Chapter 3 -
Measures to Facilitate Work and Employment
Vocational rehabilitation is a process which enables disabled persons to secure, retain
and advance in suitable employment and thereby further their integration or reintegration
into society.[143] That process, according
to the ILO Vocational Rehabilitation (Disabled) Recommendation, 1955,[144] involves the provision of certain vocational services,
in particular vocational guidance, vocational training and selective placement. In 1983
the ILO, conscious that significant developments had occurred since 1955 in the
understanding of rehabilitation needs, the scope and organization of rehabilitation
services and the law and practice of many Members, decided that new international
standards were necessary to ensure equality of opportunity and treatment to all categories
of disabled persons, in both rural and urban areas, for employment and integration into
the community.
Convention No. 159, adopted in 1983, highlights the inextricable link which exists
between vocational rehabilitation and employment by calling on each Member, in accordance
with national conditions, practice and possibilities, to formulate, implement and
periodically review a national policy on vocational rehabilitation and employment of
disabled persons. Such policy should:
- aim at ensuring that appropriate vocational rehabilitation measures are made available
to all categories of disabled persons and at promoting employment opportunities for
disabled persons in the open labour market;
- be based on the principle of equal opportunity between disabled workers and workers
generally; equality of opportunity and treatment for disabled men and women workers should
be respected; special positive measures aimed at effective equality of opportunity and
treatment between disabled workers and other workers should not be regarded as
discriminating against other workers;
- involve consultation with representative organizations of employers and workers, and of
and for disabled persons, with regard to implementation of the policy.
The Convention calls on the competent authorities to provide and evaluate vocational
guidance, vocational training, placement, employment and other related services, using,
wherever possible and appropriate, existing services for workers generally, with any
necessary adaptations. Measures are to be taken to promote the establishment and
development of vocational rehabilitation and employment services for disabled persons in
rural areas and remote communities, and to ensure the training and availability of
rehabilitation counsellors and other suitably qualified staff responsible for the
vocational guidance, vocational training, placement and employment of disabled persons.
Convention No. 159 entered into force on 20 June 1985. As of December 2002, Convention No.
159 has been ratified by 73 countries.
The accompanying Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (Disabled Persons)
Recommendation, 1983 (No. 168) outlines measures, in addition to those mentioned in
Recommendation No. 99, which should be implemented. They include:
- measures to create job opportunities for persons with disabilities on the open labour
market, including financial incentives to employers and reasonable adaptations to
workplaces, equipment and jobs
- government support for sheltered employment, and for vocational training, vocational
guidance, and placement services for disabled person run by non-governmental organizations
- promotion of cooperatives and small-scale industry
- elimination of physical, communication and architectural barriers
- dissemination of information on successful instances of employment integration
- exemption from taxes of training materials and specified assistive devices
- flexible job arrangements
- elimination of exploitation in training and sheltered employment
- applied research to further the participation of disabled persons in ordinary working
life.
Recommendation No. 168 also calls for community participation, in particular of
employers’, workers’ and disabled persons’ organizations, in the
organization and operation of vocational rehabilitation services. Special efforts should
be made to ensure that services in rural areas and remote communities are provided at the
same level and on the same terms as for urban areas. The proper training of personnel
involved in the provision of vocational rehabilitation and employment services is
essential.
The following sections discuss briefly the main types of measures currently in use[145] to assist and facilitate persons with
disabilities to secure, retain and advance in suitable work and employment, under these
headings:
- employment services
- training for employment
- financial supports
- technical and personal supports
- quota systems
- anti-discrimination legislation
- persuasion measures
- disability management
- consultation mechanisms
- information, monitoring and evaluation.
In providing services such as vocational guidance, vocational training, placement and
other employment-related services to persons with disabilities, the competent authorities
are exhorted to use services available to workers generally, wherever possible and
appropriate, with necessary adaptations.[146]
This is being increasingly done in countries where vocational rehabilitation
infrastructures have already been developed.[147]
The range and types of services vary between countries, but may include vocational
guidance and counselling, with some countries (France and Belgium, for example) agreeing
individualized ‘vocational pathways’ with disabled persons, which provide for
different measures at different stages, leading in many cases to job integration.
Other services include provision of information on training and employment
opportunities, job search training which encompasses preparation of job
applications/resumes, interview techniques, presentation skills, canvassing for jobs, and
placement. Training in literacy and numeracy is sometimes provided, where necessary.
Preferential access to specified jobs is provided in a number of countries. In Greece, for
example, a proportion of jobs in certain occupations, including messengers, cleaners,
gardeners, receptionists, must be reserved by public sector organizations and banks:
preferential access is also given to licences for certain commercial activities, such as
taxis and newspaper stalls. Work experience, either on its own or as an integral part of a
training programme, is often provided, particularly for newcomers to the world of work.
For persons with disabilities returning to work after an absence, individual
back-to-work action plans may be developed. Support measures include job coaching,
particularly in supported employment situations. Individualized support assistance in
helping, for example, to deal with difficulties with co-workers, may be provided through
vocational advisers or through a special scheme such as Arbeitsassistsenz
(work-assistance) in Austria, which provides on-going assistance during the initial
integration and follow-up phases as well as crisis intervention where continuing
employment may be threatened for any reason. Early intervention such as
‘fresh-start’ initiation programmes aimed at young workers with disabilities
within six months of their being unemployed, and programmes aimed at assisting long-term
unemployed disabled workers back to work, are provided in many countries (for example,
France, Belgium, Austria). Because of the particular difficulties faced by workers with
disabilities who have been unemployed for a long time, intensified efforts are frequently
made to assist disabled workers to participate in educational, retraining or other
programmes as soon as possible after they become unemployed.
In many ways, training for employment for persons with disabilities appears to be going
through a transition, from programmes in specialized institutions to mainstream programmes
for general job seekers. For some countries, this transition is in its early stages, with
training still mostly in specialized institutions. In others, the majority of adults with
disabilities receive their training in mainstream programmes (the UK, for example). In
Sweden, employment policies for persons with disabilities are part of general labour
market policies in any event. Almost all countries, however, appear to be experiencing a
variety of difficulties. This situation is aggravated by high rates of unemployment which
are making it particularly difficult for persons with disabilities, even after completion
of training, to find suitable employment.
For those countries in the early stages of mainstreaming training for persons with
disabilities, special classes, schools, and training institutions are still common. In
many of these specialized providers, both public and private, curricula tend to relate to
jobs traditionally thought appropriate for disabled persons. This mismatch between
training and the skill requirements of the labour market hinders job placement
possibilities and may well contribute to negative perceptions by employers of the ability
potential of many disabled persons.
