the last 2 decades. It clearly shows that injured workers without common
law rights to compensation are ending up on the Disability Pension.
Why should the Australian Tax Payers be picking up Worksafes Bill or
the Bill for Employers responsibilities to their workers ?
Give injured Victorian workers back their Common Law rights so they
can claim compensation for their injuries and be free of Centrelink and
Worksafe Victoria and get on with their lives.
AUSTRALIAN REVIEW OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
Pain and mythology: Disability support pension recipients
and work Paper. By: Alan Morris, University of New South Wales
The Australian Government recently reformed policy on disability and work
to make people who are assessed as capable of working at least fifteen hours a
week ineligible for the Disability Support Pension (DSP). This article reports on
a study based on six focus groups with DSP recipients, illustrating that the new
policy could have dire implications for the people subject to it. Focus group
participants were sceptical about the possibility of finding employment and
some expressed the belief that discrimination by potential employers against
people with a disability was common.
The perceptions and experiences of the participants suggest that to increase
the employment of current recipients of the DSP would require a major shift
towards policy informed by the social model of disability, and that the idea
that current policies can increase workforce participation is in the realm of
mythology.
Alan Morris
and Policy at theUniversity of New South Wales. He has published widely in
the area of urban studies focusing mainly on issues of marginality. At present
he is working on the worlds of older private renters in Sydney.
Introduction
The number of Disability Support Pension (DSP) recipients has dramatically
increased in many advanced economies over the last two decades (Sigg 2005).
Australia has been in the forefront of this trend. In 1985, 259,162 people were
receiving a DSP (Australian Bureau of Statistics 1994); by June 2004 the number
had more than doubled to 696,492 (Park 2005).
The expansion of DSP recipients has prompted the Australian Government
to introduce a new policy on disability and work, as part of its ‘mutual obligation’
approach to income support for the working age population. Whereas the old
policy assessed whether an individual was capable of working at least 30 hours
per week within two years, under the new, more stringent policy which began
on 1 July 2006, individuals are assessed to establish whether they are able to
work at least fifteen hours per week within two years (National Welfare Rights
Network 2006a). If the ‘Job Capacity Assessor’ concludes that an individual is
able to work at least fifteen hours a week, they are placed on the
unemployment benefit, Newstart Allowance, and have to sign an ‘Activity
Agreement’. Individuals have to fulfil the requirements of the Activity
Agreement—and follow directives to attend interviews, undertake particular
training, and take jobs offered—to receive the full rate of Newstart, to avoid
penalties for ‘breaches’, and to maintain their income support (National Welfare
Rights Network 2006b). For those individuals who apply for the DSP but are
deemed ineligible, adhering to the Newstart Activity Agreement could be very
onerous.
Yet evidence suggests that attempts to place people with a disability in the
workforce have been disappointing. The recent report of a national inquiry
into employment and disability by the Australian Human Rights and Equal
Opportunity Commission ‘makes it abundantly clear that people with disability
face higher barriers to participation and employment than many other groups
in Australian society’ (2005, p. 1). And despite the extent and seriousness of
the issue, Australian research on ‘the relationship between disability and labour
market outcomes … has … been very limited’ (Wilkins 2004, p. 359).
The few existing studies have mainly been quantitative analyses of the impact
of disability on labour market participation or have focused on the link between
the state of the labour market and the number of DSP recipients.
Wilkins, drawing on the 1998 Survey of Disability, Ageing and Carers, found
that ‘disability is associated with much lower labour force participation …
[and] the presence of a disability decreases the probability of participation
by 0.24 for males and 0.2 for females’ (2004, p. 360). Not surprisingly, he
also found that the more severe the disability the more likely it is that the
person concerned will not be able to find employment and that the impact
of disability was more adverse for older people (aged 44 and over) (Wilkins
2004, p. 360). A study by Department of Family and Community Services
on people with a mental illness showed that only 1.5 per cent of people with
a primary psychiatric condition worked more than 40 hours per week,
compared to 29.7 per cent of the general population (cited in Bill et al.
