Conclusiones

Employment is usually defined from the opposite state of unemployment (Shau, 1995). The labour market exists with both employed and unemployed individuals. A person that is seeking employment without current employment will be classified as unemployed (Shau, 1995). According to Shau (1995), most countries accept that an unemployment rate of six percent of the general work-able population is the maximum employment rate that can be achieved, even in ideal economic conditions.

The National Director of the QuadPara Association of South Africa, Ari Seirlis, describes what is needed for a PWD to become employed: “I see it like Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Firstly, accessible transport. Second, accessible buildings. Thirdly, skill development opportunities. Lastly, employment opportunities” (Seirlis & Swartz, 2006, p. 365). Issues, such as job-skills development and employment opportunities for PWDs will be further explored in Sections 2.5 and 2.6. The rest of this section will define what an Employee with a Disability (EWD) is. It will also explore what constitutes equitable and suitable employment for PWDs. Finally, how employment experiences are measured will be related.

2.4.1 Defining employment for a PWD and disability in employment settings

Challenges with the definition of disability create problems for the employment of PWDs. Disability definitions must be contextualised, and this creates challenges for establishing measurable targets and consistent policy on disability in organisations. Without clear definitions and policy, it becomes very

difficult to operationalise employment initiatives for PWD inclusion (Schriner, 2001). As such, the SA government has formulated a definition for a PWD in work settings.

For the purposes of this study, employment for PWDs were defined as any full-time paid work for a company in the private sector. When referring to the employment experiences of PWDs, this incorporates experiences by the EWD in any employment-related area as specified by the TAG (SA DoL, 2007), including reasonable accommodations, recruitment/selection, medical/psychological testing, job placement/training, career advancement, job retainment/termination with benefits following acquired disability, disclosure of medical information and employee benefits.

The Code of Good Practice on Disability in the workplace (SA DoL, 2002) legally defines disability in employment context as having three necessary components: “physical/mental impairment”; “long-term or recurring”; “substantially limiting” (p. 3). Physical and mental impairment represents impairment of a bodily function or clinical mental illness or limitation. Long-term impairment refers to a condition that lasts for one year or more. Recurring refers to a situation where a condition has a high likeliness for recurring and/or being substantially limiting, such as a progressive condition/disease. “Substantially limiting” (p. 3) is defined as any condition that significantly inhibits a person from performing a job “in the absence of a reasonable accommodation by the employer” (p. 4). Some conditions are excluded from this definition if it is very easily controlled by corrective devices or can be mostly controlled by the person with the condition (for example an addiction) (SA DoL, 2002).

Beyond the definition of an EWD (a PWD in the work setting), employment rights and options employment for PWDs can also be defined.

2.4.2 Defining employment equity for PWDs

Equal opportunity employment (also called employment equity) represents a policy by which equal access to employment are actively enforced in order to correct unfair practises of discrimination against certain minorities and groups (such PWDs) from the past (O’Connell, 2005). Employment Equity is enforced to prevent future discrimination against specific groups of people (O’Connell, 2005). The South African government adopted the Employment Equity Act (EE Act, 1998) by which PWDs qualify for equitable/affirmative opportunities to employment in all labour market sectors. Relevant South African policies on PWD employment have been presented in Section 1.2. The Technical Assistance Guidelines on the Employment of people with disabilities (TAG) have twelve employment-related areas that should be kept in mind when planning an employment equity programme for PWDs (SA DoL, 2007):

1. Reasonable accommodation is aimed at reducing the impact that a person’s impairment or other barriers may have on the job performance. Employers should choose the most cost-effective accommodation that is tailored to individual needs, while still maintaining the optimal job-person fit (paraphrased pp. 13 – 15).

2. Recruitment and selection practices should be centred on “inherent requirements and essential functions of the job” (p. 26) and exclude any discriminatory language, practises and redundant

job requirements or inaccessible job advertising or discriminatory selection criteria and/or interviews (paraphrased pp. 26 - 28).

3. Medical and psychological testing must be “relevant and appropriate” (p. 32) to the job description of the prospective employee. Medical testing should be distinguished from psychometric and job-person fit testing (paraphrased pp. 32 – 33).

4. Placement practices involve the orientation, integration and training of a new employee. New employees with disabilities should be treated as equals and current employees may benefit from sensitisation training on working with a co-worker with a disability (paraphrased pp. 36 – 39).