Even where persons with disabilities are being encouraged to enter mainstream training,
some countries report that relatively few are doing so. Reasons given include physical
inaccessibility of training centres, distant or inconvenient location of training, courses
which are not relevant, inadequate transportation, unavailability and/or cost of child
care, little flexibility in course design or delivery.
Countries which are further along the mainstreaming path have recognized and are taking
or plan to take steps to deal with such issues. In the Netherlands, physical access is
being improved in vocational and adult education to improve opportunities for disabled
persons to get a basic qualification, and more flexible, module-based apprentice training
courses are planned. Individualized support for persons with disabilities in France
through its ‘fresh-start’ initiatives and further development of apprenticeship
training, ‘sandwich courses’ alternating training and work in enterprises, and
preparation for working life in a mainstream environment are all underway. In the United
Kingdom, disabled people have priority access to mainstream programmes, and specialist
teams operate in jobcentres to assist persons with disabilities to gain and retain
employment. Special pre-training programmes have been introduced in Germany which include
advice and assistance in the transition from school to working life: courses in vocational
training centres have also been adapted in order to meet labour market requirements more
effectively. In Australia, short-term courses have been developed at local level to meet
individual needs: normally up to 12 months duration, the courses may be extended, if
necessary, for persons with disabilities. In Sweden there has been increasing cooperation
between schools and placement services.
For persons with a high level of disability, training for work continues to be provided
mainly in special institutions or in sheltered or supported employment programmes,
although Australia operates a programme which provides fully subsidized work experience,
mainly in the private sector, for those who cannot get a place on a mainstream
wage-subsidy programme.
Greater efforts are being made to get employers more directly involved in developing
and providing training and employment opportunities, through financial and other
incentives. Belgium has a system of employer-based on-the-job training contracts for
disabled persons: the employer is not committed to hiring the trainee after the training
contract but often does. Advisory committees on the training and employment of disabled
workers, which include representatives of employers’ and workers’ organizations
as well as representatives of government and disability non-governmental organizations,
play a useful role in helping to develop policy and codes of good practice, and in
improving cooperation and coordination among the sectoral interests involved.
3.3.1 Key Issues
Workers with disabilities tend to fall behind other job seekers, particularly when
overall numbers of unemployed workers rise. While ignorance and prejudice may have a part
to play in such situations, a key factor is often their inability to compete on the basis
of relevant skills or qualifications. What an employer will look for in recruiting a new
employee is, first and foremost, the capacity to do the job (given reasonable
accommodation, where necessary). Applicants who can show that they have the necessary
competence, or have the capacity to acquire it after suitable training, have an advantage
over applicants who cannot. Training, which should encompass skill, knowledge and
attitudes, is very often the key to success in finding a job. For persons with a
disability, professional training – under qualified instructors, and leading if
possible to some form of recognized certification – is an essential passport to
gaining employment. This is why a national policy on vocational rehabilitation and
employment of disabled persons, as called for in ILO Convention No. 159, is so essential.
People with disabilities have the right to work, but they must be given the means to
enable them to exercise that right. Priority in vocational training policy and provision,
particularly in times of high unemployment, needs to be given to the most vulnerable if
they are not to become further disadvantaged in the labour market.
Many of the jobs for which disabled persons were traditionally trained do not exist any
more, especially in industrialized countries. The relevance of training programmes to
current and likely future labour market requirements needs to be critically reviewed to
ensure that all programmes are responding to such needs at all times.
Physical accessibility remains a major barrier to many disabled persons seeking work or
training. This applies not just to the training or work place but to the local built
environment – including public transport, housing, shops, restaurants, places of
recreation – used to a greater or lesser degree by other employees. Considerable
improvement has been made in many places, but in general progress is slow, and many
disabled persons remain excluded as a result.
Lack of coordination between government ministries or departments continues to be an
issue inhibiting the right to work of many disabled people. There are many good examples
of how this has been effectively resolved where the political will existed.
Many countries have accepted the principle of ‘mainstreaming’ in training and
employment services for persons with disabilities. In some cases, however, it has not
progressed much beyond the acceptance of the principle or the transfer of responsibility
from one ministry to another. If disabled persons are to participate on an equitable basis
with others, whatever reasonable accommodations are necessary, in terms of physical
accessibility, job/training design, training equipment and materials, modes of
instruction, etc. must be carried out. In addition, the staff members responsible for
managing and operating the systems involved must be sufficiently trained and equipped, not
only in requisite knowledge and skill, but also in attitudes.
Mainstreaming in training programmes may have many implications, in addition to those
mentioned. An important consideration, for example, will be the basis on which training
outcomes are assessed. Indicators, such as placement rates, which may be used to measure
the performance of training programmes for some unemployed groups of workers may not be
the most appropriate for others. ‘Creaming’ or selecting those most likely to
succeed, in order to enhance placement prospects of occupational training programmes is a
recognized (if not always admitted) phenomenon.[148]
Wage subsidies to cover a shortfall in productivity are one of the most commonly
provided financial supports to employers in encouraging the employment of workers with
disabilities. In some countries, such supports are time-restricted: in Sweden, four years,
but up to eight years in Germany, for example. The amount of subsidy varies: in Austria it
can be up to 80 per cent of the full wage in the first year of employment. The wage
subsidy may be combined with a grant during the initial period of adjustment.
Other financial supports to employers include:
- grants towards training costs
- training completion bonus grants for workplace modifications/special equipment
- grants for tutorial assistance
- retention bonus grants to hire personal assistants for disabled workers who need them
- tax credits in respect of each new disabled worker (may be time-restricted, e.g. three
years in Italy)
- reductions in social security charges in respect of disabled workers.
In the Netherlands, where responsibility for disability prevention and rehabilitation
of disabled employees has been increasingly transferred from governments to employers,
special measures include:
- ‘trial appointments’: A person with a disability may work for up to three
months without the employer paying wages - unemployment benefit is continued during this
period
- a replacement grant may be paid to an employer if the disabled employee cannot return to
his or her former job and needs a different job in the company
- the employer may be exempted from having to pay wages during the first 52 weeks of
sickness of an employee if the employee was disabled when recruited
- during the first six months after hiring a disabled worker the employer is exempted from
supplementary insurance contributions in case the worker applies for disability benefit.
In Sweden, employers are protected by law against excessive sick leave costs of an
employee with an illness which is likely to lead to a large amount of sick leave.
Financial supports of various kinds may also be available to persons with disabilities. In
France, an employment bonus may be paid to an unemployed disabled person who gets a job.
