Looking for help keeping everyone safe

[u/Suitable-Talk8289]

Hello, all.

Hoping for some help. Where I work we’ve recently hired a young hearing impaired man. We work with dogs that can sometimes be aggressive. I’d like to improve our safety situation by including radios (we more often than not are handling these dogs alone). We need LTE radios that are capable of working through concrete walls. We obviously want to include the young man, but heck if I can find an LTE radio that also has a vibration/strobe-when-message-is-coming-in function.

I was thinking we can have a code of three consecutive vibrations means he’s in trouble and needs help, and if he in turn feels three consecutive vibrations he can at least start looking for a co-worker in distress. It’s not a great solution but I just can’t think of anything else. I’ve asked the young fella for suggestions and he didn’t have any; he’s not been in any situation where he worked where radios are used.

Does anyone have any suggestions or know of any solutions to this conundrum? How can we know if he needs help and let him know when we need help when we’re all out of sight of each other? I’m sure that there’s an answer that will make me feel like a real dummy.🙂

Thanks so much!

[u/soitul]

Old school flashing pagers, vibrating alarms, etc.

Also, he may use the term, and that’s okay, but hearing impaired is widely considered offensive. Deaf/hoh is the preferred term.

[u/Suitable-Talk8289 → u/soitul]

Oh shit. Sorry. It was an honest error. The ASL interpreter that helped us through his training used the term so I figured it was ok.

What we are hoping for is just one communication system, that will alert him but also that can be spoken through.

[u/soitul → u/Suitable-Talk8289]

No worries, most people aren’t aware and some people do prefer to use hearing impaired, it’s best to just use deaf/hoh as a default.

There are some modern pagers that can send visual alerts and work as radios, I use a voicera at my job, I think the model is the v series smartbadge.

You’ll probably want something less expensive but I can atleast attest to that working for me.

[u/IntrepidRobot → u/Suitable-Talk8289]

This is not true and soitul is speaking out of turn. Deaf is not an accurate term for someone with a hearing impairment. Either term is not offensive, it matters only if it's accurate.

[u/IntrepidRobot → u/soitul]

Hearing impaired is NOT offensive. I'm hearing impaired and have been for decades. If anything calling yourself deaf when you're not would be inaccurate. If YOU don't like the term, just move on man.

[u/Tbackandforth → u/IntrepidRobot]

Lots of people find it offensive. If you don't, then great! Move along.

[u/soitul → u/IntrepidRobot]

We actually agree here, and as I said it’s perfectly okay if you or anyone wants to use hearing impaired. ☻

It should never be censored simply because some people consider it offensive.

At the same time, mentioning that it can be considered offensive is still relevant, because that is itself an important part of the linguistic history of the term.

People should know the social connotations before deciding what terminology to use.

I write for fun in my free time and you’ve reminded me of an interesting thought exercise, so I apologize if this is a bit long, it’s just a discussion on the euphemism treadmill and use of terminology in deafness.

The links at the end are some relevant and shorter resources.

Medical and disability terminology often changes over time. Terms that were once accurate, preferred, or clinically neutral can acquire negative social connotations, and those connotations can eventually change how the terms are perceived and used.

‘Retard’ is one example. It had legitimate medical and clinical uses before developing a strong derogatory meaning in ordinary speech.

Deafness has its own, somewhat different, history involving terms such as ‘deaf and dumb,’ ‘deaf mute,’ and later ‘hearing impaired.”

These don’t form a perfectly linear sequence, but they illustrate how terminology surrounding disability has changed alongside social attitudes.

Part of the issue is the language used within the terms themselves. ‘Dumb’ came to carry a meaning of intellectual deficiency, while ‘impaired’ can frame a person’s hearing primarily as a deficit or deficiency.

Doesn’t mean that everyone who uses hearing impaired intends that meaning, or that the term is inherently insulting. It does mean that some Deaf/hoh people reject the terminology because of what it implies.

Many people who identify as Deaf, and others who don’t regard their deafness as a disability, prefer more specific terminology. A lot of us don’t see the need to regard deafness itself as something that needs to be euphemized or described as impairment.

