People with Disabilities: Last Hired –
First Fired
“Last Hired, First
Fired.” This phrase has always been a little too cute,
“catchy” and cliché for me. I’ve been hearing it for years
(decades actually). It has far too readily been accepted as
a truism without anything more than anecdotal backup. In my
experience, I’ve heard it most frequently used by folks in
the disability rights movement, disability advocates, and
rehabilitation professionals as a way to represent the
discriminatory practices of employers – read: “Employers
will hire people with disabilities only as a last resort and
they will fire people with disabilities as a first resort.”
I’ve never really held to that belief. In fact, several
years ago, I questioned it in an article called
Being Myth-informed about Employment and Disability.
But, for argument’s
sake only, let’s assume that people with disabilities really
are the Last Hired and First Fired. Why would that be? Our
responses to that, I believe, would be heavily influenced by
our assumptions about how hiring and firing decisions are
made. Consider how we might draw a conclusion if we assume
that employers make hiring and firing decisions primarily on
the basis of personal biases and predispositions:
Assertion:
People with disabilities are the Last Hired and First
Fired in most workplaces.
Assumption #1:
Employers make hiring and firing decisions based
primarily on their own subjective feelings (likes or
dislikes) about the applicants & employees.
Conclusion #1:
Employers, in general, discriminate against people with
disabilities.
I’m inclined to
believe that, with the survival/success of their own
businesses or jobs being in the balance, most hiring
managers would be primarily focused on hiring and keeping
employees who would make the biggest contribution to the
performance and profitability of their organization. While
personal biases could well be at play, I can’t imagine that
employers would readily let those feelings override their
desire & responsibility to hire the “best person for the
job”. Consider how we might draw a conclusion if we assume
that employers make hiring and firing decisions primarily on
the basis of perceived talent and ability:
Assertion:
People with disabilities are the Last Hired and First
Fired in most workplaces.
Assumption #2:
Employers make hiring and firing decisions based
primarily on each individual’s perceived productivity
and value to the company,
Conclusion #2:
People with disabilities, in general, are not perceived
as particularly productive or valuable in the workforce.
The key word in this
scenario is “perceived”. We know all too well that in the
case of folks with disabilities, there can be an immense gap
between what their true competencies are and what their
perceived competencies are. We can readily understand why
many employers might not be able to clearly assess the
talents and suitability of job applicants with disabilities.
In making hiring decisions, they can still be strongly
influenced by widespread misconceptions and misinformation
about people with disabilities and, even after personal
interviews, still harbor misgivings about the ability of a
person with a significant disability to perform well on the
job. Consider, for hiring decisions only, how we might draw
a conclusion if we assume that employers make decisions
primarily on the basis of perceived talent and ability:
Assertion:
People with disabilities are the Last Hired in
most workplaces.
Assumption:
Employers make hiring decisions based primarily on each
individual’s perceived productivity and value to the
company,
Conclusion:
Employers, in general, do not perceive people with
disabilities to be productive or valuable in the
workforce.
If we then revisit
the First Fired assertion with this same assumption, we have
to come to a much different conclusion. "Perception" is not
nearly as strong a factor. In a firing scenario, the folks
are already employed and have had the opportunity to
demonstrate their skills and abilities and become part of
the fabric of their workplaces. They have had a chance to
establish themselves in their workplaces and become
recognized for their own unique talents, drive and ambition.
Employers would be making firing decisions, not on general
assumptions and preconceptions, but on demonstrated
individual job performance. Consider, for firing decisions
only, how we might draw a conclusion if we assume that
employers make decisions primarily on the basis of perceived
talent and ability:
Assertion:
People with disabilities are the First Fired in
most workplaces.
Assumption:
Employers make firing decisions based primarily on each
individual’s perceived productivity and value to the
company,
Conclusion:
Employees with disabilities, in general, do not
demonstrate appreciable productivity or value in the
workforce.
If the assertion that
employees with disabilities are First Fired is correct and
if this assumption is accurate, this conclusion would be a
very disturbing one.
What makes it even
more disturbing is that a new research paper claims to have
statistical proof to support that people with disabilities
are indeed the first to be fired – at least in recessionary
times. The Disproportionate Impact of the Great Recession on
Workers with Disabilities by H. Stephen Kaye of the
University of California San Francisco (UCSF) reveals that,
in the context of the recent economic recession, employees
with disabilities experienced disproportionately higher job
loss in the U.S. than their non-disabled coworkers did. In
fact, from October 2008 through October 2009, the employment
level of people with disabilities decreased at three times
the rate of people without disabilities – a 13.6% decline
vs. a 4.2% decline.) At least upon first glance, this data
certainly seems to support the “First Fired” assertion.
Can we brush this off
and chalk it up to “discrimination”? Can we really believe
that employers throughout the nation responded to the
pressures of the economic downturn by simply using it as an
excuse to subjectively cull workers with disabilities from
their workforces? I don’t think so.
In facing tough
economic times, companies look at ways to increase their
efficiencies and reduce their costs. For their workforces,
it means letting go employees who are considered least
productive and, in a cost/benefit context, most expensive.
Is that what this data shows… that employees with
disabilities are actually disproportionately represented
among the least productive members of their workforces and
as having the (perceived) least cost/benefit value to their
employers? In addition to being disturbing, that explanation
seems to fly in the face of all the other research that has
ever been done on the performance of people with
disabilities in the workplace.
At first, I actually
hesitated to highlight this research paper in inclusionRX
because it raises such unsettling questions. The unsettling
nature of the questions, however, is far overshadowed by
their importance. As Czech poet Rainer Maria Rilke says; "It
is not the answers that show us the way, but the questions."
In recessionary times, why are employees with disabilities
three times more likely to lose their jobs than employees
without disabilities? This important question begs to be
answered and the answer could, in fact, challenge and change
everything about the way we do business.
~ Rob McInnes
©
Rob McInnes, Diversity World, February 2010 (If not used for
commercial purposes, this article may be reproduced, all or
in part, providing it is credited to "Rob McInnes, Diversity
World - www.diversityworld.com". If included in a newsletter
or other publication, we would appreciate receiving a copy.)
Read the Research Paper: The Disproportionate Impact of
the Great Recession on Workers with Disabilities at
www.disabilityfunders.org/webfm_send/111
Comment? Do you have a comment on anything in this issue?
Please send us your thoughts by email. We enjoy hearing from
our readers.
Email your feedback
on this issue...
inclusionrx@diversityworld.com
The
Choose Work website gives an overview of the U.S. Social Security
Administration’s Ticket to Work program – a nation-wide initiative intended
to assist people with disabilities to transition off of social security
programs and back into the workforce. Engaging “Success Stories” are
profiled in short online videos.
NEADS
- National Directory of Financial Assistance Programs for Post-Secondary
Students with Disabilities (Canada).
This
is an engaging little video with a fun little twist. A 2000 public
information film from Great Britain, it depicts a young woman with Down's
Syndrome in a final stage of interviewing for a job. (Viewing Tip: “House
Music”: A style of disco music with a heavy bass beat, initially popularized
in underground all-night parties held in abandoned warehouses.)
This
fact sheet was developed by the government of Australia “…to provide
information and direction on supporting people with an autism spectrum
disorder… a range of matters you may wish to consider when offering
employment related support to this group of job seekers.