Financial assistance towards public transport costs if participating in training
programmes may also be paid. Under a pilot scheme in the Netherlands, persons with a
disability may receive a personal budget in the form of vouchers or tickets to enable them
to purchase placement or other job integration services of their choice. A similar
‘Ticket to Work’ programme operates in the United States.
A key concern of many disabled persons is that their eligibility for disability benefit
or pension may be adversely affected if they find a job and subsequently lose it for any
reason. A number of countries have taken steps to ensure that such concerns do not act as
a disincentive to persons with disabilities in seeking employment. In Spain, for example,
eligibility to access former disability benefit if laid off is assured by regulation. To
encourage those on long-term disability benefit in Finland to return to work, individuals
may suspend their benefit for up to two years during which they may enter training or
employment without losing their entitlement. In many countries, persons with disabilities
are allowed to earn up to a certain level in pay without affecting their disability
insurance or social security benefits.
Grants may also be available to disabled persons who wish to set up their own business
or to establish a cooperative. Such measures are particularly important in countries, such
as Greece, where self-employment is high and a high proportion of all enterprises are
small. In Italy, social cooperatives with a workforce of which at least 30 per cent are
persons with disabilities may be exempted from social insurance contributions. Financial
assistance may also be available to third-party agencies to assist disabled persons in
preparing and training for employment. In the United States, for example, grants may be
available to States to establish programmes of technology-related training, access and
assistance, and awards can be made to private agencies which deliver assistive technology
training and services at local level.
The dividing line between technical, personal and even financial supports can be a very
narrow one. Is the provision of a guide dog to a person with a visual impairment a
personal or a technical support? In the context of employment it may qualify more as the
latter. In any event, the categorization is of less importance than the support itself and
the role it plays in enabling a person with a disability to exercise the rights to which
they are entitled. Other non-financial supports in relation to work and employment include
assistance in arranging for a special driving licence; job coaches to help facilitate the
transition to employment; post-placement support; personal assistants (to assist, if
needed, in relation to personal hygiene or transport, for example); provision of readers
for workers with a visual impairment, particularly during the initial stage of training
and/or employment; provision of signers/sign language interpreters during interviews or in
the workplace; grants for or direct provision of personal aids (e.g. computer-based aids,
clothing, textbooks); technical aids and devices.
By the end of 1923, Germany, Austria, Italy, Poland and France had adopted a quota
system, under which employers were obliged to employ disabled war veterans. Many other
European countries adopted a quota system approach after the Second World War, largely
because of high unemployment levels among people with disabilities and the general failure
of a voluntary approach. All systems were eventually extended to cover disabled civilians.
Quota systems have also been introduced in several countries of Asia and the Pacific
(China, India, Japan, Mongolia, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand), Africa
(including Ethiopia, including Ethiopia, Mauritius and Tanzania), in the Arab States (e.g.
Kuwait) and in Latin America (e.g. Brazil). While all quota systems call for employers to
employ a set minimum percentage of disabled workers, there are variations between systems,
particularly in relation to the obligatory or non-obligatory requirement, and the nature
and effectiveness of sanction in cases where an employer fails to meet the requirement.
Waddington has divided European quota systems into three basic models:[149]
- Legislative recommendation with no sanction: Employers are not obliged to employ
a set percentage of workers with disabilities, but it is recommended that they do so. Such
a system has operated in the Netherlands since 1986. Under the 1947 Employment of the
Disabled Act, public and private employers with more than 20 employees were expected to
employ a set quota of disabled workers. People with disabilities could choose to register.
The 1986 Handicapped Workers Employment Act removed the registration requirement, extended
coverage to all those receiving disability benefits or an invalidity pension, and
introduced a quota target of between three and five per cent, to be achieved over three
years. The quota was voluntary and there were no sanctions for failing to meet it. By
1989, only 2.2 per cent of workers with a contract of more than 15 days were disabled and
by 1992 this figure was just two per cent. The government concluded that a compulsory
policy across all sectors was not practicable. Employers are, nevertheless, required to
continue to keep a record of disabled employees.
- Legislative obligation without effective sanction: An example of this quota
system was that adopted by the United Kingdom after the Second World War. The Disabled
Persons (Employment) Act 1944 has been described as ‘the foundation stone of disabled
workers’ rights in the UK.[150] These
rights to mainstream employment were to be achieved through the Quota Scheme, which
required private employers with 20 or more employees to have at least 3 per cent of their
workforce made up of registered people with disabilities, and through the Reserved
Occupations Scheme, under which two occupations - passenger electric lift attendant and
car park attendant - were designated as reserved to persons with disabilities. It was not
an offence for an employer to be below the quota, but it was an offence to recruit a
non-registered person when below the quota or where doing so would bring the employer
below the quota, without an exemption permit. An employer who committed such an offence
was subject to a fine or a term of imprisonment of not more than three months. The quota
was abolished in 1996, when the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 came into force. There
appears to be general agreement that the quota failed to promote the employment of people
with disabilities, that it was inadequately monitored and enforced (there were only 10
prosecutions for failure to comply, even though in 1993, for example, less than 20 per
cent of employers met their quota obligation), and that it allowed large numbers of
exemptions and exceptions.[151]
- Legislative obligations with sanction: According to Waddington, the levy-grant
system is ‘the form of quota which has attracted most interest from those countries
which have sought to introduce or modify a quota system in the 1980s and 90s. It involves
setting a quota and requiring that all covered employers who do not meet their obligation
pay a fine or levy which usually goes into a fund to support the employment of disabled
people.’
The German quota system, which has often served as a model for other countries, was
established in 1974. There is a quota of six per cent for all public and private employers
with at least sixteen employees. Certain workers may be counted as occupying two or three
quota places - those whom the Employment Office considers particularly difficult to
employ, because of their degree of disability, and disabled persons who are receiving
training within the firm. The legislation refers to special categories of severely
disabled persons:
- Severely disabled persons whose working lives are especially affected because of the
nature or seriousness of their disability, in particular:
- those who need special assistance, on a more than temporary basis, in order to engage in
employment;
- those whose employment, owing to their disability, implies exceptional expenses, on a
more than temporary basis, for the employer;
- those who, because of their disability, are able on more than a temporary basis to
render only substantially reduced output;
- those whose extent of disability is at least 50 per cent attributable to mental or
psychological disturbances or to be subject to attacks;
- (those who, because of the nature of the seriousness of their disability, have not
completed vocational training.
- Severely disabled persons who have attained 50 years of age.
