Washroom, disabled
Hmm, I seem to be developing an obsession with the CBC washrooms.
Our stalls remain blissfully free of ads, and I'm still unable to locate the mythical Queen's Own Loo. But now there are more washrooms I'm not supposed to visit.
A couple of days ago, new signs appeared on the doors of some of the handicapped washrooms in the Toronto CBC building:
This room is reserved for the use of staff and visitors with physical disabilities.
"Huh?" I thought to myself, "ONLY people with disabilities?" Not that I have strong feelings about the matter, but I've never heard of these washrooms being off-limits to the able bodied. And what prompted the signage? Were there complaints from people with disabilities who had to wait while the able-bodied used their johns? Is it poor form to use them at all? Or does our property manager just want to cut back on cleaning? I resolved to find out.
The disabled washroom on our floor is a single, unisex room with a separate entrance, located right between the regular men's and women's washrooms (the men's has two stalls and a urinal; I can't vouch for the women's, though I'm betting it has fewer urinals.)
To my knowledge (and, as a CBC Fire Warden, I'm supposed to know) there are no employees with physical disabilities on our floor, and I've certainly never seen anyone waiting to use the special washroom. It's generally only used in the following circumstances:
- When the regular ones are full (and since it's located across from a boardroom used for meetings that last months at a sitting, this happens a fair bit.)
- When someone wants privacy. (I use it to change into my baseball gear. Once, I had an office and could change in comfort - and, less icky, on carpet - but after moving to a cubicle I found my colleagues just stared.)
- Since they ripped out our local "coffee station", it's the only place with a sink that you can use to fill the kettle. (Do you wanna make tea at the CBC?)
Even this minimal use has caused two rather amusing signage incidents in the past.
Once, a wiseass employee taped up a poll beside the toilet in there. The question: "Why have you chosen to use this disabled washroom?" The options went something like this:
- I'm disabled
- I like the extra space
- I make embarrasing sounds or smells
- I need somewhere to sleep/read/smoke dope
etc.
Another sign came courtesy of the poor slobs who had to work in the office across the hall from this washroom. Unlike the regular washrooms, the disabled ones have a single door instead of a double door - and apparently this makes them decidedly not soundproof.
The folks who had to work across from this washroom would be on the phone making business calls, and have to tune out the sorts of sounds that come from people who think they are eliminating in private. A paper sign was tacked up on the door requesting that users either use the main washrooms where possible, or be cognizant that the walls have ears.
That office has since been moved (they get cubicles too - are you sensing a trend? - which is no quieter) but handicapped washroom avoidance is now, it would seem, official policy.
Not that I have a problem with the change; I've never been clear on the etiquette of able-bodied people using them anyways.
Are these washrooms a dedicated resource for the disabled - like a parking spot - making their use by the able-bodied immoral or illegal? Or are they like wheelchair ramps - allowing accessibility to everyone?
Hell if I know. So I started poking around the internet.
One conversation took place on Everything2, under the title "Don't use the handicapped stall":
Unless, of course, you happen to be a handicapped person in which case you are one of a select few that should use it. Almost every time I go into the washroom at work the handicapped stall is occupied. Whenever I see somebody come out of it, he is an able-bodied, non-handicapped coworker. There's something very wrong here.
The handicapped stall ought to be thought of the same way that the handicapped parking space is. Actually, I take that back. The handicapped stall is more rare than the handicapped parking space. If I see one handicapped space, I see at least two next to it. If I see a handicapped washroom stall, I see only one, and it's tucked away in the corner of the washroom.
That view is rebutted later in the discussion:
Restroom stalls are not intended for the exclusive use by handicapped persons -- one is supposed to immediately make them available to a handicapped person when possible, but otherwise, they are to be treated as any other toilet stall.
Why the difference? Because parking spaces and toilet stalls are fundamentally different facilities.
Toilet stalls are intended to provide privacy for attending to bodily functions such as elimination, changing sanitary napkins, etc. Sometimes people use stalls to change clothes. Some use them to quietly weep. In general, though, one can attend to business in a public restroom stall in less than two minutes.
Two very different points of view, but at least the discussion is civil. Not so, if you look to the debate in the blogosphere:
Woah, woah! HOLD ON DUDE. You mean only handicapped people can use handicapped toilets?