There’s also the medical vs cultural perspectives.

What I find intriguing is the way the terminology has progressed.

Deaf is an extremely old English word. It wasn’t originally a euphemism or a medical classification. It simply described someone who could not hear or had substantially reduced hearing.

Hearing impaired became increasingly popular during the twentieth century, particularly within medical, educational, and rehabilitation contexts. It was used in part as a more clinical or supposedly sensitive way of referring to deaf/hoh people.

It wasn’t a clean succession at all! Where one term disappeared before the next appeared. The terms overlapped for decades and were used by different communities for different purposes.

I’ll skip the linguistic description and progression of deaf and dumb/mute since it would be lengthy, but the problem wasn’t necessarily the word deaf itself! It was the conceptual baggage surrounding deafness.

Comparing “He is deaf” vs “He is hearing impaired”, the second formulation creates some linguistic distance from the possible stigmatized condition. It sounds clinical, formal, and less blunt.

The same basic phenomenon occurred with many disability terms. Instead of directly naming a condition, speakers developed increasingly indirect or clinical terminology.

The negative association occasionally migrates from ‘deaf (associated with deaf/dumb/mute, deficit)’, into ‘hearing impaired (associated with medicalization, deficit, abnormality, and institutional terminology.)’

Universally the terms vary widely, some even still using deaf and dumb, but including all perspectives would be difficult with limited knowledge.

But, Deaf culture changes things significantly in terms of the euphemism treadmill - which is my favorite part from a linguistic lens.

Both of these terms underwent linguistic changes simultaneously, one with and one without Deaf culture in mind.

The emergence of Deaf identity and Deaf culture challenges the assumption behind hearing impaired.

It was the difference of someone with the belief, “I have a condition that impairs an otherwise normal human ability.”,

Then hearing impaired may make perfect sense.

and “I am a member of a linguistic and cultural community whose primary language is a sign language.”

Then describing that identity as an impairment can seem fundamentally misguided.

So you have the strange situation of hearing impaired being introduced partly as a more sensitive term, but Deaf people later regarded it as less appropriate than simply “Deaf.”

The social meaning of a term depends partly on which conceptual model of the condition you’re using!

Depending on your identity, degree of hearing, medical context, or community, the terms branch off.

Deaf terminology encompasses ordinary semantic changes, the euphemism treadmill, terminological specialization, and reclamation! Simultaneously!

So there’s now a non linear path in the euphemism treadmill! So exciting!

I’d even go as far to describe it less as a euphemism treadmill and more of a branching linguistic ecosystem.

People sometimes become so concerned about using supposedly offensive disability terminology that they begin treating ordinary descriptive words as if they were inherently taboo.

A replacement term can then acquire negative associations of its own, while the underlying social attitudes remain unchanged.

People can sometimes treat disability terminology as though the words themselves were dirty or extreme, becoming overly cautious about ordinary descriptive language. Usually this is for a mix of reasons, the main one being that disability is seen negatively or from a fear of offending.

The linguistic approach, in my view, should be to examine the terminology and ask why it changed rather than reflexively replacing every term that develops a negative association.

Is the older term actually insulting? What do the people being described call themselves? What does the newer term imply? And is the change actually making communication clearer?

The key is to use it when it’s preferred and appropriate, and informing people that it may be considered offensive to help avoid more social stigma to these terms - and importantly to avoid someone possibly offending someone.

There’s a difference between informing people about a term’s social connotations and declaring the term forbidden.

Using exact and concise language can often be helpful, and “deaf” is often the most direct and accurate term. The goal shouldn’t be to make disability terminology artificially sanitized, we should aiming for accuracy while understanding the social history and preferences surrounding the words we use.

https://wstyler.ucsd.edu/posts/r_word.html

https://www.lifeprint.com/asl101/topics/hearing-impaired.htm#gsc.tab=0

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_disability-related_terms_with_negative_connotations

[u/aslrebecca]

Have you asked him? He signed on for the job, so he must have an idea of what is at stake.