2006, p. 211).
Argyrous and Neale (2003) focus on the relationship between the labour
market and the increase in the number of DSP recipients. They show that
the substantial drop in labour force participation by males from the early
1970s has been accompanied by a massive increase in the number of male
recipients of DSP and that any endeavour to encourage them back into the
workforce is doomed to fail unless the labour market improves dramatically.
Cai and Gregory (2005) also emphasise the link between unemployment
and disability. They demonstrate that prior to moving on to the DSP, many
recipients had been receiving unemployment benefits. A key variable is the
duration of their unemployment— the longer a person is unemployed, the
greater the probability that they will move on to the DSP; between 1997 and
2002, ‘over 40 per cent of DSP inflows moved directly from unemployment
benefits to DSP’ (Cai & Gregory 2005, p. 235).
The quantitative studies referred to have certainly enhanced our knowledge
of the relationship between disability and labour market participation, but
have not drawn on the actual perceptions and experiences of the DSP
recipients. The exploratory study I report here, based on six focus groups,
partially rectifies this. I explore DSP recipients’ perceptions of work, how
they feel about not being employed, what they perceive to be barriers to
finding employment, their actual experiences in the pursuit of work and
what problems they have encountered when they have worked.
The research shows that the notion that disability recipients can find
employment if they are really keen to do so is mythology. I conclude with
a brief discussion of the policies likely to be required to facilitate the re-entry
of people with a disability into the workforce.
Methodology
The paper is based on fieldwork conducted in the second half of 2004
(see Morris & Abello 2005). We explored the degree to which more
recent DSP recipients participated in community, educational, and work
activities; what factors eased or inhibited access to these activities; and
the impact of participation or non participation
Although this paper focuses on work, often our questions on community
participation evoked responses related to work or the lack thereof.
We decided to use focus groups for two main reasons. First, a key
advantage of focus groups is that they ‘are especially helpful when working
with categories of people who have historically had limited power and
influence’ (Morgan & Krueger 1993, p.15). We believed that participants
would feel comfortable being around a table with fellow DSP recipients
and be more prepared to share stories, experiences and feelings than they
would in a one-to-one interview situation. A second, and related reason why
we chose to conduct focus groups is that we wanted participants to respond
to views expressed by their fellow participants and to share their experiences.
The six focus groups were constituted by DSP recipients from different
parts of Sydney, the Central Coast and Illawarra. Resident in these regions
were 96 recipients of DSP who had been drawing the DSP for less than
two years at the time of the focus groups, and who had participated in a
random telephone survey commissioned by the Department of Family
and Community Services and conducted in early 2004, and who had
said that they would consider participating in focus groups at a later
stage (Wallis Group 2004).
These 96 DSP recipients represented our sampling frame and we tried
to contact each one by phone. When contact was made, the individual
concerned was reminded of their involvement in the quantitative
telephone study, asked whether they would be prepared to participate
in a focus group (a summary of the focus group’s aims were communicated
verbally to potential participants), and advised that all transport costs
would be met and that they would receive a small payment ($40) for their
time.
Gaining participants for the focus groups was a difficult exercise. Many of the
potential participants were not contactable, some declined to participate,
others withdrew at the last moment, and a proportion was too ill to attend.
Some of those who declined to participate appeared to be reluctant to
discuss their concerns in a group and, for others, making their way to the
allocated venues was simply too difficult. Ultimately 21 DSP recipients of
varying ages—five were between 19 and 24 years, four were between 25
and 34 years, five were between 35 and 49 years, and seven were 50 and
over—took part. There were eleven males and ten females. Each focus
group had three or four participants. Two focus groups were held on the
Central Coast and four in different parts of Sydney. The participants had
a range of disability types, including physical, psychiatric, and sensory
impairments. Only one participant appeared to have a congenital disability.