How come people have this notion that only the disabled can use facilities for the disabled? .... WTF is this? ....Sure, if I SEE that you are physically disabled, and you need to use the handicapped toilet, then yes, obviously I will let you use it and go use a normal toilet.
As far as I am concerned, you have a physical disability - and that is where you have a disadvantage. Your bladder is working fine isn’t it? So you wait, just like normal people do, when there is a queue for the toilet. The rest of us queue up to use a toilet - I don’t see why the disabled should be any different.
And the even less civil response:
BITCH, you should never ever used a handicap toilet in the first place if you’re an able person.
Get this, it’s for them. The space= it’s for the size of the wheelchair. The slope, it’s for the wheelchair too. You can walk down a slope, but they can’t slide down a flight of stairs, dumbass.
Working bladders? What makes you think they really have ones? What makes you think that it’s right for a handicap with incontinence to pee on herself/himself just because a dumbass like you was too lazy to wait at the other 6 cubicles.
You’re stupid, malicious and insensitive.
On the other hand, stupidity is a handicap. Perhaps that qualifies you for the handicap toilet.
Ouch.
Seeking sanity, I posed the question to Joe Clark, who - though seemingly able-bodied - knows more about accessibility than anyone I know (though he does tend to focus on accessibilty in media). Joe's response to the sign:
"How do you know I'm not disabled?"
When I asked him about the propriety of admittedly able-bodied people using the disabled washrooms, here's what he replied:
I do all the time. Tons more space.
Finally, I e-mailed SNC Lavalin Profac, the company that maintains our building, to ask for the official explanation. Today, they wrote back with the following:
We were receiving a lot of complaints from physically disabled people about inappropriate use of these facilities.
There goes my conspiracy theory about saving on Tilex. I showed the reply to Joe, and here's his take:
The only *valid* complaint is "There's only one washroom on the floor and somebody was in it when I needed it." Then the complainant would have to prove they stuck around to see who was using it and knew for a fact that person wasn't disabled.
I really wish there were a physically disabled colleague nearby that I could ask for an opinion. But there isn't... which is what makes the sign seem so strange.
Anyone out there have any thoughts on the matter?
Twitter Feed
Paul's Latest Photos
|
Calendar
Archive
Categories
Recent Comments
- Tweets that mention More worn-out elbows « gor[b] -- Topsy.com on More worn-out elbows
- Julian on Leslieville signs, via my kids
- alison on Leslieville signs, via my kids
- keabetswe on Is “chairman” sexist?
- Julian on Stuck on CBC
Blogroll
CBC meta
CBC types
- Dan Misener
- Joe Mahoney
- John Bowman
- John Gushue
- Karmic Angel
- Matt Watts
- Nora Young/Cathi Bond
- Rick Mercer
- Robin Rowland
- Tod Maffin
March 23rd, 2007 - 11:56
Here is the skinny on that washroom. Just before I left CBC, there was a big upset about the comings and goings in that disabled stall. At the time there was an office housing three non-new media types that was directly across the hall. (I have no idea if that space is still there or what has become of those people.) The story goes that one of the dudes in that office hated the fact that people used that washroom all the time because of A) the smell and B) the loud noise that the door made when it slammed shut. – PG: unverifiable details removed – As I said, I left shortly after that and I’m not sure if it ever got resolved.
March 23rd, 2007 - 12:29
Thanks, Jayne. I know about the problems between the washroom and the people who worked across from it, though I didn’t notice it getting that heated. That office has moved – ironically, now there’s a meeting room there, but at least they can shut its door.
Here’s the thing, though – when I saw the sign, I ran up a floor to check on the disabled washroom there… same sign! I haven’t checked the whole building, but I suspect this is now policy throughout the TBC.
Which just seems odd.
March 23rd, 2007 - 12:32
Wasn’t use of “disabled” washrooms a plotline in an episode of The Newsroom? (Hmm, the CBC’s page seems to be gone, despite being a featured link in the search results.) I seem to remember Ken (er, George) making up a bladder problem, basically for reason #2 in the poll above.
