Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Simon Carrier
Good morning and a happy new year
I hope that someone can assist me with this one. We have a few disabled person working for us, in one particular area the Supervisor has raised an issue with regard to the ratio of able/disabled persons. The area in question is a reprographics room where two abled bodied persons work alongside two disabled persons. The Supervisor has stated that there is a requirement to have 4 abled bodied persons to 1 disabled person working in the area. I am a bit skeptical about this and was wondering if anyone had come across such a requirement. The work is low hazard, bascically putting together documents and archiving. Any help would be gratefully recieved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By BarryS
I certainly havn't heard of any legislation demanding this type of ratio. Is this person able to quote the source?(Might also be an idea to use the phrase 'people with disabilities' rather than 'disabled people' too!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Zoe Barnett
I suspect your supervisor has been misinformed. Any such ratio would almost certainly be in contravention of discrimination laws. I can see no good reason for any such requirement and know of no legal basis for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Maggie Atterbury
This is just the sort of rubbish that the DDA is trying to eliminate. The only question is can they do the job?
Maggie Atterbury
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Simon Carrier
Thank you for your replies. No offence intended to you BarryS I am not up with the current PC way. I am glad to see that I was right to be skeptical.
Thanks again
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By J Knight
Just a note; the forum run by and for the people living in the services run by my former employer (the UK's biggest Care Charity) are adamant that they are 'disabled people', not 'people with disabilities'. The moral of this? don't worry too much about what you should call people, just be very thoughtful about how you treat them,
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Gilly Margrave
I have to agree with John on this one. It is society which puts barriers in the way of disabled people rather than any particular condition hence people are disabled by society rather than suffering from a conditon which is intrinsically disabling.
Gilly
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Zoe Barnett
Hear hear!
We desperately need to break away from the notion that we deal with the disability first and the person second.
After all, just because two people share a condition or disability (or race or gender, come to that) it doesn't follow that they have identical needs, skills or preferences.
I think you should investigate your supervisor's real problem around the employment of people with disabilities. Clearly there is something adrift with his or her attitude or perceptions!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Eric Burt
Back in the 1980's the Department for Social Security (as was) used to have a rule about the ratio of disabled / non disabled employees and companies with X no of employees had to comply with this ruling unless they had good reason not to.
The DSS had an officer called the Disablement Resettlement Officer who used to visit organisations to try to get "disabled persons " seeking employment placed in industry.
Sorry that this is a bit vague but I do remember there being a ratio years ago.
Try giving DWP a call and ask for the information under the Freedom of Information Act ;-}
Eric
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Gilly Margrave
That was in the bad old pre DDA days when the DRO used a medical rather than a social model of disability. The idea was that organisations over a certain size had to employ a particular percentage of Registered Disabled. The idea was to increase employment opportunities not to limit them. Obviously it didn't work which is why we need the DDA.
Gilly
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mike Craven
I too remember the days when large employers had "quotas" to (attempt) to meet. Working for one of the UK's largest employers (Post Office), I can remember that we were supposed to employ a certain percentage of disabled people. I also seem to recall that we did nothing particularly pro-active in addressing issues around accessibility, the provision of aids and adaptations, working practices/routines/environment, etc. But a lot of effort seemed to go into trying to "convince" existing employees with what I would (maybe unfairly?) class as minor disabilities to register as being disabled!!
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
The French system sets a quota of 2% registered disabled employees. If the quota is not met the employer must pay salary equivalents to a disabled persons organisation of their choice. An annual declaration must be made and the law is enforced so it is better to employ a productive person than just pay out the money. Though it goes to a good cause anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Webster
Just a thought. If the disabled employees need any form of assistance from colleagues in the event of an emergency, could the supervisor be thinking about a need to have enough assistance available? Obviously this should be assessed and not done on the basis of blanket ratios, but at least if you knew where s/he was coming from, you would know how to respond.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.