The fact that they could travel to a venue and participate in a group discussion
suggests that the level of disability of the participants was perhaps less acute
than the average DSP claimant.
Initially, we aimed to group the participants strictly by age, because we
believed that DSP recipients of a similar age would have similar concerns
and the focus group would be more productive. Ultimately, age grouping
was possible only for two focus groups; all four participants in the focus
group on the Central Coast were over 50 and one central Sydney group
was composed of participants who were 30 or under.
When we conducted the focus groups, the quality of the discussion did not
appear to be affected by the age mix. Only one participant did not have the
verbal or intellectual skills to participate in a group discussion. We followed
the guide questions, but were flexible in our approach. Participants were
given some leeway to deviate from the set questions. We endeavoured to
make the focus group a group conversation, rather than a question and
answer session. All the focus groups were taped and transcribed. We did
not obtain data on how long participants had been working for prior to
going on to the DSP. Only one of the participants appeared to have been
retrenched because of their disability. A number had resigned because
their disability meant that they were unable to cope with the demands
of the job. Only one of the participants had a university degree and two
participants had a trade. The remaining participants did not appear to
have any formal qualifications. We did not establish whether participants
had completed high school.
Perceptions of work and the impact of not working
The desire to work varied significantly among focus group participants.
Some were extremely passionate about returning to work and spoke
emotionally about the impact of joblessness on their lives and sense of
self, while others had accepted that they would never work again. The
key factors shaping participants’ perceptions of work, and whether they
were keen to once more seek employment, were the severity of their
disability, age, their family and financial situation, and their previous
experiences in the workplace.
Five of the seven participants over 49 years of age had accepted that
they were not going to work again. Their disability meant that it was
unrealistic for them to contemplate working. Exhaustion and constant
pain were major concerns. For example, Ruth (53 years), who has a
heart problem, felt exhausted after minimal activity: ‘My husband says,
“Do you want to go for a walk around the block”. I’d love to go for a walk
around the block, but he’d be carrying me back’. For some of the older
participants the fact that they had worked for many years, made
stopping work much easier. There was a sense that they had done their
time.
Ken (55 years), who had worked at the same company for 30 years before
being diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder, had the following comment:
‘And now I’m off the medication and feeling a lot better, but I’m quite happy
just to stay home all day and not see anyone’. For some of the older
participants their children and in a few cases their grandchildren, were an
important focus. This sense of completion is captured in the following
observation by Fred (53 years) who had worked as a welder for about 30
years before losing his leg in an industrial accident:
I got pension now. I spend it every fortnight … I own my house anyway,
so it doesn’t matter … Ah, yes I do a lot. I see people. I’ve got good
neighbours … I have a lot of friends. I have my grandkids now, so, I
enjoy myself.
All fourteen of the participants under 49 expressed a desire to work.
Some wanted to return to work right away, albeit in a limited capacity,
others were waiting for their health to improve. The intensity of this
desire was generally greater for those participants under 35. Most of
these participants had minimal work experience and had no major assets.
The issue of having limited finances and ability to consume was a common
theme. Kevin (34 years) who has serious hearing loss and asthma, wanted
to work because he could not provide adequately for his family:
It’s hard to go out. I have two kids. It’s hard to buy them things that other
kids have. I don’t go out too much. I just sort of stay at home. I don’t
have the money to go out or communicate with people. That’s about it.
Some spoke of how not being employed made them feel that they were on the
‘outside’—that they had nothing to contribute and their lives were on hold. For
many, not working was a source of anguish.
All younger participants felt that they could work provided that there was
significant flexibility on the part of the employer. Michael (30 years) had
had some years of working experience, but had not worked for at least two
years (he suffered chronic fatigue syndrome). He had the following
observation in response to the question ‘Does being on the DSP affect
your participation in the community?’