The Federal Employment Office monitors compliance with the scheme. Fines may be imposed
if the quota requirement is not met. In 1977 the average quota attained was 3.9 per cent,
compared with 5.9 per cent in 1982. [152]
The monies collected through the compensation levy are used exclusively to promote
rehabilitation and employment of severely disabled persons. It provides grants, for
example, to assist employers who exceed their quota obligations to meet extra costs such
as adapting premises or providing special training. The levy is often regarded,
particularly during difficult economic periods, as an additional tax to be paid by
employers, and a more attractive option than hiring.
A similar quota system operates in France. Under 1987 legislation, every public and
private employer employing 20 or more persons is required to employ a quota of six per
cent of persons with disabilities covered by the law. The six per cent obligation was
introduced on a gradual basis, beginning with three per cent in 1988, rising to six per
cent in 1991. Certain categories of disabled workers are counted as one-and-a-half, two,
or two-and-a-half individuals. Enterprises may fulfil their employment obligation by:
- direct employment of beneficiaries under the law
- contracting with the sheltered employment sector
- reaching accords[153] to promote
employment of disabled persons paying a contribution to AGEFIPH[154]
In 1994, 62.8 per cent of employers met their obligation by payment of levy only, 19.8
per cent by sub-contracts and levies, and 12.4 per cent by sub-contracts only. [155] In 1998, just over half of all
enterprises with 20 employees or more fulfilled their employment obligation by
contributing to the fund.[156] The
employment rate of disabled workers in the enterprises concerned in 1997 was 4 per cent (3
per cent in the public sector). This result led to the government launching, through
AGEFIPH, a three year Exceptional Programme (1999-2001) with particular focus on long-term
and youth unemployment. Actions fall under four headings:
- preparation and follow-up of integration in employment
- development and modernization of guidance and training structures
- enhancement of the actions of companies
- experimental measures.
Systematic measures to promote the employment of persons with disabilities in Japan
were introduced after World War II, following the enactment in 1947 of the Employment
Security Law. In 1960, a quota system was introduced, but with no obligatory provisions.
Lack of compliance, particularly by larger organizations, led to the introduction in 1976
of an obligatory quota system, as well as a levy and grant system. The quota is 1.8 per
cent for private enterprises and 2.1 per cent for national and local governments. Double
counting in respect of workers with severe disabilities is allowed. A levy is imposed on
enterprises which fall short of their quota: levies thus collected are paid as grants to
enterprises which hire disabled workers in excess of their quota and are also used to
subsidize new or modified facilities for workers with disabilities.
3.6.1 Comment
Discussing the assumptions underlying quota systems in Europe, Waddington says that
such systems are based on the belief that, without some form of legislative intervention,
people with disabilities would not make up even the specified percentage of the workforce:
‘… quotas are based on two related assumptions: (i) that employers will not
hire large numbers of disabled people unless they are required to do so, and (ii) that
most disabled people are unable to compete for jobs with their non-disabled counterparts
on an equal basis, and win them on their merits. In short, the assumption that disabled
workers are less valuable and less productive, and that, if such workers are to be
integrated in the open labour market, employers need to be obliged to hire them, and
sometimes even financially compensated for doing so
Numerous employers have taken their cue from the legislation, and accept these
assumptions. This is reflected in the fact that many employers resist the idea of, and
obligations under, quota systems, and frequently ‘buy’ themselves out of their
obligation where this is an option, preferring to employ a largely non-disabled workforce.
The history of the European quota systems amply demonstrates that an employment system
which is based on the idea that the protected group of workers are inferior cannot achieve
permanent and significant success, since employers will attempt to evade their obligations
to employ such workers.’[157]
A recent study for the European Commission, which looked at employment policies for
disabled persons in eighteen industrialized countries, found no examples where quota
systems achieved their targets. Acknowledging the arguments that quota systems produce
resources from levies or fines which can be used to support other employment development
measures, and that in some cases sufficient disabled people may not be available to enable
employers to meet their quotas, the study concluded: ‘…it is clearly the case
that in most countries the tide is swinging away from quotas – either for their
abandonment altogether (as in the UK), or for other measures (active employment support
for individuals and/or stronger anti-discrimination laws) to be given higher profile and
greater force.’[158]
Some European countries, such as Sweden, Finland and Denmark, as well as others
including Australia, Canada, South Africa and the United States, did not introduce quota
systems and decided instead to improve vocational training and rehabilitation and
strengthen the voluntary approach to employers. In addition, more and more countries have,
with increased lobbying by people with disabilities and their representative
organizations, been taking the route of anti-discrimination legislation, based in many
cases on the experience in the United States dating from civil rights legislation in the
1960s.
Perhaps the greatest seismic shift in the area of employment for people with
disabilities has been this move to anti-discrimination legislation. Like quota systems and
other government-sponsored schemes, anti-discrimination legislation assumes that specific
measures are needed to promote the employment of disabled people. Unlike quotas, however,
such legislation says that people with disabilities are able to compete for jobs on their
merits, provided the environment in which they do so does not discriminate against them
because of their disability.
Anti-discrimination legislation is not new. Laws to promote equal employment
opportunity and equal pay for women have been around in Europe for decades, with similar
legislation to protect the rights of people on racial, ethnic, or religious grounds in
many countries. One of the reasons why it took so long to extend anti-discrimination
legislation to disabled people may have been the lack of effective collective advocacy to
promote that cause.
It was reported in 2000 that more than 40 out of 189 UN member States had adopted some
kind of anti-discrimination legislation in respect of persons with disabilities.[159] It is not intended to compare
those laws,[160]but rather to
note the increasing number of countries enacting such legislation, and the fact that most
of the laws were adopted during the 1990s.The following country examples, which are by no
means exhaustive, are presented to illustrate the variety of approaches to this matter.
3.7.1 Australia
Australia has both national and state legislation to address discrimination against
persons with disabilities. The Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992 over-rides
state legislation and prohibits discrimination on the ground of disability in work and
employment as well as other areas, including education. The Act is administered by a
Disability Discrimination Commissioner within the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity
Commission, which investigates complaints of discrimination. The 1992 Act allows for the
development by organizations of Action Plans which identify barriers for persons with
disabilities within the organization and set out policies and programmes, with time
frames, for addressing them. The benefits of developing a Disability Action Plan are
threefold: it demonstrates a commitment to anti-discrimination principles, it can be given
to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to be taken into account if a
complaint is made against the organization, and it provides a tool for change.
3.7.2 Brazil
The Federal Constitution of Brazil of 1988 explicitly prohibits discrimination of any
kind concerning the recruitment of or salaries paid to persons with disabilities (Article
7). Law No. 7.853/89 concerning the Rights of Persons with Disabilities guarantees to
persons with disabilities the full exercise of their basic rights, including the right to
work. This law makes it a punishable offence to discriminate against a person on grounds
of disability in employment or work.
