The issue of the alarming unemployment rate amongst the disabled community remains.
A report by Statistics New Zealand ‘Disability and the Labour Market’ shows that the unemployment rate of disabled people is double that of non-disabled people, and I don’t see much being done about it.
According to Nick Ruane, a person with a disability who has a Masters degree with honours in political science and a teaching qualification, the problem boils down to narrow-mindedness.
“I put my experience down to the tendency of employers to hire people who look, or seem like them. If you are a bit different it implies risk. It could raise questions for employers like: Is this person going to cost me money? Will this person create health and safety concerns in the workplace?”
There are systems put in place by the government to help fund any modifications the employee may need. The most likely response to that would be that employers simply don’t know about them, although it wouldn’t take very long to find out about them either. So what’s the next explanation?
The irrational fear of difference by employers means that our employment prospects, and therefore livelihoods and well-being are compromised. I find that very ironic in this current climate of beneficiary bashing. I’m not saying that all people with disabilities are receiving benefits but what exactly are the options for those who are willing and able to work but can’t because of such archaic stigmatisations? Nothing is more unfair than being judged for something that is beyond one’s control.
People with disabilities want to work, want to earn their own income and want to live their own lives. We would be able to do this if people in power stopped with the judgement and started looking at credentials rather than superficial qualities.
There is also something seriously out of whack when those dear people at WINZ make the FIRST move to offer a CV writing seminar (coupled with the hellfire and brimstone one about compliance) to a disabled person.
Absolutely brilliant for instilling confidence and installing up to date affordable training in the present work environment. Not.
Is it too much to ask that they put in 51% of the effort until we can clear barriers no one else faces?
“There are systems put in place by the government to help fund any modifications the employee may need. The most likely response to that would be that employers simply don’t know about them, although it wouldn’t take very long to find out about them either.”
I am a bit mystified about these “systems”. What are they, where are they, and how are they offering finance for employers to modify a work place, so a disabled person can be hired to do the job?
On searching the internet I found this:
http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/individuals/a-z-benefits/modification-grant.html
http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/documents/map/modification-grant-map.pdf
So a beneficiary can apply for it, but it says little about the employer, who I suppose will have to be found and consulted. Reading through the info, it shows there is a fair bit of bureaucracy involved, and details need to be negotiated with an employer. It appears that to some degree the employer may have obligations to meet if the employee is an existing staff member. Of course they want to avoid any abuse of the grants, so some checks and balances are needed. The PDF file reads that employers may have to get three quotes from modification providers for the best offer.
So in any case, there are at least three parties involved, the WINZ client, WINZ themselves, the employer, and yes, the one that does the modification also. Not an easy feat to get that sorted out quickly and easily.
Also in many cases the employer will think, well, if I hire a person and the person gets the grant for a modification of the workplace, what if that particular employee does not work out? What if I want to hire another disabled with yet another disability? Will the grant be paid again, for another modification?
But yes, it will mostly be the usual old style “discrimination”, not called so, but being practiced as such by many, as they simply want a “team” at work places, where there are not that many “special needs” staff members. Many employers prefer not to bother with bureaucracy, and certainly not dealing with WINZ, and hence they may look after a proven, existing staff member with a disability, but shy away from hiring new staff, who they may not know. Other employers prefer picking the fittest from the fittest, costing little, performing at high output level, and to fire ones that do not live up to it.
So with all these so “wonderful” welfare reforms, again, where are we at with them, Miss Tolley? We get stuff all evaluation and transparency. Paula Bennett seems to have left the failed experiment, a sinking ship, before the mess may show. We get stuff all transparency, no figures, and I know a person who has for months been waiting for a response to an OIA request, that simply seems to be taking forever (to shine a bit of light on all this).
All the kinds of fancy “work ability assessments”, renaming of forms and glossy brochures will not change anything, unless there is a culture change, especially amongst employers and work colleagues, which though was NOT part of the “wonderful” welfare reforms, supposedly “helping” the sick and disabled “break free” from “benefit addiction”:
http://accforum.org/forums/index.php?/topic/17011-the-discredited-indefensible-wca-in-the-uk-its-demise-and-what-this-should-mean-for-nz-welfare-reforms/
http://publicaddress.net/speaker/how-is-government-evaluating-its-welfare/
I can still remember the bad old pre-formal anti-discrimination days when job application forms would have a checklist one had to fill in that asked if you had specific medical/mental conditions. Needless to say, if you ticked any of them, especially the ones with high stigma attached, eg mental illness, epilepsy, also anything that involved mobility problems, well you were never going to get anywhere near an interview.
Fast forward to these more “enlightened” times. Whilst illegal to ask applicants about disabilities (unless there are specific health and safety aspects to the job- as someone with epilepsy I couldn’t do a job involving heights, hot surfaces, driving etc, fair enough)- employers, both the private and public sector have found a clever way around this. Every job application one encounters has this delightful question included: “Do you have any health conditions that may affect your ability to do this job?”
So the onus is on the applicant to answer a really loaded question. I can only speak from the epilepsy perspective, and we have one of the highest rates of unemployment mostly due to the stigma. Put that down on any job application form and you’ll never hear back. Unless they say it to your face with a witness present or put it in writing, we are not going to employ you because of your disability, there is no way to prove discrimination. Some of us can get away with lying if our control is very good. But if you lie, get the job, and later on your condition is “found out”, then you can be legally sacked for lying on your job application. So the system is totally rigged.
Oh and to throw in the WINZ factor- the whole stress component of having to deal with them and their bloody rules if we are lucky enough to be able to hold down a bit of part time work (often all some long-termers can manage) can aggrravate said illness so much that you end up losing the job anyway. So do they want us to work or not?
Hi there,
There is a legal requirement upon the potential employee to disclose any health condition that will affect their ability to perform the job – this is not a big conspiracy against disabled! Refusing to employ someone who can’t do the job is not discrimination, it is just business and certainly the question, “Do you have any health conditions that may affect your ability to do this job?” is far less intrusive than being asked a slew of medical questions (which you could legally refuse to answer if they didn’t impact your ability to perform anyway).
An example of this would be that you are on medication that makes you drowsy so it isn’t safe to drive a forklift.
Point taken. Maybe not a huge conspiracy- like I said, there are specific health and safety issues attached to some jobs and I like to think the majority of us know our limitations there and wouldn’t apply for unsuitable jobs- but having that question on initial job application forms is to a degree screening applicants. The employer is counting on the applicant declaring their disability before they even see them or speak to them and assume the worst. So even if the applicant has all the right qualifications, work experience, references, when there’s so many people applying for a job, guess who’s going to be screened out first? Not a conspiracy theory. Just reality.
Comments are closed.