.
Does me having a ?/10 vision corrected to 20/20 (just an example) with glasses affect my performance as far as me being a (software engineer, accountant, construction worker, truck driver, scientist, biologist, doctor, pharmacist, teacher etc.) goes? What about an accountant who uses hearing aid to listen? What about a wheelchair bound software engineer who doesn't really have to move to do their job?
Unless your alternative is just that disabled people should be out on the street starving, worker protections in general are a good thing.