3.7.3 Canada
Anti-discrimination measures in Canada take two legislative forms. Section fifteen of
the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees every individual ‘the right to
equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination’ and covers
discrimination based on mental or physical disability. The Canadian Human Rights Act 1985
prohibits certain discriminatory practices, and disability is included among the possible
grounds. Both the Charter and the Act allow for (but do not require) affirmative action to
reduce disadvantages. While the Act did not originally require an employer to make
“reasonable accommodation” to enable a disabled person to meet job requirements,
an Amendment, introduced in 1998, includes a duty to accommodate:
“The duty to accommodate refers to the obligation of an employer, service
provider, or union to take steps to eliminate disadvantage to employees, prospective
employees or clients resulting from a rule, practice, or physical barrier that has or may
have an adverse impact on individuals or groups protected under the Canadian Human Rights
Act, or identified as a designated group under the Employment Equity Act.
The Canadian Human Rights Act provides that the special needs of a person relating to a
prohibited group of discrimination must be accommodated unless the employer or service
provider can prove that to do so would be an undue hardship.”
The second form of legislative measure, the Employment Equity Act, 1995, requires
active measures to deal with disadvantage, including making reasonable accommodation.
Persons with disabilities are among those covered by the Act.
3.7.4 Costa Rica
In Costa Rica, Law No. 760 concerning Equality of Opportunity for Persons with
Disabilities prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in the following cases
relating to employment and work: the use of recruitment procedures which have not been
adapted to reflect the needs of disabled job-seekers; the specification of requirements
additional to those generally applied, in relation to the recruitment of persons with
disabilities; and the failure to employ a person on grounds of disability.
3.7.5 Ethiopia
The Right of Disabled Persons to Employment Proclamation (Proclamation No.
101/1994 of 26 August 1994) aims to protect the rights of disabled persons to appropriate
training, employment opportunities and salary, and to stop any workplace discrimination.
Sections 3 and 4 refer to how employment opportunities for disabled persons should be
promoted in the open labour market. They state that no selection criteria shall refer to
the disability of the candidate, and that necessary equipment shall be provided to allow a
disabled person to carry out his duty. Article 6 emphasizes:
“Any disabled person whose rights are affected because of
non-compliance with the provisions of this Proclamation and regulations and directives
issued hereunder, may lodge his grievance to the organ empowered by law to hear the labour
dispute”.
Article 4 of the Right of Disabled Persons to Employment Proclamation, 1994
provides for a quota Article 4), stating that posts suitable for persons with disabilities
shall be identified and reserved from among vacancies created in offices and undertakings.
While the legislative framework is in place to introduce quota regulations, these have not
yet been introduced.
3.7.6 Mauritius
The Training and Employment of Disabled Persons Act 1996 of Mauritius contains an
anti-discrimination provision which makes it an offence for an employer to discriminate
against any disabled person in relation to advertisement of and recruitment for
employment, and the determination or allocation of wages, salaries, pensions and other
matters relating to employment. Any employer who discriminates against a disabled person
shall be liable to compensatory payment or to imprisonment. Under this Act, no disabled
person shall be employed on work which, with regard to the nature of his disability, is
not suitable.
The Act also requires organizations with 35 or more employees to set aside at least 3
percent of their positions for persons with disabilities. Employers who fail to meet the
quota are required to pay a financial contribution into a designated fund or may be liable
to imprisonment.
3.7.7 Philippines
The Philippines’ Magna Carta – Disabled Persons 1992, section 32, prohibits
discrimination against persons with disabilities in employment:
“ No entity, whether public or private, shall discriminate against a qualified
disabled person by reason of disability in regard to job application procedures, the
hiring, promotion, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and
other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.”
The Magna Carta lists in detail acts of discrimination covered by this prohibition:
- limiting segregating or classifying a disabled job applicant in such a manner that
adversely affects his work opportunities;
- using qualification standards, employment tests or other selection criteria that screen
out or tend to screen out a disabled person unless such standards, tests or other
selection criteria are shown to be job-related for the position in question and are
consistent with business necessity;
- utilizing standards, criteria, or methods of administration that:
- have the effect of discrimination on the basis of disability; or
- perpetuatethe discrimination ofothers who are subject to common administrative control;
- providing less compensation, such as salary, wage or other forms of remuneration and
fringe benefits, to a qualified disabled employee, by reason of his disability, than the
amount to which a non-disabled person performing the same work is entitled;
- favouring a non-disabled employee over a qualified disabled employee with respect to
promotion, training opportunities, study and scholarship grants, solely on account of the
latter's disability;
- reassigning or transferring a disabled employee to a job or position he cannot perform
by reason of his disability;
- dismissing or terminating the services of a disabled employee by reason of his
disability unless the employer can prove that he impairs the satisfactory performance of
the work involved to the prejudice of the business entity: provided, however, that the
employer first sought to provide reasonable accommodation for disabled persons;
- failing to select or administer in the most effective manner employment tests which
accurately reflect the skills, aptitude or other factor of the disabled applicant or
employee that such test purports to measure, rather than the impaired sensory, manual or
speaking skills of such applicant or employee, if any; and
- excluding disabled persons from membership in labour unions or similar organizations.
3.7.8 South Africa
The South African Constitution contains a Bill of Rights, which ‘enshrines the
rights of all people in our country and affirms the democratic values of human dignity,
equality and freedom’.[161] Clause 9 -
Equality, which forms part of the chapter on the Bill of Rights, states that equality
includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and freedoms, and that no person may
be discriminated against directly or indirectly on the ground of disability or on any of
the other grounds specified. Clause 9 also states that national legislation must be
enacted to prevent or prohibit unfair discrimination.
To promote the constitutional right of equality, eliminate unfair discrimination in
employment, ensure the implementation of employment equity to redress the effects of
discrimination and to give effect to South Africa’s obligations as a member of the
ILO, the Employment Equity Act was passed in 1998. The Act requires all employers to
eliminate unfair discrimination, direct or indirect, in any employment policy or practice,
on disability or other specified grounds. It is not unfair discrimination if an employer
takes affirmative action measures consistent with the purpose of the Act, or
distinguishes, excludes or prefers any person on the basis of an inherent requirement of
the job.[162] The Employment Equity Act
defines affirmative measures as ‘measures designed to ensure that suitably qualified
people from designated groups[163] have
equal employment opportunities and are equitably represented in all occupational
categories and levels in the workforce of a designated employer’. Affirmative action
measures must include:
- measures to identify and eliminate employment barriers which adversely affect people
from designated groups
- measures to enhance diversity in the workplace based on equal dignity and respect
- making reasonable accommodation for people from designated groups to ensure that they
enjoy equal opportunities and are equitably represented in an employer’s workforce in
all occupational categories and levels. This may include preferential treatment and
numerical goals, but excludes quotas.[164]
The Act defines ‘reasonable accommodation’ as ‘any modification or
adjustment to a job or to the working environment that will enable a person from a
designated group to have access to or participate or advance in employment.’
