Blogging against Disablism Day (#BADD2014) was back on the
1st, so I'm more than a little late, but I struggled to settle on a theme until
interactions on the #DisabilityConfident twitter hashtag focussed me back on to
disablism in employment. And by the way, do follow the #BADD2014 link for one of the most important collections of disability essays you'll read all year.
For more background on Disability Confident, see my earlier
blog So What's Wrong With Disability Confident.
When we come to disability employment, it's clear that the
main issue limiting disabled people achieving equality in the workforce is open
disablism (ableism for those in the States). Either we can't get through the
recruitment process because our applications get inexplicably filed in the
wastebasket when we mention our disabilities, or we don't mention them and they
get inexplicably filed in the wastebasket when we turn up for interview with
crutches, a wheelchair, a white cane, whatever. On the off-chance we get through
recruitment, which for many of us only happens because we didn't happen to be
disabled at the time, we then have to navigate the process of explaining to
management that we now need reasonable adjustments, which can far too often
trigger a full blown crusade to force us out of the company, and god forbid
your disability changes and you need to change your adjustments - 'Please sir,
I want some more.' Even if you get the adjustments in place, you may find
yourself facing jealousy from your peers - 'why should she get out of stacking
shelves just because she has a wheelchair', or transferred into a post where
the new manager takes against you - 'I believe anyone who becomes disabled
should be medically retired' to quote one of my annual appraisals. And when it
comes to taking on even a small company to enforce your rights, the company
usually has better resources, go up against a multinational and you can find
yourself facing hot and cold running lawyers, and even if you win may find
yourself subject to a gagging clause which means you can't discuss the censored
.
So when it comes to staging a major two year campaign to
challenge the lack of equality for disabled people in the workplace, you would
have thought that challenging open disablism would have been at the forefront
of the campaign. Unfortunately Disability Confident is a Department of Work And
Pensions campaign, and DWP thinks disability is our fault for not trying hard
enough (sadly I'm not joking), and god forbid they might even dare to contemplate
enforcing the Equality Act ("I am not somebody who would want to tell
somebody what they have to do. We have to work with business.” Esther McVey,
then Minister for(?!) Disabled People). Instead Disability Confident has
focussed on the low hanging fruit of companies who are willing to have disabled
employees, but aren't very good at it. Unfortunately Disability Confident isn't
very good at it either. Scope have basically done a better job in the first
week of their 'End the Awkward' campaign, which isn't even an employment
focussed campaign, than Disability Confident has managed in a year. Almost
half-way through Disability Confident's two year campaign and we're still
seeing the same 'how inspiring' tweets from the people attending their events.
One thing that disturbs me deeply about Disability Confident
is the number of disability consultants willing to get up on stage and say how
wonderful it is. Forget the campaign's figurehead, Simon Weston, he's there
because he's a mate of Mike Penning, the current Minister for Disabled People,
and doubtless picked as someone well known for being disabled who company
directors would probably quite like to have their picture taken with (and even
better, he's not a political crip). Focus rather on the disability consultants,
the people who deal with the issues of employment and disability on a day by
day basis. If they are disability consultants, then pretty much by definition
they need to know about things like inspiration-porn, and the real nature of
the employment market for disabled people, they can't do their job if they
don't. All the time they're singing the praises of Iain Duncan Smith for his
crusade against the inherent idleness of those damned, faking crips, they have
to know just how bad Disability Confident is, and that the elephant in the
corner is sitting there, staring at them, and wondering when they are going to
get around to dealing with the real issue - employer disablism. And what goes
for the elephant in the corner also goes for us out here, the actual disabled
people, the ones who want jobs, or who have jobs and need adjustments, or who
had jobs and lost them for no reason other than our disability and the
disablism of our employers. Like it or not, the disability consultants taking
part in Disability Confident are representing us, and they're doing a piss-poor
job of it.
DWP don't want to challenge disablism, the disability
consultants don't want to challenge DWP (that would be biting the hand that
pays their contracting fees), and our voice, the voice that says 'I want the
same chance to work as anyone else', goes unheard. For disabled people,
Disability Confident is worse than a failure, worse than nothing, it's the
disability equivalent of Uncle Tom's Cabin, actively designed to make
employers feel good about themselves and think they need do nothing more to
make us equal than hold up a handful of inspiring (sic) examples.
I'm never going to be a saintly Uncle Tom, held up as
an example of how a good little crip should behave, I'm cut far more from
Uppity Crip cloth, and when I see an elephant in the corner, I'm going
to shout it to the hilltops, and get Jumbo to trumpet it alongside me.
Disability Confident is not just bad, it's dangerous, it's explicitly designed
to reinforce the status quo, rather than persuade employers to live up to their
legal obligations to treat disabled people as equal to any other worker.
Employers have had 70 years to do that, since the Disabled Persons (Employment)
Act 1944, if they haven't done it yet, they aren't going to do it without being
forced, no matter what Esther McVey or Mike Penning might bleat. And if a
programme is designed to reinforce a disablist reality, then that programme is
by definition itself disablist.
No comments:
Post a Comment