Disabled people and employment
The Commission met with a New Plymouth disabilities group and disability support agencies. Mixed stories emerged of examples where some disabled people were well supported into and at work. Conversely there were other stories where disabled people felt let down and in some cases totally unsupported by agencies.
One participant was extremely “happy” with the level of support he received and viewed his work as essential to keeping a positive daily focus and being active. Another participant spoke of her struggle to keep her job as a consequence of being unsupported and having to educate managers about her disability. She found this very hard to cope with.
Employers appeared to be unwilling to give disabled people a go and were apprehensive about what employing a disabled person might entail. A Christchurch group told us that a critical task is to “reduce the fear about what disability might mean for employers. Accommodating special needs doesn’t have to be a big deal, everyone has special needs.”
A group of Deaf in Hawke’s Bay talked about the multiple barriers inherent in the recruitment process. They talked about assistance needed for preparing curricula vitae (CVs), phoning prospective employers and organising an interpreter for the rare occasions when they got a job interview. There is no resident sign interpreter in Hawke’s Bay. Sadly the interpreter was often perceived by prospective employers as a support person rather than as an impartial interpreter.
When disabled staff were asked what they like about work, they spoke about the social aspect of being with friends and also the immense satisfaction gained from applying technical skills such as those required for sign-writing and wood turning. Everyone the Commission spoke to said work “gives you something to get up for” and “I need something to do to keep me occupied”.
Without work, disabled staff overwhelming said that they would be “bored and annoyed” and would probably “just sit there” at home. The Commission learned that employment was a more desirable alternative to community participation programmes or unemployment. “There is dignity in labour” the Commission was told. Income from work paid below the minimum wage was supplemented by benefits.
Incorrect assumptions were made about what an individual disabled person might need to make employment work. Conversations about the practical implications of employment were avoided. For example, a group of blind people meeting in Wellington told the Commission that interviewers did not ask about how guide dogs might behave at work and instead assumed that the dog would be as boisterous and disruptive as their family pet.
Many have noticed a change in employer attitudes with increased societal awareness but believed the following things still needed to happen to change attitudes:
• Greater recognition of employers that employ disabled people
• Testimonials from employers that have found disabled people to be great workers
• Encouragement of other employers to take on disabled staff
• Greater education and awareness raising around disabilities.
“The focus for employers should be on education, retention of disabled staff, employment rights and the loyalty shown by people with disabilities”, we were told.
One participant summed up the need for attitudinal change by employers when he said, “If we were to look at [disabled] people as an investment rather than look at them as a pathology or as a disability and if we were to look at people’s abilities rather than disabilities, I think we would be in a different spot”.