Possible Changes coming to the Guest Assistance Cards (GAC)

[RSoxNo1]

I hope this was simply poor writing on your part.

"...allowing certain GAC users alternative entrance (using the Fastpass queue) is a reasonable accommodation and not something that falls under abuse"

The abuse is never on the side of Disney providing the accommodation or legit users using the accommodation. The abuse is on the side of the illegitimate customers taking advantage of the accommodations Disney is offering or excess use of the accommodation to the point where the legit user really stands above everyone else.

I agree with this.

The problem with the accomodations themselves - is they are simply lazy and excessive vs what they need to be for most cases. That is the excess sweetness that is attracting the abuse.

I don't think lazy is the right word either. The benefit may be greater than what's needed, and I don't doubt that this benefit is what's attraction people to abusing the card. But my argument is that changing these benefits doesn't solve this. While the benefits may be lessened, the morality of the people abusing it will remain contstant. The best way to solve this is changing the distribution, that will have a much greater effect than changing the benefits.

 

[flynnibus]

I don't think lazy is the right word either

It is lazy. It's lazy on the part of Disney. They err to the side of 'least resistance and least risk' - at the expense of all of their honest customers.

But my argument is that changing these benefits doesn't solve this

Sure it will. Put a sign out in front of your house saying 'Free dog sh@# - help yourself' and I doubt the pile will ever get any smaller.

Do you find your grocery story buried in ECV users? Do you find the handicapped spots filled constantly on an empty parking lot?

Do you find everyone in the theater is using the hearing assisted headsets?

The reason people abuse the GAC is because the perks are so sweet and have almost zero downside. That attraction isn't good for the handicap ramp? So what.. don't use your GAC. That attraction it's better to do single rider vs handicap? So what.. just don't use the GAC there. Use it where it best serves 'you'. There is absolutely zero downside to those who illegitimately get them except for the nasty looks you may get from people.

If the accomodation fit the need, and did not offer anything beyond, it would attract FAR less people. How many disabilities do you know that require true 'no wait' or minimal waits? But instead Disney is LAZY and just uses 'no wait' as an answer for everything from heat tolerance to bad hair. That laziness creates the undeniable sweet that attracts all the morally deficient abusers to take advantage of the situation.

While the benefits may be lessened, the morality of the people abusing it will remain contstant

Making sure you don't leave spilled soda on the floor won't reduce the # of ants in the world.. but it will keep the ants away from your floor.

It's not about reducing the # of morally challenged people in the world.. it's about keeping them from being attracted to what you are offering.

 

[luv]

Random thought...If GACs are so easy to get, then really everyone should go and get themselves one. (Besides the moral part, but let's leave that aside for a moment).

If so many people are abusing them, then it's not rational not to get one for your family too. I'm not condoning this, but I think the only reason this hasn't happened yet is because most people don't know about them.

Is it getting to a point that by trying to be a good and honest person, you will be punished at WDW?

MANY people already do go get them and use them for no reason other than not wanting to wait in line. They're practically the equivalent of Uni's FOTL thing...for free.

Last time I rode the Mermaid ride, I arrived about three minutes too early to use my FP. So I stood there for three minutes and watched five groups of people with GACs enter the line. Then I got into the line. An Asian family then jumped the rope from the regular line to the FP one, in front of me. When they were asked for a FP, they pretended they didn't understand English and the guy waved them through.

You reach a point where you're like, "It is unfair that being a halfway decent person just gets me screwed." The thought that I should get one crossed my mind.

I wouldn't do it (and believe me, I could make a case for needing one!) because its just wrong.

Those cards were intended to assist people who have serious handicaps that require assistance...not to make lines shorter.

 

[Violet]

I think the morality argument is interesting. According to most moral codes, it is wrong to lie. One could even argue that people who do abuse the GAC are stealing time and money from the honest people.

However, I think the real "wrong" lies on WDW's side. Ok, they are limited by the ADA laws and HIPAA, I get that.

But after that point, WDW is simply making a business calculation that it is cheaper to just let most of the GAC-holders go through, instead of offering truly fair and reasonable accommodations. That would cost them more $, both to provide accommodations and/or to staff the rides at higher levels. So instead, WDW chooses to steal from the honest customers, both their time and their money.

 

[Violet]

Again, this is something that if you don't see the abuse firsthand, it won't seem like a big deal to you. And Disney is riding on that - the people who don't know.