March 23rd, 2007 - 13:50
Hello. You quoted one of my very old blog posts. For the record, I was quoting from *another* far more popular blog
IMHO, there is no need to have an accessible toilet if, like you mentioned, there’s no one in your building with physical disabilities. Unless of course your building management is trying to impress some visiting NGOs or something…
If it’s in a public place, then I wholeheartedly support that accessible toilets be used ONLY by those with physical disabilities. For example in my country (Malaysia), most shopping complexes have a reasonable number of toilet stalls for its patrons who are free to move, jump and roll about. Whereas the number of accessible toilet is most of the time, only one.
I didn’t think it was an issue until my friend Peter educated me on it. He has been in a wheelchair most of his life, and in his experience, the ‘normal’ peps who use accessible toilets do not know how to keep it clean. Plus for many people with disabilities, when you gotta go, you *really* gotta go for fear of damaging your kidneys etc; unlike a lot of us who could hold it for another minute or so.
Some people say this strict accessible toilet thing is discrimination. I just tell them, if you can’t be civic-minded and use only the toilets assigned to you based on your physical capabilities, then you don’t deserve to go out.
March 23rd, 2007 - 15:26
Thanks, Suanie – that was fast!
You have a interesting points about public locations, cleanliness and how disabled people may not be able to wait. Much appreciated.
I did a little more scouting around the building (on my coffee break, so cut me some slack!) and found that of the eight locations I checked, signs had been posted on three of the doors.
My only guess is that – unless they are putting the signs up at random, and are not finished – they put signs on the washrooms with people working across from them.
What that means is that this policy has nothing to do with disabled people – it has to do with poor building design. The washrooms are noisy, so they don’t want people using them unnecessarily.
The noisiness of them is well known, and – get this – could be read as a human rights problem itself: quiet washrooms for the able-bodied, while people in wheelchairs get to have everyone listen to them taking a dump.
If this is what they mean by “inappropriate” use, I think I have another post coming…
March 23rd, 2007 - 16:14
According to the principle of universal design, devices are supposed to be usable by everyone. Here’s a question for CBC functionaries: In men’s rooms with one urinal and one wheelchair-accessible toilet, are nondisabled people never expected to take a dump? Just asking.
March 23rd, 2007 - 22:31
My memory is a little hazy, but I think there were two episodes of The Newsroom that dealt with this.
The first one was the one the commenter above mentioned, where George accidentally breaks a handicapped person’s arm from opening the door too quickly while the guy is waiting outside the washroom… George then has to not only take the guy on as a member of the news team to avoid a lawsuit, but also has to explain why he was in the washroom in the first place (bladder problem).
The second one was a b-plot in the third season where someone had posted a sign (eerily similar to the new signs) but it was hand written, so George gets offended because it’s not “official” and he thinks it’s being done out of spite.
I think both ideas came from the “discussion” that in theory, they are lush, spacious bathrooms that provide a certain amount of privacy, and Ken’s argument that there weren’t that many (visible) handicapped people in the building.
I’ll admit that I’ve used the handicapped washrooms a few times (hey, sometimes you want some privacy when you’ve been in that building for 15 hours) but I stopped doing it after I realized that they weren’t as private as you’d hope because of the poor design: there’s no fan.
And I got over my “pooping in front of people” phobia after being around the same group of people for 15 hours a day for several months.
All that being said, TBC is not one of my favorite places to take a crap… I have flashbacks to highschool… Except instead of no toilet paper, there’s that flimsy tissue that has the consistency of carbon paper.
March 24th, 2007 - 05:52
A bunch of us new media types used to use the washroom on the 10th floor over by the Artists Lounge. We used to say, “I have a meeting on the 10th floor.” Crass? Yes! But that was the fun of working there. Also B4 had some great washrooms that were never used – at least by women. Good for privacy.
March 24th, 2007 - 15:22
Just another voice here. The inclusion of comments from the disabled relating the fact that ‘normally abled’ folks ‘can’t keep them clean’ is utterly specious. I’m pretty confident that there are slobs on both sides of the fence and that this theoretical criteria is only hauled out to try to bolster the rather tenuous arguments used otherwise. It seems rather foolish to try to restrict washroom facilities to only those with disabilities claiming that some of them gotta go when they gotta go. The last time I checked none of the people taking diaretic pills are necessarily labelled as ‘disabled’ but they sure as heck should get consideration in these circumstances as well. So does the entire working population need to report to management in order to prioritize their potty precedence?