Yeah. I feel like I’m on the sidelines, you know? I don’t sleep in. I’m up
early in the morning even though I don’t have much to wake up to. I
don’t have a job, but you’re still up early. You see people going up to
their cars, in a hurry to go to work. When I walk outside, I see people in
a hurry. People doing their hair in their cars or what have you. I feel like,
“I’m not out there. I’ve got nothing to aspire to”. I think, “What am I
going to do?” and you feel like the whole world is revolving. People are
moving on with their lives and yours is just still.
In response to the question of ‘whether being on the DSP has changed
the way you articipate in society and the community?’, Kathy (28 years),
who had not worked for six years, said:
For years and years my friends and family have been saying, “You have to
go on the pension. You know you can’t keep doing this”. At times, I had
my Dad driving me around; you know when you go door to door looking
for jobs. And getting in and out of the car and that, and he was just
going, “Ah, you know sweetie, it’s ridiculous. It’s ridiculous, you know”.
And I said, “No, I’m not going on the pension”. I just felt like, you know,
the way people would look at me would be with no respect or something.
Moving on to the DSP had stopped her unrelenting pursuit of employment.
Kathy had delayed applying for the DSP for five years despite experiencing
increasing physical immobility. She had a strong sense that applying for DSP
would symbolise failure. She desperately missed the workplace:
I miss that. I just love office work, and I love talking on the phone and
typing and, you know, generally just doing. Generally, I’m a secretary.
I’ve worked for lots of different people. Doing their typing. Doing all
sorts of different things all day. Being busy. I miss that. And I’ve got my
flat set up looking like an office just because I miss it. You know what I
mean. Just so I can sometimes feel like I’m in an office.
For Kathy, the experience of seeking employment had been intensely
frustrating as she felt she could do the job if she was given the chance.
All the other participants felt that their current health status did not allow
them to compete with non-disabled employees. However, for many
participants this did not diminish the sense of failure.
Michael (30 years) spoke of his shame, diminished sense of self, and
increasing social isolation. He linked these to his jobless status:
I find it’s hard for me to meet new people because I sort of feel ashamed
that I don’t have a career at my age or I haven’t started a family or
something like that sort of thing. When you first meet people, the first
thing they want to know, is what you do. And so I feel embarrassed to
tell them that I’m on a disability pension. So it’s hard, you know. I don’t
feel very good about myself. It affects my self-esteem and I tend not to
want to meet other people very much. Before my disability, I used to be
pretty outgoing. Now, I tend to sort of just do small talk and not really
engage in a long conversation or get to know the person really well and I
just stay away from them.
The idea that work is critical for one’s identity and self-esteem was a
common theme among the younger participants. Sarah (32 years), who
was badly hurt in a car accident and has not worked since, described how
joblessness had made her feel ‘useless’. ‘Your days are empty. I mean if it
wasn’t for the kids [she has two children] why would I get up in the morning?
Just—you’re useless’.
Paula (24 years), in response to a question about how not working had
affected her, had the following observation on the relationship between
work and identity: I’m not the person I used to be. It’s [the disability]
changed me. Because I’m sort of like, I don’t want to talk to that person,
because if you start up conversations, ultimately the question always
comes up, “What do you do?” And it’s like, I don’t want to have to answer
that questionbecause it’s too involved and it’s personal. And it’s just,
[long pause] career is such a huge thing … That’s the way we’re defined.
By how we work. What we do.
About three years prior to the focus group, Paula had been working in a
factory when she was involved in an accident that severely injured her spine.
Ron (29 years), who was suffering from chronic fatigue syndrome and had not
worked for at least 18 months, also viewed work as crucial for self-esteem
and a sense of future:
And you know what you want and what you’re capable of. And you feel
as though you’re not achieving and that’s the hardest thing really. That’s
what hurts me the most. Not being able to do what I know I can do.
That hurts me a lot because I was pretty ambitious when I was younger.