Yep. They are making a business calculation right there.

I would love to see what would happen one busy day at MK if everyone decided to go get a GAC because they can't stand in lines.

 

[Goofyernmost]

The problem is in the theme park the lure of the accommodations being offered are just too tempting for the people with less morals to resist lying for. Requiring proof would cut down the abuse - but this is more a localized problem.. not an 'everywhere' problem and hence why changing the laws probably aren't a good direction. But better qualifying what is reasonable accomodation in a theme park would help by defining what the minimums should be.

Perhaps not a grocery store because the requests they would get do not affect so many others. Simple things like buses and support animals. That's something that I am intimately familiar with. When first introduced we had so many problems it wasn't funny. It was a program that people abused instantly. ADA would never acknowledge that people other than those with a disability have rights too. They didn't care, their focus was on the person with the disability...that was their agenda. When people got on with an untrained dog for example, they presented a real problem and risk to the other passengers. The dogs were not trained to be attentive to the job. They were over protective and in many cases hostile. We pleaded with ADA to have a simple one time verification of the function and the training of an animal at our office. An ID pass issued by our office so that no questions would have to be asked when someone boarded. Show the pass...go to your seat. No questions, no quizzing of people with actual need would have been necessary. They reacted by going even further and stating that the person themselves could train the dog. No papers, just their word for it. A person with a real need would never train their own dog from scratch. They need to depend on the animal when the need arose. But when asking what the animal was trained to do, they would come up with so many variations that it became impossible to know what was happening. Everyone that had a pet that they wanted to bring on public transportation would just say it was a service animal, give us whatever reason they could come up with and it always went unchallenged.

Then it extended to cats, rodents, snakes and in one case a huge tropical (trained) beetle. There was no end to it. Still they refused to rethink the plan and make it so that someone with a real need was able to receive the service we offered without being continuously questioned and doubted. Personally, when I was a driver, I made the stand that since I have to concentrate on driving safely, a snake (usually a Boa) on board was not going to let me do that, so if the office said that I had to accept the snake on board, I told them OK, but send someone else to drive it because I'm not going too. They said that I would get fired and I said, not really because if I make the decision to not drive, I have basically told them what they could do with their job. Nothing would be worth endangering all those people and myself, just to keep a Washington bureaucrat happy.

In short there are a lot of problems that ADA created not just for the people providing services, but in a more emotional and direct way to those with real problems having to fight their way through a sea of immoral system workers. It's not more regulation that is needed it is defined regulation that is needed to prevent abuse.

 

[Violet]

As I have said ADA was put out there with the best of intentions. They just weren't all thought through and now they stubbornly refuse to admit that there were some mistakes and correct them. They have gone further than anyone else in making a person with a disability uncomfortable with their disabilities. ADA needs to fix their mistakes and soon.

I don't think it's the ADA necessarily, I think it's Disney's fault. Disney can ask you what you "need" but they can't ask you about your specific medical condition, even under the disability laws. I don't think the problem is with the laws, it's with Disney's own choices as to how to accommodate those with special needs. They are going it on the cheap, and the people who are getting hit with the cost are the honest people who end up waiting longer and in turn, getting less for their vacation dollars.

 

[Violet]

I hope this was simply poor writing on your part.

"...allowing certain GAC users alternative entrance (using the Fastpass queue) is a reasonable accommodation and not something that falls under abuse"

The abuse is never on the side of Disney providing the accommodation or legit users using the accommodation. The abuse is on the side of the illegitimate customers taking advantage of the accommodations Disney is offering or excess use of the accommodation to the point where the legit user really stands above everyone else.

The problem with the accomodations themselves - is they are simply lazy and excessive vs what they need to be for most cases. That is the excess sweetness that is attracting the abuse.

Exactly, and Disney knows exactly what they are doing. Just put all of the blame on the dishonest folks, instead of themselves.

 

[flynnibus]

Perhaps not a grocery store because the requests they would get do not affect so many others. Simple things like buses and support animals.

I don't disagree with your issues raised about service animals - but in the spirit of 'root cause' you need to focus on where the fault truly lies. In this case, the fault is in defining and regulating what a true service animal is - that is outside the scope of ADA.

The way to think about this in your example is.. you don't really care if the person truly needed a service animal or not - you just wanted the service animal to really be a legit service animal. Not just some random who wants to not leave their pet at home.