The whole problem smacks far more of lousy building design and implementation and the simple fact that many people get even more whacked out about the privacy of bodily functions than many other equally mundane realities. Clamping down on use of a facility like this and indeed restricting it to a potential population of reasonably tiny maginitude is a waste of space and facility.
In my mind ‘disabled washrooms’ has always indicated to me that these facilities have been designed to accomodate people with specific space and/or physical needs and should be yeiled to the disabled in circumstances where courtesy can be extended. Other responses are ridiculous overkill.
March 25th, 2007 - 20:44
Things are indeed different on the other side of the fence — continent even
http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/nst/Monday/National/20070326082149/Article/local1_html
Unfortunately it is a massive problem for my neck of the woods, and I wrote that as a reason based on my current environment. Perhaps things are different where you are, that’s a good thing.
March 25th, 2007 - 21:35
Joe: Very good point.
Matt: Thanks for the Newsroom info – hard to tell whether it’s art or life imitating the other. You’re right, though – those washrooms are poorly-designed. Because there’s no fan, they actually have vents at the bottom of the door – not exactly sound or smell proof.
Jayne: Perhaps we should draw up a map of the TBC’s best bathrooms…
Grondzilla: I think you are right when it comes to well-equipped buildings like the TBC, and probably a good chunk of North America, but perhaps not so much for public locations or other countries, as Suanie mentions. And yes, in the CBC case it’s entire about lousy design, and probably has nothing to do with people with disabilities (at least on our floor.)
Suanie: Thanks for adding that perspective from another continent (as opposed to another incontinent!)
March 25th, 2007 - 21:59
I always use the disabled washroom when a) the regular one has pee all over the seats b) smells too much or c) I need a little privacy to do my business.
The worst part is always the walk of shame out of there, because everyone in the hall turns and looks.
Where can we go for a private poo now? First I used the showers on 6 (well, not the showers but the toilet in the shower room) and then they put up signs saying not to, now this.
March 26th, 2007 - 20:58
Here’s another angle, though it doesn’t really apply to the disabled washrooms at CBC. (You left out the best part of the “poll” in that 2nd floor washroom, by the way: the scribbled-in option that read: “I heard there was a poll and I wanted to take part.”)
When I’m out with my baby, and I need to use a public washroom, I use the disabled stall because I can roll the whole stroller in with me. No way am I leaving my baby out where I can’t watch her, and I doubt anyone would have an issue with that. Family washrooms, which seem to be increasingly common, are an even better solution.
On a related note, I recently had occasion to spend many hours with my daughter at Pearson airport. It has family washrooms, and several times I had to wait for one to become free when either I needed to use it or her diaper needed changing. There was a 50-50 chance that when the door finally opened, it was a solo adult with no child in sight. Now, as I’m a grown-up who can hold it, and my baby is in diapers, it’s not really a big deal to wait. But what if you have a toddler who’s toilet training and needs to go NOW? That solo adult would get more than a dirty look from me in that case.
March 26th, 2007 - 21:24
Hi! Well I found some links that could maybe be up for discussion
The post where Paul quoted me was related to this issue:
http://www.petertan.com/blog/2005/10/30/all-flushed-over-toilet-blog/
A pregnant woman and a wheelchair bound guy:
http://www.petertan.com/blog/2005/09/20/two-sides-of-human-nature/
Companies who did not take assessible toilets seriously led to the following situation:
http://www.petertan.com/blog/2005/08/29/trapped-in-the-toilet-again/
March 26th, 2007 - 22:29
Interesting angle, Elizabeth – one mentioned in the second of Suanie’s links, above (thanks, Suanie – these are very useful.) Again, I wish I could find some official position on the subject from a disabled group in Canada. I do think there’s a difference between crowded and dirty public spaces and clean, little-used private buildings, but who knows?
Both your points raise the question of all the other possibly valid uses for disabled washrooms – children, illness, changing your clothes, whatever.
I attended a web accessibility workshop a while ago, and the instructor pointed to numerous developments that were aimed to include people with disabilities that ended up spilling over to the general public. For example, the buttons that open doors, or door handles that are easier to use than door knobs. They were designed for a certain segment of the public, but they have wider utility – e.g. whenever you are carrying a couple of coffees, or whatever. There are lots of examples of where the infrastructure isn’t solely for one group to use – the parking spots being more of the exception than the rule. But that may not be the case here – at least, the new signs would indicate it isn’t.