Where I thought I’d be now is not where I am. I get a lot of anxiety and
worry about … the future … I get very, very anxious about the future
and I tend to not want to look too far ahead. But you have to. You’ve
got to plan and I just don’t know what to do.
Although it figured large in their responses, a sense of having no function or
purpose because of joblessness was not necessarily confined to younger
participants.
Linda (51 years) had the following perspective:
It [not working] impacts on your whole life because it’s not what you
had in mind. Not what you wanted to do. The biggest hurdle was the
constant fight with yourself, of not giving in. You want to keep proving
to yourself that you can do things. And it’s just a constant fight … If you
give in to something, that’s one more part of your independence lost.
That’s what it all boils down to.
These comments and observations reflect the sense of anguish and guilt
many DSP recipients felt about not working and how they view work as
central for a sense of self-worth. Despite the intense desire of many
participants to work, only two of the 21 participants had any form of
employment at the time the focus groups were conducted. Both were
working minimal hours in menial jobs—one for a few hours a week as a
patrol officer on the pedestrian crossing outside her children’s school,
and the other for one day a week in an aged-care facility. For the other
participants the barriers to gaining employment had simply been
impossible to overcome.
Barriers to re-entering the workforce- The disability of the
individual.
Many participants spoke of how their disability meant that they were
never sure if they would have the capacity to work on any particular day
and that this unpredictability made it exceptionally difficult to retain a job.
Jim (24 years), who had an undisclosed medical problem, put it this way:
At times I could work for a few days and it was alright but then I’d have
to stay in bed for the next two or three days. So I was taking off a lot of
time from work. I was unable to hold down a job. My condition
progressively got worse. At first, I was taking a day off here and there,
and I was getting away with it. Then, it got to the point where I was
taking that much time off. I just couldn’t hold down a job.
Other participants spoke of how they had endeavoured to work but had
found it was not possible to continue. Work was simply too demanding and
there was a real fear that continuing to work would worsen their condition.
Jasmine (24 years), who had worked in media and public relations, described
her experience in the following way.
She has a medical condition which varied in intensity:
And anyway I was going into remission, and I got this job. Fantastic
opportunity. I … had to move to Sydney for it … I live on the Central
Coast and it was like very stressful … Got sick at the end of it and I
thought, “Okay. I’d have to wait until I’m back on top before I make
another commitment”. I finished my contract, but it really made me
realise that I need to be well and have a certain amount of resilience
before I make a commitment. So that really ruled me out about going to
work. Is it going to happen again? Because you never know when you’re
going to get really bad.
A common sentiment was that you needed to be physically and mentally
ready to return to work, and that a premature re-entry could result in a
worsening of your disability. Paula expressed this strongly:
You also don’t want them pressuring you because it should be up to you.
Like when you feel strong, and when you feel healthy and when you feel
right about it. Where if it’s like something like being on the dole or something,
they basically say, “Well if we think you can do something, get in
and do it”. And they basically, if you’re in my situation, they’re forcing a
breakdown. And it’s not going to happen. Yes. I think there’s a fine line
between having the options there, and forcing people to take them.
For participants who had been out of the workforce for several years, the
idea of re-entering the workplace provoked much anxiety. Michael, for
example, said: ‘If you haven’t worked for five years they can’t expect you
to just jump into a full-time job. That’s a massive change. There has to be
some sort of transition’.
Insufficient flexibility in the workplace
Twelve of the 21 participants felt that if their employer took sufficient
cognisance of their disability and there was the requisite flexibility, they
could contemplate working for some hours a week. Some spoke of how
they could do the tasks required but may require more time and would
have to rest during the course of the day. Ron, for example, said:
The thing that’s stopping me mostly from working is having to complete
tasks within a time constraint. I can’t do things when things have to be
done or when the person in charge wants them done. I could say, for
example, fix that tape recorder. But I want to do it in my own time … I
might sort of start doing it then I’d find that I’d have to get up or go lie
down or I’d have to leave it for half-an-hour and come back to it. That’s
my main problem when it comes to working.