5. Career advancement and further training should be offered to all employees on an equal basis and all materials and recreation that may lead to advancement should be accessible (paraphrased p.

40).

6. The retainment of employees who become disabled should include proper consultation with the individual who acquired the disability and reasonable accommodation should be made in order to encourage an early return to work (paraphrased pp. 45 – 46).

7. Termination of employment is always guided by the Labour Relations Act and is permissible under the condition that a person cannot perform critical aspects of their job description.

Employees must be properly advised by the employer on disability benefits available to them (paraphrased p. 47).

8. Statutory compensation advice should be given to any employee eligible for worker’s compensation or Unemployment insurance (paraphrased p. 49).

9. Confidentiality should always be protected and “written consent” (p. 51) should be obtained before any information concerning an employee’s disability is disclosed to a third party. Employees have the right to keep their disability status confidential (paraphrased p. 51) .

10. Benefit schemes cannot unfairly discriminate against persons with disabilities, nor can a benefit scheme refuse membership to an employee based solely on the presence of a disability (paraphrased p. 53).

11. Employment equity planning may benefit the following “10-step plan process” (p. 54) across three sequential phases, namely preparation (assign responsibility, communication/awareness/training, consultation, analysis), implementation (corrective measures/objectives, time frames establishment, allocation of resources, communication of plan, integration of plan) and monitoring (monitor, evaluate and review) (paraphrased pp. 54 – 56).

12. Education and awareness is an effective tool to which people can turn in order to dispel myths and stereotypes towards a group. Education and training within the public and private sector, within businesses and trade unions on the rights and benefits of employing person with disabilities can yield long-term change in the labour market. Consultations with PWDs may proof most valuable during this process (paraphrased p. 57).

Equitable employment should ideally also lead to appropriate and quality employment outcomes for PWDs. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. The following section will explore suitable and quality employment for PWDs, as well as appropriate job types for PWDs.

2.4.3 Defining suitable and quality employment for PWDs

The question of suitable employment for PWDs is explored from different angles by several authors.

Brucker (2004) discusses suitable employment, both in its definition and application to employment outcomes for PWDs. With a multiple-case study approach, Brucker (2004) evaluated the use of suitable employment in terms of public service delivery and employment programme goals across three states in the USA. From her analysis, she concluded that the suitable employment concept could be a used in programme design when careful consideration is given to its definition (including the interaction and dimensions of personal skills, job description and environmental influences) and its timing in the programme (from initial job eligibility to actual programme stages/evaluation).

An alternative term, customised employment, refers to job selection through focusing on an individual’s abilities, strengths and education and then matching the individual to an existing job opportunity (Inge, 2007). Inge (2007) discussed that customised employment success may be improved by adequate employer education, customised on-the-job training, careful job selection (based on strengths) and carefully preparing the individual for the job. Job placement within organisations that provide support and, preferably, that are in close proximity to the individual with a disability, would also facilitate the integration. Job accommodation may also be necessary in customised employment (Inge, 2007).

Turner, Barling, and Zacharatos (2002) explored quality employment for PWDs. They focused on the benefit that work can bring to an individual and the processes by which a healthy career can be achieved.

They focused their review by discussing elements of job design that can promote positive psychological growth and resilience in employees, as well as the promotion of interpersonal interaction and commitment to work. They proposed work redesign into jobs that “encourage workers to engage actively with their tasks and work environment” through promoting “autonomy in performing their jobs, [performing] challenging work, and the opportunity for social interaction” (Turner et al., 2002, p. 717). This approach should be kept in mind when the quality of employment for PWDs are investigated.

Sheltered versus inclusive employment for PWDs must also be considered when the rights of PWDs are explored. From cross-cultural survey data, it becomes apparent that inclusive employment has not replaced segregated employment at a rapid rate (Sutton & Walsh, 1999). Sheltered employment refers to specific employment environments created for PWDs and segregated from the mainstream employment, which Migliore, Mank, Grossi and Rogan (2007) call facility-based programmes or sheltered workshops.

The rationale for sheltered employment is to provide a source of income and work experience to PWDs with conditions/impairments that are deemed too severe or challenging for open labour market jobs (as cited in Migliore et al., 2007). Though segregated employment can be important to accommodate some PWDs into the workplace, the current focus, in keeping with contemporary rights-based approaches to disability, is on facilitating inclusive, open labour market employment opportunities for PWDs.

