Articles
Feature Article
More than Words
written by Beth Johnston
People with disabilities (people first, disability second). DisAbility
(focus on the ability). Inclusion (stop excluding).
Some people believe terminology is very important because it conveys an ideological message, creates a political norm, and contributes to a cultural shift. Others think it’s just words, holding little influence, and that it’s behaviour that effects change. I think both words and actions are important, in this context they show the relationship between policy, attitudes and behaviour. I use my personal experience to demonstrate the need to address policy makers’ attitudes to disability, and the need to reshape the public service into an equitable employer.
I worked as a Community Building Project Officer in the Victorian Department of Human Services (DHS) for a year and a half. I have a Politics degree and have worked in Australian local government and the systemic advocacy sector for six years.
DHS was implementing a new initiative known as MetroAccess, to help local communities be come inclusive of people with disabilities. It is clear that the number of Australians with disabilities is increasing and that government alone is not, and cannot, meet their needs. People with disabilities, like everyone else, want to live meaningful, contributing lives. MetroAccess is one way that people with disabilities’ domestic, economic and social needs are met by the community, and not completely reliant on government.
This policy perspective interested me and, although I haven’t longed to work in the disability field all my life, I was excited about my job. MetroAccess is implemented by local government in partnership with state government. Each council I worked with was at varying levels of development in their understanding of people with disabilities’ needs, rights and contributions. I assumed that State government, having designed this social policy and its implementation through MetroAccess, would have already applied it to its own operations.
Unfortunately I found this wasn’t the case . I am vision impaired. I use JAWS, screen reading software, to access computer software applications such as Microsoft Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Internet Explorer and Outlook. DHS, along with the rest of the Victorian State Government, used Lotus Notes as its email and intranet software. I encountered difficulty when trying to read my emails and use the Intranet at work. The Lotus Notes version used at the time had limited accessibility for vision impaired people using adaptive software. There were also problems with how JAWS ran with Lotus Notes on the DHS network.
Without reliable access to my emails, I found my job increasingly difficult. Everyone would be lost without access to their email, but the consequences are even worse when you have a vision impairment and rely on receiving all reading material via email. It became necessary for people to send emails to my home email address so I could use Outlook to read them outside working hours.
I have always worked really hard to demonstrate my competence, to counter people’s preconceived view of my limitations. This means being organised, remembering well and putting in the time. I was distressed that my professionalism and competence was being eroded by the Department’s response to the I.T. problem we faced.
From this point it became obvious to me that the State Government’s policy agenda had not changed the attitude and behaviour of its beaurocracy. The nature and form of beaurocracy (staff movement around the public service, size and complexity of management structures, and an environment of not taking responsibility) prevented those I raised the problem with responding to me. Some people were trying to rectify the problem but didn’t communicate with me about what they were doing. This resulted in a focus on an unachievable technical solution, not on my needs and getting me back to work. There were two components to the problems I experienced.
At a technical level, the State Government’s choice of software was inaccessible to people with sight disabilities. At DHS no consideration had been given to software accessibility despite this department being responsible for disability initiatives such as MetroAccess. The problems I experienced should have prompted this consideration; especially as government departments were compiling their Disability Action Plans at the time. But Government still saw people with disabilities as service users, not public service employees. The climate in the Department was one of rigidity and containment, which discouraged initiative.
At the individual level, I recognised changing software applications across government was a medium to long term solution, the focus needed to be on how I could do my job in the meantime. A temporary solution was to use Outlook on a stand-alone computer unconnected to the DHS network. Policy restrictions, lack of consultation with me, and misunderstanding of my accessibility needs, meant this option was not explored.
As a result, I felt disempowered, as though I lost my rights as a person with a disability, but also as an employee. I thought I’d been employed to do a job, not as a token gesture. Therefore the focus should have been on problem solving how I could do my job and be most productive. People’s preconceptions, ignorance or value systems about disability meant I wasn’t seen as an employee but as a dispensable person with a disability. When my contract ended it was not renewed due to a restructure and I left DHS without the problems being resolved.
Six months later I used the Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) complaints process to convey my experience to DHS and suggest improvements. The process gave me the opportunity to be heard and discuss how things could be better in future. I.T. accessibility is a specific issue that can be overcome through flexibility, forward thinking and software development. What is more important is to not lose sight of the person as a colleague, a problem-solver, a friend, an equal.
It’s ok to not know all the answers, everyone’s needs are different. The most important thing to remember is everyone deserves respect, dignity and honesty. Disability awareness training should include role playing with a focus on problem solving, and humanising people with disabilities. Recognising commonalities: ambition, skill, joy, humour, will help people put aside their fear and get on with their job.
All State Government beaurocracies must work hard to harness the value and ability disabled people bring to all employment areas. A proactive approach of engaging with employees with disabilities will get the best out of them. Middle to top-level managers must take responsibility for ensuring problems are solved and people are doing their jobs. Taking responsibility doesn’t equal playing musical chairs and not being out when the music stops. It’s about recognising it’s not about who will take the blame, but about doing everything you reasonably can to help people solve a problem. The culture must encourage flexibility and common sense when faced with policies and practices that exclude people with disabilities. This will make the public service more equitable. Senior beaurocrats and politicians must instigate this.
This should happen alongside educating people that the biggest barrier for people with disabilities is other people’s attitudes and behaviour. Therefore we all have it in ourselves to make a difference. I hope the learnings from my experience are used to ensure such a good opportunity to live the language isn’t missed in future.
My current job is Coordinator for the Network for CARERS of people with a mental illness. I’ve had this position almost a year, I find my job stimulating, meaningful and enjoyable. I hope other people with disabilities can have the same experience.
Feature Article
There is a big difference between non-discrimination (equal opportunity), a minimalist approach and having a pro-active approach to a diverse work force. In order for someone with a disability or for someone from another disadvantaged group to prove discrimination there has to be blatant and obvious reasons for discrimination. This needs to be clearly the reason for a person not to get the job.. read mor
Recently, ADDE was involved in the judging of the Diversity@Work 2010 Employment and Inclusion Awards: People with a Disability. This award recognises excellence in initiatives or programs related to the employment and inclusion of people with a disability. Peter Rickards, ADDE president, was a judge on the panel and stated how happy he was to once again have the opportunity to judge the nominations.. read more
ILO (International Labor Organisation) Employment Working Paper No. 43
A summary: We hear a lot about the costs of inclusion of people with disabilities - pensions, subsidies, services, access etc - but hardly anything about the costs of exclusion. The following report estimates the costs of exclusion from the world of work as between 3-5% of GDP: http://sebastian.buckup.de/4.html
While this study looks at ten low to middle income countries, the percentage is probably higher for countries like Australia.. read more
- The health and saety conundrum read more
- Australia signs the International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities read more
- Some personal remarks about disability By Roger Beale (AO) read more
Our mission is to increase employment opportunities for
people with disabilities and from diverse backgrounds
in Australia. For those of you who are not aware we were
officially formed on September 7, 2005 at Victorian Council
of Social Services (VCOSS).
ADDE promotes pro-active employment
policies and practices for disadvantaged groups including
people with disabilities, mature age workers, people from
culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds as well
as indigenous people. People who fall into more than one
of these categories are recognised as being even more
disadvantaged. Therefore, we see a greater need for a
change of attitude and awareness.