Deb (38 years), who suffers from depression, felt that she may be able to
handle a parttime job, but only if there was a good deal of flexibility on the
part of the employer:
Yes, well I find it difficult to, having to work … all the time. I don’t
think I could handle a job where I worked every day of the week. My
depression makes me tired. I have all the appointments that I have to go
to in terms of treating my illness, so yes.
Participants felt that the lack of predictability in their capacity to come to
work and work a full day meant that employers would invariably be
reluctant to employ them.
A few participants had been able to find work in the voluntary sector
because it was more flexible. Jasmine, who worked for community radio,
had the following comment: ‘The local co-ordinator understands my
position and she’s really good and she gives me free rein and it’s flexible,
which is what I need sort of in my situation’.
Ray (51 years), who has bad arthritis and a psychiatric condition, had not
worked in the formal sector for many years. She was very aware that she
would not be able to cope in a formal environment. She was, however, able
to work in a charity shop because of the flexibility of the working arrangement:
Like I used to do voluntary work once a week, every week. Now I do it
once a fortnight only just so I can get out of the house … Where I
work … I’m allowed to stop any time I want to stop and rest. I think it’s
probably difficult to find suitable employment that caters to one’s plight.
And that’s probably the major issue. Finding a job that you can handle,
and that will bring in enough money for you.
Discrimination
A few participants believed that employer discrimination made it difficult
for them to enter the labour force. Some thought that was that this is
especially so if you have a visible disability; for example if you walk with
great difficulty. Kathy, who is in this position, passionately spoke of her
experience:
I’ve had my disability for about six years, but I’ve only been on the pension
for a year. I was still looking for work up until then because I truly believed
that someone would give me a job because of antidiscrimination and all of that.
It’s just not true. As soon as they see you walk in with a cane, you haven’t got
a chance. That’s my opinion, anyway.
I’ve tried for years and years, and I can, I can do heaps and heaps of stuff
on the computer, and I’ve had jobs like the girls out here on the desk. I can
do all of that stuff. A sitting down job, telemarketing. You don’t get anywhere
if you’ve got a disability because they automatically think you’re retarded or
something because you can’t walk properly …
Sometimes I felt really positive … 100 per cent sure I had the job even
and then, no, I didn’t. So—all that stuff about anti-discrimination. I
don’t believe it.
Kevin described his experience in the following way:
I worked with my father for quite a while and when he retired I tried to
get other jobs. Once they [potential employers] found that I was deaf
and I had bad asthma they don’t want to know you. I found it pretty
hard. In the end I just sort of gave up.
Paula, who had also given up looking for formal employment, commented
that for most jobs there are a number of applicants and that in this situation
it was extremely unlikely that the candidate with a disability would get the job:
And they [the employers] can be just so choosy. They can just, you know,
you [the potential employer] can ask for it: “One-armed, one-eyed,
green-headed monster”, and you have the first person come in and you
can pick from the applicants and get one. You can get whatever you
want because there’s just so many people looking for jobs. And you’ve
already got a mark against you when you’ve got a disability.
Discrimination and barriers to employment can also be a function of the
architecture and the facilities.
A lot more places should have access. Like lifts or disabled toilets or I
mean it’s hard to explain, but even just if there’s just one little step outside,
that’s still one little step too many. You know what I mean? (Kathy).
Discussion
The research suggests that the way work is viewed by DSP recipients is
likely to be shaped by a combination of factors: age, how long they had
been employed, the seriousness of the disability and their family and
financial situation and previous work experiences. Most of the participants
who were 49 and over, who had a serious disability which was not resolvable,
and who had worked for a number of years, had little or no desire to be
formally employed. This was especially so if the individual felt financially
secure and was enmeshed in family.