Certain job titles may be suitable for different disability types. Job titles in the open labour market that can be performed by various types of PWDs were the focus of a study by Chi (1999). Numerous suitable jobs for different categories of disability (differentiation in terms of persons with blindness, mobility impairment, learning disorders, mental impairment, deafness or psychological disturbance) were identified.

Each job title (with a total of 112) fell into three categories: required education/experience, physical demands and task environment. Critical job elements for each job title were identified and a factor analysis yielded a five-factor model, explaining almost 60% of score variance. These five factors were occupational hazard, verbal communication education/training, visual acuity, body agility and manual ability (Chi, 1999).

Another angle on suitable employment is to examine several broad open labour market industries and their potential for worker integration. Gröschl (2007), for example, explored the potential for employment of PWDs in the hotel industry in his Canadian study. He specifically addressed key questions concerning Human Resources (HR) management strategies in order to enhance employment outcomes in the hotel industry. Gröschl (2007) states that, amongst other complexities, the focus on physical appearance of staff in the hotel industry may provide additional resistance to the employment of PWDs. Gröschl (2007) also found that the 42 hotels in his sample had very little “proactive” (p. 679) practices and policies concerning potential or existing employees with disabilities. He suggests better collaboration between industry and employment agencies (for PWDs) in terms of understanding disability, communicating policy and educating existing staff on the potential diversity benefits in creating an atmosphere of inclusivity.

The potential issues of employing PWDs in accounting firms across the United Kingdom were explored by Duff, Ferguson, and Gilmore (2007). They interviewed nine HR managers in order to determine their attitudes towards potential employees with disabilities. Seven of the managers expressed concern that persons with mobility impairment may be unable to visit clients on-site and that clients may possibly feel uncomfortable having a person with a disability as their accountant. The authors concluded that a lack of trade union pressure and failure to distinguish between disability and impairment negatively influenced employment opportunities for PWDs in accounting firms.

With the advent of computer-based technology, Haynes, Shackelford, and Black (2007) discussed that manufacturing environments may provide job opportunities to PWDs. There exists, however, a concern with regard to the implications for worker safety (Haynes et al. 2007). The American Occupational Safety and Health Administration places the burden of workplace safety upon the employer. When introducing a worker with a disability and an appropriate assistive technology, the employer first has to ensure that the new technology and worker do not create additional safety hazards. This may be a disincentive for employing a PWD. Haynes et al. (2007) conclude by advising vocational rehabilitation professionals to prepare and assist employers in understanding both the employee’s abilities and the accommodations needed to assist the employee with a disability.

There is also potential for PWDs in the Information Technology (IT) sector (Schartz, Schartz, &

Blanck, 2002). As a growing sector, IT jobs may provide additional work opportunities to persons with disabilities. Schartz et al. (2002) suggest that positive role models with disabilities (in the IT industry),

accurate empirical information on accommodation costs to employers, potential for home-based work and federal economic incentives may potentially increase the hiring of persons with disabilities in the IT sector.

Suitable employment can also extend beyond job description and industry type and include reference to job level. Some studies have focused on the unique challenges that PWDs face when they achieve a high-ranking position. This “glass cliff” (p. 56) refers to the “precarious” (p. 56) position that women (as a minority group in business) face when they aim for or achieved a leadership position (Ryan, Haslam, &

Kulich, 2010). Braddock and Bachelder (1994) also reported on the “glass ceiling” facing PWDs. This represents the invisible barrier that may prevent PWDs from advancing in their careers. A later section will further explore advancement for PWDs, while this section concludes with two final employment options for PWDs.

Home-based employment (and telecommuting) may provide the necessary flexibility for a PWD and can be a feasible solution to many that are looking for increased job opportunities in the future (Rumrill, Fraser, & Anderson, 2000). Rumrill et al. (2000) reported that 12% of persons undergoing rehabilitation due to injury needed home-based employment options if they were to compete in the open labour market. They also reported that many preferred working from home, and that home-based employment is growing amongst all levels of the working population, especially in the light of new technology. Home-based employment success still, according Rumrill et al. (2000), depends on the employer’s needs being matched with the worker’s abilities and skills.