Employers are required to prepare and implement an ‘employment equity plan’
setting out objectives, specific numerical goals to achieve equitable representation of
suitably qualified people from designated groups within each occupational category and
level, timetables, strategies to achieve their goals, and procedures for monitoring and
evaluating the implementation of the plan.
Unfair discrimination in employment on disability grounds is further prohibited under
the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, 2000. The Act makes
it clear that disability discrimination includes failing to take reasonable steps to
accommodate the needs of a person with disabilities, and failing to identify or eliminate
obstacles that unjustly limit or restrict persons with disabilities from enjoying equal
opportunities.[165]
3.7.9 United States
In the United States, the system of rehabilitation in the 1950s and 1960s still had a
strong medical component. A medical diagnosis underlay eligibility for the programme and
effectively determined the course of rehabilitation for the programme’s target
populations.[166] However, the cause or
origin of disability (e.g. war injuries) became less of concern under the evolving
programme and the range of eligible ‘groups’ expanded during the 1960s and
1970s. With the passage of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act, the emphasis moved to vocational
rehabilitation, and considerable investment followed in vocational rehabilitation
facilities, sheltered workshops, day activity centres and in training qualified
rehabilitation professionals.
Part of the 1973 Act is concerned with eliminating employment discrimination, targeting
in particular public employers and firms contracting with the federal government.
Disability lobbyists argued not just for effective implementation but for an extension of
the Act’s requirements to employers in the private sector.
With the 1986 Amendments to the Rehabilitation Act, collective advocacy, developed from
the Civil Rights Movement, more and more influenced the broad national goals for
rehabilitation:
- ‘vocational rehabilitation’ was largely replaced in the language of the Act
with ‘rehabilitation’
- independent living was identified as a distinct service option for people without
immediate vocational goals[167]
- supported employment was identified as a distinct programme and outcome for the most
severely disabled individuals requirements for need-based programming were introduced:
- a formal state plan must be followed, based on the assessed needs of people with
disabilities
- eligibility must be based on expressed needs among severely disabled persons
- an individualized rehabilitation plan must be developed based on individual needs
- the state programme must be evaluated based on the extent to which it meets the needs of
persons with severe disabilities.’[168]
Public activism and organized advocacy continued, culminating in the adoption of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990. This extended the anti-discrimination
principle to all private employers with fifteen or more workers. It also prohibited
discrimination on the ground of disability in housing, public accommodation, education,
transport, communication, recreation, institutionalization, health services, voting and
access to public services.
In order to benefit from the employment protection provided by the ADA, the individual
must be qualified for the job in question. This means they must be able to perform the
‘essential functions of the job’, following the making of ‘reasonable
accommodation’, if necessary, a ‘reasonable accommodation’ being any
modification or adjustment that is effective in allowing an individual with a disability
to perform the ‘essential functions’ of the job. Employers are obliged to make
such accommodations unless it would cause them ‘undue hardship’.
3.7.10 Viet Nam
The Ordinance on Disabled Persons of 1998prohibits discrimination in hiring
against disabled persons for administrative and non-business positions. The Ordinance also
provides for tax benefits to employers who recruit persons with disabilities.
3.7.11 Zambia
The People with Disabilities Act No. 33 of 1996 in Zambia specifies that an employer
shall not treat a person with a disability different from a person without a disability in
advertising for employment, recruiting, offering terms or conditions of employment,
considering promotion, transfer or training of such persons or providing any other
benefits related to employment. The prohibition on discrimination also applies to learning
institutions. Discrimination is defined in the Act to mean:
- treating a person with a disability less favourably than a person without a disability
- treating a person with a disability less favourably than another person with a
disability
- requiring a person with a disability to comply with a requirement or condition in which
persons without a disability may have an advantage
- not providing different services or conditions required for that disability.
3.7.12 Key Issues
There are reports that anti-discrimination legislation which became effective in
certain industrialized countries some years ago has not been particularly effective in
improving the employment situation of persons with disabilities. A study to examine the
implementation, enforcement and effectiveness of anti-discrimination legislation in
relation to employment in different countries would be useful.
As an addition or alternative to obligatory measures based on legislation or quota
systems, non-obligatory measures based on persuasion and self-regulation are found in many
countries, with the express purpose of promoting employment for persons with disabilities.
3.8.1 Information and awareness raising campaigns
Information and awareness raising campaigns, often organized by government agencies and
sometimes by employer groups, may involve public seminars, publications, features in
newspapers, local and national radio and television, websites, etc. Employer-led campaigns
in Sweden, for example, aim to increase interest in creating job opportunities for
disabled people, and emphasize that profitability and social responsibility are not
incompatible. (Belgium, Canada, France, Japan, Portugal).
3.8.2 Awards
Awards to employers for efforts to improve employment opportunities are intended to
recognize good employment policy and practice and to encourage other employers to do
likewise (Australia, Greece). Awards may be made by a government agency or by employer
networks/associations.
3.8.3 Other Measures
Symbols which public or private enterprises may use on their stationery, advertisements
or other company literature indicating their commitment to equal opportunity and treatment
for disabled workers are used to show good company practice and to encourage others.
(Ireland, UK). Codes of good practice for employers have been developed in Belgium
and the UK. Disability equality awareness training for employers and their
employees is used in some countries, usually provided by non-governmental disability
organizations.
It is difficult to assess the usefulness of persuasion measures in influencing
attitudes or behaviour. The EU survey of employment policies for people with disabilities
concluded that disability organizations tend to believe that competing interests will
almost always undermine their effectiveness.[169]
3.8.4 Key Issues
While attitudes expressed in employer surveys may not always be reflected in employer
behaviour, persuasion measures should at least help to heighten awareness. Like voluntary
quota schemes, however, persuasion measures are no substitute for legislation and other
obligatory measures in promoting equality opportunity and treatment for workers with
disabilities.
