Timing the start of something is not a simple process. Punishing people for being late disproportionately impacts poor and disabled people. Not all of us can drive a car or even have a car to drive. We might have to wait on other people, or use public transportation, and the more steps we add to the process the more likely something is to go wrong. Punishing people for being late is systematic oppression towards these groups. This punishment can include starting without people, especially if that itself is framed as a punishment.
“Let the late ones be late and miss out (they can read the minutes), and reward the prompt ones by not wasting their time” From the rusty's rules of order, something the IWW uses to organize. They are ableist.
On the other hand, waiting too long to start can impact people with limited time or energy. Not everyone can stay awake an extra hour just to wait for something to start.
This means that there is not one singular solution for how to start things (although obviously don’t do punishment). In small groups the best solution is to talk things over with everyone and get an idea for what everyone wants to happen, what can go wrong, and plans to mitigate any potential issues. If public transportation is running late, maybe someone with a car can go pick you up.
For large groups, most things do not need a strict starting time. If it is a large group and it requires strict attendance then you brought hierarchy into it long ago and ableism and such was always the conclusion you were going to get anyways.
edit:
organizing in a way where disabled people are inherently accommodated instead of shoved into some “extra” system makes a big difference
to reply to those below, it is "entitled" to think that it isn’t ableist to force people into systems instead of building systems around the people there.
to put it simply, if a group is organized in a way where you must actively decide to favor one social group over another systematically and it is always the same group, you failed and are just doing hierarchy, in this case on the basis of ability. It doesn't matter if you can't imagine organizing without ableism, that is still ableism.
I got a discord linked in my bio for people who are a fan of that form of organizing, as you can see here it isn't common even in these spaces
Look, I'm an anarchist so I am completely on board with abolishing systems of hierarchy, but a flat group can collectively decide to do something at a certain time, and that's not intrinsically creating hierarchy.
I am more on board with the part about required attendance creating hierarchy, if "required" means "people are required to be there at a certain time, period", rather than "people are required to be there at a certain time, if they want to take part in the event", where the "required" part is not meaning that they are beholden to participate, but just a pre-requisite if they choose to participate.
Under your post's system, you are stuck with a contradiction. You say both that:
but also
And if the event itself is the benefit (and thus missing it, the punishment), then under your system you are being ableist no matter what you do.
If you find that your system has created a no-win outcome, it needs revision.
The universal design ideal, is that, an ideal. Hopefully we strike an appropriate balance between different people's needs. I think recognizing that some things are more challenging for some people than others is good. There should be reasonable responsibility to anticipate other's needs and advocacy for one's own needs.
I'll give you my own example as a person with a disability. Have I been late to meetings/appointment "because of my disability"? Sure. I do plan to have enough time to make it work but that doesn't always happens because of unforeseen issues that come up for me that would not for most others. Do I consider that the fault of the others involved? Of course not, let be practical.
On the other hand when possible, which has been 100% of the time since March 2020, I essentially demand virtual meetings now because my computer is the most accessible environment for me in the world and put me on far more even ground as others.
I agree with this 99%. I think the 1% where I disagree, is that the OP's ideal (as-stated) is missing the way to actually accommodate everyone even in an ideal situation.
IMO the answer to this is not punishing people who show up late, or who have to leave on-time or even early, with external consequences (e.g. to their job). Not moving the meeting/event itself cannot be held to make someone ableist, especially when, as they noted, it could also be ableist to move the event.
Absolutely agree. I like to make all of my meetings virtual, even in the rare case that everyone is in the same office, just so no one feels pressured to pile into a room together. Anyone who is pretending that plans cannot be made and communicated outside of a strict time, place, and medium, is being a huge asshole, and, if they don't care about how this affects people with different abilities, ableist. Email, slack, virtual meetings, group calls, message boards, documentation, etc, are all valid mediums for decision-making and information dispersal, and the more ways you involve, the more ways there are for people with different needs and communication preferences and capabilities, to be equitably involved.