Debate on its omission of mandatory employment quotas for people with disabilities under the landmark Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, took another turn on Thursday with a sharp pushback against critics who argue that the legislation falls short of addressing high joblessness among disabled citizens.
One of the lawmakers who helped pass the legislation, Edmund Hinkson, defended the decision to exclude employment quotas from the law amid criticism from labour leaders. He has received support from a former parliamentarian and leading spokesperson for the disabilities community.
Hinkson, the chairman of the Advisory Committee for Improving the Lives of People with Disabilities, responded to Congress of Trade Unions and Staff Associations of Barbados (CTUSAB) General Secretary Dennis de Peiza, who expressed disappointment that the legislation did not mandate a minimum number of people with disabilities to be hired in the public or private sectors.
In an interview with Barbados TODAY, Hinkson acknowledged that while such quotas are ideal in principle, Barbados is not yet at the stage where they can be realistically implemented.
“In an ideal world, in a Barbados where the educational system for persons with disabilities had reached a high level, a level where we are aiming for it to be in a few years’ time, we could have gone along with including these provisions,” he said. “The fact of the matter is that our educational system, which is now starting to be transformed for the benefit of children with disabilities, is not at that level.
“So we said, ‘look, we could keep in that one out of every 20 persons employed in government, in statutory boards, ministries, wherever in the public sector is a person with disabilities, but are you going to get that in the year 2025?’”
He added: “For example, Jamaica had that in their legislation—which came into effect two years ago—it had that previously in their national policy; it’s four per cent, I think it’s now five per cent in the legislation, but they have never been able to realise that quota.”
The senior counsel noted that international experts, including a disabilities advocate from Manitoba, Canada, advised during consultations last November that quota systems, although well-meaning, often fail to deliver the intended results.
Hinkson further explained: “The private sector—I believe we met with them in November—disagreed with it [saying] that they’re not at that stage where they could fulfil these quotas, and this is after months and months and months we have been crafting this bill. If the private sector is not on board, it is no use bringing in a numerical quota system that will encompass them.”
Despite the lack of employment quotas, Hinkson stressed that the law includes robust protections to prevent discrimination against persons with disabilities in employment.
He said: “We have provision where a person with disability feels that they are being discriminated against in any form or fashion because of their disability—whether it’s in terms of conditions of their employment; whether there’s compensation; whether it’s in their benefits and fringe benefits, incentives or allowances; whether it is in terms of retrofitting their workstations as a consequence of their disability to allow them to continue to work; whether it is in terms of the advertisement for their employment if they’re being excluded; whether it’s in terms of their recruitment and their interviews…we have safeguarded and ring-fenced a lot of areas for redress.”
Weighing in on the issue, former senate president and disability rights advocate Kerry-Ann Ifill supported the decision to avoid quotas. She said: “It promotes tokenism, and that is the reason why persons within the disabilities movement no longer encourage it.”
Ifill stressed instead that there needed to be genuine inclusion in the workplace.
“I don’t want to work somewhere where people say I only got you here because the government says I need to have you. I want to be in a space where people recognise my values and say we have you here because you have a contribution to make.
“Now that contribution starts out smaller because persons with disabilities don’t always have the opportunity to be exposed to information [or] training others would have had. So yes, we need to have a little bit more latitude in a lot of places,” she explained.
The post Advocates defend exclusion of quotas from disability rights legislation appeared first on Barbados Today.