The practice of Disability Management has developed in recent years as a means of
facilitating the recruitment, advancement, job retention and return to work of persons
with disabilities. In the workplace, disability management is a proactive process, often
integrated into human resource development practices, that promotes the entry and
promotion of persons with disabilities, as well as strategies that include a range of
prevention, rehabilitation and safe return-to-work interventions to address workplace
injury and disability. These strategies are undertaken in a coordinated effort by
workers’ representatives and management, who assume joint responsibility for
addressing disability-related issues in the workplace.
The ILO Code of Practice on Managing Disability in the Workplace adopted in November
2001 was drawn up to guide employers, in all sectors and sizes of enterprise, to adopt a
positive strategy in managing disability-related issues in the workplace. While the ILO
Code of Practice is primarily addressed to employers, the document notes that
‘governments play an essential role in creating a supportive legislative and social
policy framework and providing incentives to promote employment opportunities for people
with disabilities. Moreover, the participation and initiative of people with disabilities
is important for the Code to be achievable.’ The contents of the Code of Practice are
based on the principles underpinning international instruments and initiatives designed to
promote the safe and healthy employment of all people with disabilities. The Code is not a
legally binding document and is not intended to supersede or replace national legislation.
It is intended to be read in the context of national conditions and to be applied in
accordance with national law and practice.[170]
3.9.1 Job Retention
The ILO Code includes recommended practice in relation to workers who acquire a
disability while in employment, covering aspects such as policy, assessment and
rehabilitation. Prevention, early intervention and retention are issues receiving
increasing attention in many countries.[171]
Such measures are supported in many cases by the insurance industry on the basis that job
retention is generally likely to be a less costly outcome than if the employee leaves
work. Recent reviews of employment policies for persons with disabilities identified
relatively few examples of initiatives in this area, but it is likely to assume growing
importance to employers if it can be shown to prove itself on cost-effectiveness grounds.
To date, a limited number of countries have actively promoted disability management as
a strategy in national policies concerning vocational rehabilitation and employment of
disabled persons. Examples are cited here from Canada and the United States.
3.9.2 Disability Management in Canada
A Code of Practice for Disability Management was launched in Canada in 2000. Endorsed
and funded in part by the federal government’s Labour-Management Partnership
Programme, and produced by the National Institute of Disability Management and Research
(NIDMAR), the Code provides practical guidelines, key criteria and outcome measures for
implementing disability management. Many organizations and their networks, including
employers’ and workers’ organizations and organizations of and for persons with
disabilities, are helping to facilitate the employment, retention and return-to-work
opportunities for disabled persons. Measures include policy statements and provision of
advisory and supportive services.
3.9.3 Disability Management in the United States
With few exceptions, there are generally no federal or state programmes for short-term
or long-term disability measures for non-occupational illness or injuries in the United
States. This role is usually filled by employer, union and/or employee funded programmes.
The costs of short-term and long-term payments, as well as workers’ compensation
payment for work injuries, are ultimately borne by employers through increased insurance
premiums. Employers thus have an incentive to reduce these costs. This has led to the
introduction of what is termed disability management, encompassing a variety of activities
designed to prevent disabilities from occurring and/or to minimize their impact on workers
and employers. The activities include:
- safety programmes
- employee health and assistance programmes
- return-to-work programmes.
3.9.4 Key Issues
The ILO Code of Practice on Managing Disability in the Workplace should be promoted
actively with a view to its wider dissemination to and use by governments, employers’
and workers’ organizations.
Convention No. 159 requires that representative organizations of employers and workers,
as well as those of and for disabled persons, are to be consulted on the implementation of
national policy on vocational rehabilitation and employment. Recommendation No. 168 states
that these organizations should also be able to contribute to the formulation of policies
on the organization and development of vocational rehabilitation services, and makes a
number of recommendations about the form their participation might take.
Based on its survey of national legislation and the information provided by
governments, the ILO’s Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and
Recommendations has found that consultations, of different forms, are held in an
increasing number of countries.[172] In
some countries (for example, Austria, Czech Republic, France, Mauritius, Sweden, United
Kingdom) permanent councils or committees have been set up involving organizations of and
for disabled persons and are consulted on the implementation of national policy. In other
countries, all three representative groups are on various bodies responsible for drafting
or implementing policies, measures and programmes (in, for example, Chile, Cyprus,
Finland, Germany, the Philippines, Tunisia).
Some governments report that permanent bodies have been established to hold
consultations with employers’ and workers’ representatives. (Australia, Burkina
Faso, Greece, Lithuania, for example)
In other countries (for example, Argentina, Costa Rica, Ethiopia, Iceland, Suriname,
Thailand, Zambia) only organizations of and for persons with disabilities appear to be
consulted.
3.10.1 Key Issues
Vocational rehabilitation and employment for persons with disabilities should be seen
as an essential component of national employment policy. Government consultations on this
issue would undoubtedly benefit from the participation of employers’ and
workers’ organizations, as well as from the involvement of representatives of and for
disabled persons.
3.11.1 Information
The ILO Code of Practice on Managing Disability in the Workplace [173] defines a disabled person as ‘An individual whose
prospects of securing, returning to, retaining and advancing in suitable employment are
substantially reduced as a result of a duly recognized physical, sensory, intellectual or
mental impairment’. This is a slightly amplified version of the definition used in
ILO Convention No. 159, which has successfully stood the test of time since its adoption
in 1983. For practical purposes, the Code of Practice definition may be seen as applying
to any generalized sections of this report.
In considering disability legislation and policies at national, regional or
international levels, however, one finds no such agreement. There are wide divergences in
how disability is defined, not only between countries,[174] but also between Ministries and programmes within
countries.[175]
There is no consistent series of internationally comparable, reliable and valid data on
people with disabilities. This is partly because of the plethora of definitions used but
also because of deficiencies in the data collection methods employed. Thus, estimates of
the numbers of persons in the working-age population who are or might be classified as
having disabilities vary between countries, not only according to differences as to what
constitutes a disability but also because of the variety of approaches used to gather and
compile such data. These are not the only reasons why cross-national comparisons are
difficult. As a recent EU study of employment policies for people with disabilities points
out, no two countries operate substantially similar systems, and there are major
differences in almost all the main factors which impact on the structure and delivery of
disability and employment policy.[176] The
UN General Assembly has urged Governments to cooperate with the Statistics Division,
Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the UN Secretariat in the continued
development of global statistics and indicators on disability.[177]
Comparisons between countries can be informative and useful, provided the bases for
comparison are valid. What are more important in the first instance however, are the
relevance, nature, quality, reliability and accuracy of information which informs the
development of policy and programmes in each country. From recent surveys it would appear
that, with a few notable exceptions (United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia,
Sweden), the data required for policy and programme development, planning, monitoring and
evaluation are inadequate, and seriously so in some cases.
