In an ideal world, someone with a disability would be able to inform a potential employer about this in the application letter. And in that same ideal world, the employer could then ask in the conversation: ‘what would you need from us to lighten your burden?’ This is how we solve discrimination.
When we think of discrimination in the workplace, we often think of origin, sexual orientation or gender. The Netherlands has more than two million people with disabilities and unfortunately they also face discrimination. Some of these limitations are clearly visible, such as spinal cord injury or blindness. But often it concerns limitations that cannot be seen, such as a panic disorder, autism, burnout history, stuttering, rheumatism, dyslexia, or ADD.
How far we are from the ideal of an inclusive labor market became painfully clear to us in a three-year study. In one of the studies in this research that we are conducting in the United States, we saw that applicants who indicated in their letter that they have a disability saw their chance of being invited shrink by 35 percent. We have no illusion that this is different in the Netherlands. Global research shows that the average is 41 percent.
If applicants say that their disability has actually made them ‘stronger’, which is often the case, their chances of being invited decrease even further. This was striking, especially because there are a lot of advice to tell a positive story.
What those applicants need is an employer’s willingness to provide tailor-made solutions. This is already self-evident for wheelchair users, such as making lifts or spaces barrier-free. This is more difficult to implement for other limitations. Not every applicant who stutters will aspire to customer interviews, but those who do need to gain the trust of the employer. After all, you do not make the workplace more disability-friendly for that one applicant with a disability, but for society as a whole. Inclusion is a human right, according to the UN Convention on Disability. It is therefore in all our interests, economically and morally, that everyone’s labor potential is utilized. Exclusion not only puts people at a disadvantage, but also initiates new problems: poverty, loneliness, sadness.
As our research shows, we are left with a conundrum: in surveys, employers indicate that they are open to applicants with disabilities, that they think people with disabilities are productive, but when it comes to an actual job application, the party doesn’t start. Through.
Why are employers so hesitant? Unknown means unloved, it turns out. Employers who already employ people with disabilities are not so easily shocked by an applicant who deviates from the norm. Employers with an unlimited workforce (often organizations in which employees hide their limitations) are more likely to reject applicants with disabilities. Another factor: insufficient knowledge about subsidies. In an adapted working environment, a limitation can virtually disappear. And in a low-stimulus environment, someone with autism can reach great heights.
The Participation Act was created with the aim of ensuring that everyone participates ‘according to their ability to work’. But this law does depend on the goodwill of employers. They decide whether to hire or reject someone with a disability. Benevolence may not be the right word. The will is generally there, but for only 4.5 percent of employers this leads to serious appointments.
The policy must also be simpler. Not every employer has a human resources department that has the time to study wage costs, no-risk policies and details of the Participation Act. The Schoof cabinet must realize that it is in the interests of both the economy (sufficient staff) and the rule of law (non-discrimination) not to allow the knowledge and skills of people with disabilities to deteriorate.
Two million people in the Netherlands. That’s what we’re talking about. We are putting so many people with disabilities at a disadvantage. There we not only lose labor potential, gross domestic product, but also quality of life. The limitation that this group experiences is not so much in their bodies and limbs, but in our idea of what makes an employee suitable. We can change that.