March 27th, 2007 - 22:03
Further to Elizabeth’s comments, there are many public washrooms where the baby change table is located inside the wheelchair accessible stall. I haven’t conducted a thorough study, but that’s been my experience with newer/recently renovated washrooms. I’m assuming this is because the architects feel it’s better to have mom, stroller, baby et al. out of the way in the accessible stall than blocking bathroom traffic by the sink(s) or door.
April 5th, 2007 - 23:39
Found some great links on the subject today:
A semi-official answer
Kids and the disabled stalls
April 13th, 2007 - 12:42
I can understand the frustration for abled-bodied individuals in seeing a sign that leaves them feeling targeted. Here is why the signs went up.
These washrooms are designed with a mobility-impaired person in mind. The sink is lower, there are handle bars for them to access the washroom and an alarm in case there is a problem.
As one person who is mobility-impaired stated this is a personal care attendant for them. The fact that there are no apparent people with disabilities on a particular floor is a very uneducated comment to make.
We have over 15 people in the building who qualify as mobility-impaired and as far as I know are not restricted to stay on the floor they work in so they are all over the building. We also have guests and people who work on a temporary basis coming in our building who also require the use of these washrooms.
The signs are a reminder that if you can use another facility you should consider that someone who requires it might need it at the time when you are infringing on their rights. CBC has designed these as per the building codes which include providing mobility-impaired employees and guests with accessible accomodations.
There are others who use this washroom and might not have obvious signs of disabilities, this is also intended for them. The doors are not locked and are accessible to all. We simply ask that people are a bit more considerate of the fact that the setup in these washrooms are for people who are mobility-impaired.
I am on the Toronto Health and Safety and proposed some of these changes and will gladly talk to anyone who has an issue with the signs and other initiatives that will occur to educate able-bodied individuals of the rights of our mobility-impaired workforce here at the CBC.
ps: I have worked here 5 years and never use them. I change in a regular stall, wash my containers in the kitchenette and if I have flatulence and it offends anyone in the next stall oh well.
April 13th, 2007 - 22:51
Thanks, Gail, for taking the time to weigh in and provide some information on how the decision was reached. It’s very much appreciated!
As I said a couple of times, I don’t have strong feelings one way or the other about this move. I haven’t set foot in the disabled washrooms since the signs went up.
But there are a few things around the way it was carried out which I think are interesting.
- The signs don’t say be “a bit more considerate” – they say don’t use them. It remains the ONLY instance I’ve ever seen of such washrooms being posted as off limits to anyone. (But if there are other examples of such a rule or signage, I’d be interested to hear about them.) It certainly generated a lot of interest
- The signage was not applied consistently throughout the building – less than half of the washrooms I checked had the signs. Is the plan to put them on all doors?
- I’d be keen on hearing more about the other initiatives to educate able-bodied individuals. Were other methods – an all staff e-mail, or temporary signs – considered? Judging by the discussion here, it seems nobody is very clear on appropriate etiquette, at CBC or anywhere else in the world. I’m not sure the signs cleared that up.
- The answer from Profac was that the move was a result of “inappropriate behaviour”, and anecdotal evidence suggests that there were complaints about these washrooms based not on able-bodied people using them while the disabled had to wait, but complaints about noise and smell. Is this untrue?
Anyhow, I don’t mean to put anyone on the spot, I’m just delighted to see some real information put forward rather than speculation. The fact that there is so much speculation, and so few answers (why is everyone turning to my blog to find out?!?) indicates there’s still some communicating to do.
p.s. In my area, there is no kitchenette. It was removed to make way for more cubicles. Should I avoid ducking in to fill the kettle in the deeper sink?