Most of the countries concerned readily acknowledge the information gaps, recognizing
that inadequacies in data make effective policy formulation and planning difficult, and
weaken the case for resource allocation. Many have plans to improve their statistical
information on the employment of persons with disabilities.
3.11.2 Monitoring and Evaluation
Poor data render effective programme monitoring and evaluation well-nigh impossible.[178] This assumes particular importance when
increasing social security costs give rise to concern. For example, in her 1998 report on
job retention and return to work strategies, Thornton includes in a list of ‘emerging
issues’:
‘Principles of social solidarity are eroding fast in the Netherlands, with
decreasing public and political will to support the massive costs of the disability
system….’ ‘A response to the rising costs of sickness and disability
benefits in the Netherlands and in Sweden has been to shift responsibilities from the
state to the enterprise….both for payment of sickness benefit and for early
intervention to reduce sickness absence’.[179]
In the United States, the US General Accounting Office has criticized the fact that the
effectiveness of a large range of employment related programmes for people with
disabilities has been subject to little or no evaluation.[180] The place of social security benefits in facilitating
return to work has also received special attention in the United States.
‘Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplementary Security Income programs
should not be viewed as exclusive and permanent sources of income to the person with
disabilities. They should, in every case possible, be used as stepping stones to improving
a person’s economic condition.’[181]
Few employment-related programmes for people with disabilities appear to have produced
evaluations which could be used to support a case for better funding.
The general need for better evaluation data is being reinforced by growing and
competing demands on public expenditure. Competition for resources exists not only within
the overall context of national economic policies, but also between disability policies
(prevention versus rehabilitation versus equal opportunity, for example) and within the
disability employment area itself. For instance, should available resources be allocated
to train all those who have a disability, concentrated on skill training for those most
likely to get jobs, or devoted to those most in need?
The imprecision inherent in any evaluation programme does not mean that evaluations
should not be carried out or used as a guide to policy. There is no alternative, if policy
affecting the future is to be based on a reasonable assessment of the problems with which
that policy must deal.
[143] ILO Code of Practice on Managing
Disability in the Workplace, 2002
[144] No. 99
[145] More detailed information on
measures in a number of countries may be found in other reports, including: ILO Vocational
Rehabilitation and Employment of Disabled Persons, 1998; Thornton, P, and Lunt, N.
Employment Policies for Disabled People in Eighteen Countries: A Review. Social Policy
Research Unit, University of York, 1997; European Commission, Benchmarking Employment
Policies for People with Disabilities, 2000.
[146] Convention No. 159, Article 7
[147] ILO, Vocational Rehabilitation and
Employment of Disabled Persons, 1998
[148] For a more detailed discussion
see, for example, OECD Working Party on Employment, Occupational Training and Retraining
Measures for Specific Target Groups, 1986
[149] Waddington, Lisa, Reassessing the
Employment of People with Disabilities in Europe: from Quotas to Anti-discrimination Laws.
Comparative Labour Law Journal, 18, 62, 1996, pp. 62-101.
[150] Doyle, Brian, Disabled
Workers’ Rights, the Disability Discrimination Act and the UN Standard Rules,
International Law Journal, 25, 1 Mar. 1996
[151] Doyle, op. cit.; Waddington, op.
cit.: Hyde, Mark, From Welfare to Work? Social Policy for Disabled People of Working Age
in the United Kingdom in the 1990s. Disability and Society, 15, 2, 2000, pp. 327-341
[152] European Commission, Benchmarking
employment policies for people with disabilities, 2000
[153] Accords are negotiated agreements
between employers and employees’ associations.
[154] The joint agency for the
management of integration funds for disabled persons.
[155] Ministry of Labour and Social
Affairs, 1996, quoted in Thorton and Lunt, op. cit., p. 98
[156] European Commission, op. cit., p.
89
[157] Waddington, op. cit., p. 71
[158] European Commission, Benchmarking
employment policies for people with disabilities, 2000, p. 207
[159] Degener, T. and Quinn, G. A survey
of International, Comparative and Regional Disability Law Reform. Paper presented at
‘From Principles to Practice’ Symposium, Washington DC. Oct. 2000
[160] Such a comparative process would
be difficult given the different legal systems and the different historic, social,
economic and political backgrounds of the countries concerned.
[161] Constitution of the Republic of
South Africa Act No. 108 of 1996, Chapter 2, clause 7
[162] Employment Equity Act No. 55 of
1998, Chapter 11, clause 6 (2)
[163] Including disabled persons
[164] idem: clause 15
[165] Promotion of Equality and
Prevention of Unfair Discrimination, Act No. 4 of 2000.
[166] Menz, Frederick. Vocational
Rehabilitation Research in the United States of America, in Floyd, Michael (Ed.)
Vocational Rehabilitation and Europe. London: Jessica Kingsley Publications, 1997
[167] The independent living philosophy
is about persons with disabilities taking responsibility for and control of decisions
affecting themselves, becoming self-reliant, and achieving full and equal participation in
society. Control over the individual’s rehabilitation programme was now very much in
the hands of consumers of rehabilitation services.
[168] Menz, idem: p. 96
[169] EU, op. cit., p. 209
[170] ILO Code of Practice on Managing
Disability in the Workplace, Geneva, 2002
[171] Thorton, P. International Research
Project on Job Retention and Return to Work Strategies for Disabled Workers, ILO: Geneva,
1998
[172] ILO, Vocational Rehabilitation and
Employment of Disabled Persons, 1998
[173] ILO Code of Practice on Managing
Disability in the Workplace, 2002
[174] See for example, OECD, Employment
Policies for People with Disabilities, 2000, pp. 194-201
[175] In Australia and Canada, for
example
[176] EU, Benchmarking employment
policies for people with disabilities, 2000
[177]Resolution 54/121 of 17 Dec. 1999,
‘Implementation of the World Programme of Action concerning Disabled Persons: towards
a society for all in the twenty-first century.’
[178] OECD Working Party on Employment:
Manpower Measures Evaluation Programme. ‘Occupational Training and Retraining
Measures for Specific Target Groups,’ 1986
[179] Thornton, P. International
Research Project on Job Retention and Return to Work Strategies for Disabled Workers, ILO
1998, p. 13
[180] Thornton P and Lunt N. Employment
Policies for Disabled People in Eighteen Countries: A Review, Social Policy Research Unit,
University of York, 1997, p. 276
[181] Social Security Administration,
1994, quoted in Thornton and Lunt, op. cit., p. 277
Return to top |