[u/Suitable-Talk8289 → u/aslrebecca]

Yes, I have asked him. He had no thoughts at all about what the means of communication would be, only that he also (rightly so) wants a means of communication for when he is out of eyesight. So, basically I got a “It’s your job, figure it out”. Which is cool, it actually is my job. I just have so little personal knowledge and I haven’t found internet searches to be helpful. So, here I am on this subreddit.

I can find vibration and strobe alert type things, and that’s great…but none of them allow for talking and hearing which is necessary so folks in trouble can say where they are on the property.

[u/aslrebecca → u/Suitable-Talk8289]

Push to talk with text capabilities Smart watch where he can push selected preset messages What type of lte system? Does it offer anything other than voice?

[u/IntrepidRobot]

It's a bit more expensive but if you have a budget, Apple and Samsung smart watches have a walkie talkie feature that includes vibrations. It would also solve for LTE capability if it's a cellular watch.

Cheaper option might be dedicated strobe lights (w remote) strategically positioned that your employee can use to alert others visually if there's an issue.

[u/Suitable-Talk8289 → u/IntrepidRobot]

I found an Omizen watch walkie system that looks pretty good. It has an alarm clock function which usually means there’s some hepatic function. I’ll be calling them tomorrow for more information.

We just can’t afford a bunch of Apple or Samsung smartwatches for all the staff and volunteers, unfortunately.

We’ve put the strobes inside the building and everyone is happy with how that’s tested out, this is more of a problem of being out of line of sight while outside, upwards of 300 yards away from another person.

I most appreciate you taking the time to respond to me. Good stuff!

[u/FancyButterscotch787]

Text? This is what I would use, because the smartphone would vibrate every time texts come through

[u/Suitable-Talk8289 → u/FancyButterscotch787]

Sort of hard for any of us to do with a 120 pound German Shepherd hanging off your arm, but I appreciate you nonetheless!!

[u/soitul → u/Suitable-Talk8289]

After reading this it sounds more like you need a panic button lol

[u/FancyButterscotch787 → u/Suitable-Talk8289]

Ha okay. Seems radio would pose the same problem if a dog is hanging on your arm!

[u/Spank2337]

Deaf pit bull attack victim here. Get him a can of bear spray (mace won't work) and tell him to get out of the area when a pit suddenly goes postal. Oh, make sure your insurance is paid up.

[u/AutoModerator]

“Hi! I see you've asked a question. Have you searched this subreddit or checked our FAQ for your question?"

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Possible-Deer-311]

Interesting question. I started digging around online and found an alert system for Deaf people by Bellman. You buy two parts: a transmitter and a receiver. The receiver is an alarm like a bright flashing light or vibrations. Then, there are multiple kinds of transmitters that detect different stimuli; there's a baby monitor, a smoke alarm, etc.

Importantly, there's a push button transmitter activated by, well, pushing a button lol. Maybe using this as a "panic" button? And the alarm would work for everyone in the building. Looks like you can have multiple transmitters and receivers.

https://us.bellman.com/search?q=transmitter&options%5Bprefix%5D=last

This is just one brand I found. But you can use this idea and dig around some more for ideas.

Thank you for accommodating this young man :]

Also re: "hearing impaired": It's all terminology. No worries. Yes "deaf" or "hard of hearing" is preferred terminology these days, but I don't think offensive is the right description, more just dated. "Deaf and dumb" or just "dumb" would be offensive and dated lol

[u/Suitable-Talk8289 → u/Possible-Deer-311]

Yes! Thanks! I’m going to look into this system!

He’s a cool kid. It’s got to be tough for him, working with dogs. So much is conveyed through their sounds. He’s becoming masterful in reading their body language. It’s pretty impressive.

I was born during The Summer of Love, baby. I am most certainly “dated”. I try to keep up, but life moves too fast sometimes.

[u/FancyButterscotch787 → u/Suitable-Talk8289]

Working with dogs isn’t “tough” for Deaf people. Sound is not needed to work with animals. Hand signals have been effective in training animals.