April 15th, 2007 - 12:08
Hi Paul,
you pose some fair questions, I made a proposal to the Health & Safety Committee in Toronto at the request of the Director of Equity and Human Rights for CMG who sits on the Branch with me. I am the CBC Branch Secretary. The reason I put this proposal forward was so that this issue would be resolved for our mobility-impaired co-workers. My proposal included an education campaign, signage which was already in the works and a commitment from PROFAC to keep these washrooms clean. All of these have been approved and we will be sending out communication about these changes. In the meantime I would appreciate people passing on the message that this is not abled-bodied vs mobility-impaired. The doors are not locked and are not monitored. It is simply requested that those of us who have a choice should choose to use regular stalls out of consideration and the knowledge that these washrooms are “personal care attendants” to those who require them. This is not a personal attack on anyone and has left many people having to fight for a right that is theirs. Kindness goes a long way and that’s what this is all about, thinking of others and no one is at fault here. Let’s turn it around and make this work for everyone. If you require the mobility-impaired washroom for any medical or psychological issue you will not be stopped from using it. We don’t have any intention of policing the use of it. However if you need to change your clothes, wash your dishes or are able to use the other stalls it would be greatly appreciated.
April 19th, 2007 - 11:02
Hi Paul,
I’m one of the disabled employees at the CBC who asked building services to do something about the use and abuse of the accessible washrooms.
I hope at the end of this, you realize this is a serious issue and not one of “convenience.”
I, like many disabled people, need an attendant to assist me with my personal care. A good two out of five days at work, she and I wait to use the accessible washroom because someone’s decided to read a newspaper or brush their teeth or wash out their lunch bowl. As a result, my time and hers (which is paid for) is wasted. It already takes me a lot longer to go to the bathroom than an able-bodied woman, and so time spent either waiting or running around finding a free bathroom is just additional time out of an already busy day.
There are only two washrooms for people with disabilities per floor. More often than not, they are occupied by able-bodied people, particularly in high traffic areas where production takes place. I’ve never understood why able-bodied people feel as though they have a “right” to use the accessible washrooms. After all, the world is built around walkies and your needs. Able-bodied people have more options in just about everything, including where they go to the bathroom.
The bathrooms are not a convenience to people with disabilities nor should they be considered special treatment. They’re larger to accommodate a wheelchair and another person should a disabled individual need assistance.
I’m glad the signs are up. If people need to change, we have dressing rooms on the sixth floor. If you need a place to cry, there are plenty of empty boardrooms. If you need a place to read the paper, there’s the library.
As for parents with small children, they should use the accessible washroom. I support that wholeheartedly. But given that our workplace is full of adults, I doubt the sign is going to be a huge issue for young families.
I also understand that a note will be out soon, explaining where building management is coming from. I hope this clarifies things.
April 19th, 2007 - 12:00
Hi Ing,
I can’t thank you enough for taking the time to post your comments here – it’s extremely helpful to get both your perspective and the background information, and I really appreciate it. It’s what I had hoped would come from the discussion in the first place.
You raise a lot of issues I hadn’t thought about, and hadn’t witnessed (you work in a much busier section of the building than I do.) Though I’ve never seen anyone waiting for the washroom near my area, I can certainly understand the frustrations you’ve have to face. That should never happen.
I suppose my only comment from all of this is that for issues like this in the future, it might be helpful to start the communication process before the signage goes up.
When signs appear, seemingly at random (I note that now there are signs on all washrooms for people with disabilities – for the first few days they appeared in some places and not others), featuring something that sounds like a new and unexplained rule, people naturally start speculating until it is explained.
It’s obvious, from reading the comments here, that in most parts of the world able-bodied people are unclear on appropriate behaviour around these facilities. Hopefully our experience and this discussion will shed a little light on it.
Thanks again.
April 23rd, 2007 - 11:06
Ah ha, now the communiqué has come out, signed by the head honchos of CBC Radio, TV, and the CMG and APS unions.
Interestingly enough, it’s EXACTLY one month after I noticed the signs went up:
Fair enough – people with disabilities should never have to put up with such behaviour.
But I still wonder why this message didn’t come out first, including, “…in the coming weeks, signs will be posted…” – as tends to be normal practice around here.
Or even asking people to smarten up, and then see if signage and an official policy is still necessary.
Regardless, clarity at last.
August 16th, 2008 - 12:56
I’m slightly torn on this issue…as I also face the dilemma of regulating ADA Compliant Portable Toilets use by AB’s during outdoor concerts, events and fund raising venues. I have gone so far as to actually put signs up like those above…Absolutely raising a huge disgruntled stirring amongst the able bodied folks.
But heh, I must stand by and uphold the rights of disabled folks to have sanitation accommodations that are sufficient in capacity.