For many of the younger participants, especially for those under 35,
work was highly desired and a common perception was that not being
in the workforce had a negative impact on their sense of self-worth and
their quality of life. Joblessness evoked much anxiety. That many
participants saw work as an essential part of contemporary life is not
surprising. As Marta Russell contends, ‘Since society grants status based
on work, being able to work is a way to move beyond dehumanisation’
(1998, p. 81 quoted in Galvin 2004).
The negative consequences of unemployment on individuals has been
well-documented in the literature (Feather 1990; Jahoda 1982; Hannan,
Riain & Whelan 1997). The continuing emphasis on the centrality of work,
the persistent narrative that everybody can and should be working, and
that not having a job is due to the failings of the individual concerned,
means that individuals who are not in the workforce are likely to feel
unworthy, despite the fact that joblessness is common.
Viviane Forrester’s observations in this regard are pertinent. She argues:
Millions of relegated individuals … are entitled [sic] … to all loss of social
respect, even self-respect, to the pathos of shaken or wrecked identities, to
the most shameful of feelings: shame. Because they believe and are
encouraged to believe themselves failed masters of their individual
destinies when they are merely figures lined up arbitrarily in the statistics
(1999, p. 4).
Douglas Kellner has argued that ‘while the locus of modern identity
revolved around ones occupation, one’s function in the public sphere
(or family), post-modern identity revolves around leisure, centred on looks,
images and consumption’ (1992, p. 153). Kellner’s argument is weakened by
his failure to draw the link between work and ‘post-modern identity’.
Especially for younger participants, the lack of work meant that they lacked
the financial means to forge their identity in the sphere of leisure and
consumption. This was a major concern.
Participants were acutely aware that their disability meant that they
could only contemplate re-entering the labour force if employers took
account of their disability and were prepared to be flexible. Employers
would have to be prepared to tolerate regular non-attendance, employees
having to rest during the day or go home early and lower productivity
in certain instances. They may also have to provide special facilities.
Colin Barnes argues that given the right conditions many workers with a
disability would be as productive as their colleagues, however: this is not
to suggest that everyone with an accredited impairment can or should be
expected to work at the same pace as “non-disabled” contemporaries, or
that all disabled people can or should work in the conventional sense.
To expect people with “severe” or multiple and complex impairments to
be as “productive” as non-disabled peers is one
of the most oppressive aspects of modern society (2000, p. 451).
At present there is no pressure on Australian employers to accommodate
workers with a disability (Guthrie & Meredith 2005). Even in the case of an
employee who has been disabled in the workplace, on their return to the
workplace concerned ‘an employer may be entitled to dismiss an employee
if the employer has attempted to appropriately modify the workplace on the
best available medical advice and the employee has not performed adequately’
(Guthrie & Meredith 2005, p. 334).
What the participants were implicitly indicating is that what is needed is a far
more interventionist approach by government if DSP recipients are to be given
a genuine chance of returning to work. Legislation would have to be put in place
which actively encourages and perhaps coerces government departments,
educational and health institutions, local authorities, and employers in the
private sector to accommodate workers with a disability.
This approach draws on the social model of disability, proponents of which
argue that to a large extent disability is socially constructed. The phrase,
first coined in 1983 by Mike Oliver, implied ‘a switch away from focusing
on the physical limitations of particular individuals to the way the physical
and social environments impose limitations on certain groups or categories
of people’ (Oliver 1983, p. 23).
Galvin (2004, p. 346) argues that the Coalition government’s endeavour
to present itself as a champion of the rights of people with a disability to
employment is a charade because all the emphasis has been placed on
‘individual behavioural change’ rather than significant structural changes.
She argues, drawing on the social model of disability, that:
The removal of these barriers [to employment] … calls for a range of
structural changes, such as, adaptations to the built environment to
increase physical access to public spaces, the enactments of anti-
discrimination legislation to increase access to employment, better
access to goods and services which can contribute to independence,
and the contestation of attitudes and cultural imagery which devalue
disabled people so that they can access more positive identities
(Galvin 2004, p. 347).