Self-employment is also an option available to PWDs. “The concept of entrepreneurship offers the opportunity to level the playing fields within the different disability generic groups, meaning that your business opportunity or interest is not dependent on the type of disability you have” (Seirlis, as cited in Seirlis & Swartz, 2006, p. 370). As with any independent endeavour, though, Griffin (2002) warns that being self employed is challenging. Lorenzo, Van Niekerk, and Mdlokolo (2007), however, advised that “inherent motivation, preparedness to co-operate and to work hard” (p. 436) facilitates entrepreneurship success and independence.

As is clear from this section, different types of jobs, industries and corporate cultures exist for PWDs to navigate. The following section will focus on the employment equity to assist PWDs in gaining employment.

2.4.4 Measurement of employment experiences of and with employees with disabilities

Before reporting on the employment experiences of PWDs, one first has to measure these. The employment experiences, as well as company systems, processes and policies with regards to disability have been measured in numerous studies. The first category of measurement relates to standardised measures of attitudes towards disability in the workplace, as well as organisational culture. Other studies have used survey to measure whether company disability policy is present and adequate, as well as whether company systems/processes are disability-friendly. The following section will discuss some measurement instruments on the above categories.

Schur et al. (2005) discussed both quantitative and qualitative methodologies and situations in which the one or other would be more useful and appropriate for measuring attitude and organisational culture.

Quantitative methods can provide meaningful data in order to compare group members, as well as for comparisons between organisations. Qualitative methodology may especially be useful in areas with limited previous research and few or no theories to guide a researcher.

The combination of both quantitative and qualitative methodologies in a single study can, however, yield complementary knowledge on a subject (McGrath & Johnson, 2003; Schur et al., 2005). For comparisons between organisations regarding aspects of organisational culture and the influence it has on the potential for employing PWDs, quantitative methods can be most useful. Schur et al. (2005) state that

“employer surveys provide insight into the ways in which corporate culture may affect people with disabilities” (p. 8). This highlights the fact that survey research (as a form of quantitative investigation) can yield knowledge on employer attitudes and opinions.

In exploring the link between organisational culture and disability, an extension of knowledge on opinion can take shape in the form of in-depth interviewing (as an example of qualitative research) in order to add depth in understanding and describing a phenomenon (such as underlying core values) that may be hard to capture through standardised measures (Schur et al., 2005). Schur et al. (2005) suggested that qualitative research may be particularly useful in formulating new theories.

Even though both methodologies may be helpful in measuring organisational culture, most authors and measures have focused on quantitative measures of attitudes towards a specific group in an organisation.

Hernandez et al. (2000) referenced several standardised attitude measurements in work settings with regards to PWDs. The Attitudes Toward the Employability of Persons with Severe Handicaps Scale by Schmelkin &

Berkell from 1989, and the Worker Scale and the Scale of Attitudes toward workers with disabilities by Kregel and Tomiyasu from 1992, have been used in numerous studies since their creation (Hernandez et al., 2000).

Another standardised measure, called the Employment Expectation Questionnaire, was evaluated by Millington, Leierer, and Abadie (2000). They tested the validity of the Employment Expectation Questionnaire (beta version, EEQ-B) that was developed in order to test the attitudes/expectations of employers and stakeholders towards PWDs (specifically persons with intellectual impairment). It also aimed to measure the subsequent effect it may have on the selection and employment of persons with disabilities.

Millington et al. (2000) explain that “the degree to which irrelevant disability information changes the evaluation of the factors of selection is a measure of disability bias in the process of selection” (Millington et al., 2000, p. 41). They pilot tested the five-factor EEQ-B on a student sample and found a positive bias towards persons with a intellectual impairment, possibly due to selection bias. The EEQ-B must still be field tested with employers and stakeholders before final adjustment for validity of content can take place. Apart from the standardised quantitative measures mentioned, many surveys have been developed to investigate attitude and practices with regards to disability employment.

Surveys have also been used by researchers to explore wider constructs than just attitude towards EWDs. These surveys explore company systems, processes and policies with regards to disability, as well as providing non-standardised measurement of attitude and organisational culture. Four surveys were used for the current study’s survey construction, and each will be briefly discussed.

The first survey used was developed by McFarlin, Song, and Sonntag (1991). The survey explored EWD integration into the labour market. This survey included questions on integration, EWD performance, opinion on hiring and accommodation processes and some demographic questions.

The second survey used was created by Dixon, Kruse, and Van Horn (2003). This was a new survey

The second survey used was created by Dixon, Kruse, and Van Horn (2003). This was a new survey