The ADA could be defined to say you must allow the service animal, and must not demand proof they need it.. and still keep you happy with the ADA act. And separately the definition of a service animal is regulated and scrutinized in it's own laws.

 

[Goofyernmost]

I don't disagree with your issues raised about service animals - but in the spirit of 'root cause' you need to focus on where the fault truly lies. In this case, the fault is in defining and regulating what a true service animal is - that is outside the scope of ADA.

The way to think about this in your example is.. you don't really care if the person truly needed a service animal or not - you just wanted the service animal to really be a legit service animal. Not just some random who wants to not leave their pet at home.

The ADA could be defined to say you must allow the service animal, and must not demand proof they need it.. and still keep you happy with the ADA act. And separately the definition of a service animal is regulated and scrutinized in it's own laws.

Unless I am reading you wrong, no, what I meant by that is that by not allowing places like Disney to define the problem and verify it, ADA becomes more of a dictatorial directive with no room for making sure that those that need the service are the ones that get it. They shouldn't have to explain their situation at every stop but they should have to make it clear both by words and documentation that there is a legitimate need. They don't currently do that...say what it is and everyone has to accept it is the current way. There is no way to control abuse under those circumstances.

 

[flynnibus]

Unless I am reading you wrong, no, what I meant by that is that by not allowing places like Disney to define the problem and verify it, ADA becomes more of a dictatorial directive with no room for making sure that those that need the service are the ones that get it. They shouldn't have to explain their situation at every stop but they should have to make it clear both by words and documentation that there is a legitimate need. They don't currently do that...say what it is and everyone has to accept it is the current way. There is no way to control abuse under those circumstances.

I think you are trying to say there should be a list of 'needs' and a specific list in how you should address it?

I hope you would understand that is generally an unsustainable way of thinking. You can't come up with every variation and write it into law. The opposite means leaving it to interpretation, but since we have a system for interpretation that shouldn't be an issue. The problem is the interpreters have gone off the deep end (the civil courts).

By requiring documentation - you put an unnecessary burden on those in need.. when in fact the entire spirit of the law was to REMOVE burdens and treating those impacted differently.

Should we require that someone asking for assistance with getting an item off a shelf provide medical documentation that yes, they truely need help lifting that item off the shelf? Or should we just offer assistance with getting the item? That's the intent of the law. Remove physical barriers (in construction and design) while requiring public places offer accommodations to those in need.

You don't need to require documentation when only those in NEED will be those asking for help. The problem is again.. when the 'help' offered is so attractive that people can rationalize lying and cheating everyone else just to get it.

 

[flynnibus]

I posted this in another thread... but it rings dead true here even more.

This video speaks to the idea of how even 'good' people cheat and lie in small ways because they can rationalize it to themselves. This video speaks directly to the mentality that leads to everyday people in society dropping their morals to the point of lying to reap the benefit of the GAC assistance offered by Disney.

I strongly encourage you to watch the video as it will help you grasp and categorize the behavior we see in play here..

 

[RSoxNo1]

It is lazy. It's lazy on the part of Disney. They err to the side of 'least resistance and least risk' - at the expense of all of their honest customers.



Sure it will. Put a sign out in front of your house saying 'Free dog sh@# - help yourself' and I doubt the pile will ever get any smaller.

Do you find your grocery story buried in ECV users? Do you find the handicapped spots filled constantly on an empty parking lot?

Do you find everyone in the theater is using the hearing assisted headsets?

The reason people abuse the GAC is because the perks are so sweet and have almost zero downside. That attraction isn't good for the handicap ramp? So what.. don't use your GAC. That attraction it's better to do single rider vs handicap? So what.. just don't use the GAC there. Use it where it best serves 'you'. There is absolutely zero downside to those who illegitimately get them except for the nasty looks you may get from people.

If the accomodation fit the need, and did not offer anything beyond, it would attract FAR less people. How many disabilities do you know that require true 'no wait' or minimal waits? But instead Disney is LAZY and just uses 'no wait' as an answer for everything from heat tolerance to bad hair. That laziness creates the undeniable sweet that attracts all the morally deficient abusers to take advantage of the situation.



Making sure you don't leave spilled soda on the floor won't reduce the # of ants in the world.. but it will keep the ants away from your floor.

It's not about reducing the # of morally challenged people in the world.. it's about keeping them from being attracted to what you are offering.

If Disney eliminates or at least decreases the GAC privileges legitimate users will react as follows:

• No change, but they'll be less satisfied (possibly spending less money)
• They'll visit less
• They won't visit at all
• They'll sue that Disney isn't making reasonable accommodations

Perhaps they add more stamp options, perhaps they make another change. But the issue is eliminating the abuse from the morally wrong, not making it so the morally right are penalized because of the morally wrong.

 

[flynnibus]

If Disney eliminates or at least decreases the GAC privileges legitimate users will react as follows:

• No change, but they'll be less satisfied (possibly spending less money)
• They'll visit less
• They won't visit at all
• They'll sue that Disney isn't making reasonable accommodations

Perhaps they add more stamp options, perhaps they make another change. But the issue is eliminating the abuse from the morally wrong, not making it so the morally right are penalized because of the morally wrong.

Go back through any of these threads on this or other sites.. and try to find where legit users have said 'you pry those perks away from my cold dead fingers'. You're assuming legit users are set on having the 'golden ticket' and nothing less. When in reality it's the opposite.. the legit users simply want what they need.

They don't visit Disney because they get the 'golden ticket' - they visit Disney because they like the product and Disney is very easy when it comes to accommodating to their needs.

 

[Violet]

If Disney eliminates or at least decreases the GAC privileges legitimate users will react as follows:

• No change, but they'll be less satisfied (possibly spending less money)
• They'll visit less
• They won't visit at all
• They'll sue that Disney isn't making reasonable accommodations

Perhaps they add more stamp options, perhaps they make another change. But the issue is eliminating the abuse from the morally wrong, not making it so the morally right are penalized because of the morally wrong.

I think we're still blaming the wrong people. Blaming the "morally wrong" is easy, and that's exactly who Disney wants everyone to blame. But it's Disney's fault, Disney is stealing from their honest customers by setting the bar too low, and as others have mentioned, making it too attractive. Instead of spending their own money to truly provide accommodations/proper staffing.

 

[natatomic]

I'm going to be honest (and I might get some flack from it, so I apologize if it sounds harsh) - it bothers me to NO end when someone says that they just don't "want" a wheelchair, as someone mentioned about their teenage daughter a few pages back, so they just get the GAC instead to "help" them*. First of all, your pride isn't a disability. If you are unable to stand for long periods of time, your reasonable accommodation is a wheelchair. (Obviously if you are alone or you are a 300lbs man with his 5 year old kid, you might need that extra bit of accommodation). If you don't want to pay for a wheelchair, you are not necessarily required to. All attractions have wheelchairs on hand for those who perhaps have just the wheelchair stamp GAC but cannot stand for the 30 minute wheelchair-accessible standby wait.
To me, choosing an alternate entrance fastpass over simply using a wheelchair when your only disability is ONLY the inability to stand or walk for long periods of time (there are of course other ailments one might have on top of that that might require the alternate entrance) is a selfish and deliberate choice because, heck, why choose something that 25% of the time lets your through the FP line versus something that gets you through FP 100% of the time?

*Two parks (which I will not specify) do not give out the wheelchair stamp alone, so not matter what ailment you have, if you get a GAC, it is automatically the Alt. entrance. It is and unfortunate inconsistency Disney has, because any mobility-only disability should be a wheelchair stamp and nothing more.

 

[Goofyernmost]

I think you are trying to say there should be a list of 'needs' and a specific list in how you should address it?

I hope you would understand that is generally an unsustainable way of thinking. You can't come up with every variation and write it into law. The opposite means leaving it to interpretation, but since we have a system for interpretation that shouldn't be an issue. The problem is the interpreters have gone off the deep end (the civil courts).

By requiring documentation - you put an unnecessary burden on those in need.. when in fact the entire spirit of the law was to REMOVE burdens and treating those impacted differently.

Should we require that someone asking for assistance with getting an item off a shelf provide medical documentation that yes, they truely need help lifting that item off the shelf? Or should we just offer assistance with getting the item? That's the intent of the law. Remove physical barriers (in construction and design) while requiring public places offer accommodations to those in need.

You don't need to require documentation when only those in NEED will be those asking for help. The problem is again.. when the 'help' offered is so attractive that people can rationalize lying and cheating everyone else just to get it.

I'm not going into detail again, but to say that, no that is not what I'm saying at all. What I am saying is that they need a way to verify a situation as it is claimed to be. Not make a diagnosis or find it on a list. Just that if someone comes up and says that they have to have a GAC card with special quick admittence to the ride because they cannot stand out in the sun without having problems, they should need to have documentation explaining that, not just OK, here's you card. Documentation would slow down abuse to a crawl. If a persons problem is legit, then they will have no problem getting the assistance they need. No cut down on available help only that they give it to those that need it not those the just want it and are willing to fabricate their situations to get it.

I am fully aware of the reasons for ADA and I am in favor of making sure that access is always available to those that can take advantage of it and need it. I, strongly feel that the abuse of the system hurts those that most need it more then the rest of us. They should not be able to just say, hey I got this problem, give me a GAC. That is exactly what causes the abuse. You don't place an unnecessary burden on those that need the service. It stopped being unnecessary when the morally dead of the world started to find a way to get the same assistance even though they didn't need it. That is the burden that many now carry. The system is set up to help those that need it and it works well for them, but then the system gets brought down by classless, self absorbed, immoral, uncaring and, what I consider to be, evil people that feel that they can take advantage of the misfortune of others. They rob the ones in need of resources that they need to make things work for them and then on top of all that they get the stigma of people looking at them as if they are also trying to play the system. Now that is a real burden.

In line with what you're saying, yes there should be some limit on what constitutes a need. If you have a problem that might be annoying, but not prohibitive, then you don't need one. The service is for those that otherwise would not be able to experience things without it, not for those that might think it would be cooler if we were able to do it that way, even though we don't really need too.

 

[flynnibus]

I'm not going into detail again, but to say that, no that is not what I'm saying at all. What I am saying is that they need a way to verify a situation as it is claimed to be. Not make a diagnosis or find it on a list. Just that if someone comes up and says that they have to have a GAC card with special quick admittence to the ride because they cannot stand out in the sun without having problems, they should need to have documentation explaining that, not just OK, here's you card. Documentation would slow down abuse to a crawl. If a persons problem is legit, then they will have no problem getting the assistance they need. No cut down on available help only that they give it to those that need it not those the just want it and are willing to fabricate their situations to get it.

So I'll point you back to my earlier example. The lady who needs help getting the item off the shelf. Do you really think it's valid to require having a doctor's note to say 'Suzie can not lift more than 10lbs'?

Or how about a blind guy that got on your bus - are you going to require a doctor's note before you require your employees accommodate the fact the guy may need help paying his fare?

You're taking an extreme case and trying to apply a solution that does not scale. Never mind your 'solution' is 100% against the law as written (not interpretation or design standards - straight up in the law) meaning it is impossible for any such solution to happen in Disney.. only if Washington were to rewrite the law.

They should not be able to just say, hey I got this problem, give me a GAC. That is exactly what causes the abuse

No it's not - and the MILLIONS of other places where the ADA is enforced and NOT abuse is NOT a problem highlights the fact that it's not simply a lack of documentation that causes the abuse.

You don't place an unnecessary burden on those that need the service. It stopped being unnecessary when the morally dead of the world started to find a way to get the same assistance even though they didn't need it. That is the burden that many now carry

and now you play the selfish card to say 'well we are burdened a lot more than YOU with the disability because people abuse it.. so you... the one with the disability.. you are now required to prove that disability anytime you want me to accept you have it'. That is a burden on the individual with disability by definition. You are making them prove their claim.. singling them out because of the actions of OTHERS. Your type of attitude is exactly why the law was created in the first place.

 

[Disneycoog]

Wow seems to me that all this thread is about a few people ed at others they think are misusing the GAC. After scrolling through the thread it's seems that the same people are commenting one after another and it makes it look like its a huge thread. I don't think there is as much abuse as being stated on here. There are always going to be people stretch the rules that's part of life. It's how you handle it that matters. I just can't wait to get back to do some pin trading!!!!

 

[cslafferty]

When I went in 2010 with my DD for her 21st birthday, she needed to use a wheelchair due to recent back surgery. I came with all kinds if paperwork from our Dr., assuming I would be required to show it in order to get a GAC. But to my surprise, no one asked to see anything. We were given free use of a wheelchair from our hotel (POP) for our entire stay, and they never asked to see anything, either.

Sorry if this has been said already, but a wheelchair doesn't automatically get you to the front of the line. If the que is wide enough to accommodate the chair, you "stand" in line with everyone else.