Bill and colleagues go further than Galvin. Although they focus only
on people with a psychiatric disability, they argue that in light of the
failure of the market to provide jobs there should be a state-provided
Job Guarantee (JG) scheme which will allow all people with a psychiatric
disability to obtain a job. These jobs need to be flexible so as to enable
individuals to access the health care they require: The role of the state
in realising this objective will be two-fold. First, the state must provide
the quantum of JG jobs required. Second, the state must ensure that the
design of jobs is flexible enough to meet the heterogeneous and variable
support needs of workers. This will require effective integration of the JG
scheme with mental health, rehabilitationand employment support
services in order to maintain continuity of care(Bill et al. 2006, p. 210).
Lunt and Thornton (1994, p. 227) have argued that in Australia, Canada
and the United States, ‘employment policy in relation to disabled people
has traditionally been informed by something approaching an individualised
perspective’ and that this approach is linked to disability and employment
legislation being dominated by an anti-discrimination policy approach, the
impact of which is necessarily limited.1 They argue that in many European
countries a greater recognition of the social model has contributed towards
more interventionist policies and the development of quota systems,
reserved employment and financial penalties for non-observance
(Lunt & Thornton 1994, p. 228).
Even if wide-ranging legislation is enacted, a major problem facing any
government intent on reducing unemployment for people with a disability,
is the state of the labour market (Argyrous & Neale 2003). In Australia,
despite unemployment being at a record low, over 500,000 people remain
formally unemployed. In this context it is extremely difficult for people
with a disability to compete (Mitchell & Cowling 2005).
Conclusion
The research I report here reflected on the way a small group of DSP
recipients view work and the barriers that prevent them from re-entering
the labour force. It showed the pain that many of the participants felt about
being shut out of the world of work. The focus group discussions illustrated
that facilitating the entry of people with a disability into the workplace is a
complex task. Many of the participants felt isolated and were anxious about
the future. There was a strong feeling that any endeavour to reintegrate DSP
recipients into the workforce has to be undertaken in a consultative
way and that a forced and rushed labour market re-entry would be extremely
negative.
What is evident is that the notion that people with a disability can easily
re-enter the labour market is myth.
The most recent government reforms on disability and work, the i
nsistence that people with a disability who can work fifteen hours a
week must go on to Newstart and adhere to all its requirements,
reflects a renunciation of any semblance of a social model approach.
The individual is obliged to follow directives from Centrelink and take
whatever job is offered. This model could have dire consequences for the
individuals concerned and the opposite effect to what government intends.
Instead of lessening reliance on welfare for income, it could worsen the
health of the individuals at the receiving end of the policy and push them
into becoming ‘fully fledged’ DSP recipients.
Besides the limitations of government policy around work and disability,
it is highly unlikely that joblessness among people with a disability can be
resolved if work continues to be organised as it is at present. In all sectors,
including government and other sectors that historically have been not-for-
profit, the values of productivity, efficiency and profit maximisation are
increasingly dominant, making it very difficult for people with a disability
to compete.
Barnes argues that the parlous employment situation of people with a
disability can only be reversed if work is ‘organised around a different
set of principles such as social necessity, obligation and interdependence’
(2000, p. 445). A re-conceptualisation of work does have a utopian ring.
However, if governments are serious about increasing the labour force
participation of people with a disability, there has to be a shift in work-
place organisation and expectations.
The Department of Workplace Relations (n.d.) claims that ‘Each year
open employment services helps more than 46,000 people with moderate
to severe disabilities find and keep work’. What is evident, however, is that
the number of people drawing the DSP continues to steadily grow.
Ref: This Document is freely available on the internet at:
http://www.australianreview.net/journal/v7/n1/morris.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment