I recently
spoke to the Healthcare Professionals Conference hosted by WorkSafeBC. My presentation
outlined the dramatic demographic factors that are changing –and will continue
to change-- our healthcare systems, workplace and communities. Several presentations focused on the issue of
mental injuries, stress, and the duty to accommodate. A few years ago, conference planners would
have confined these topics to a breakout session under an obscure title in an
inconvenient time slot. Not so today! That may be a sign of progress… or
desperation.
Accommodation is primary disability
prevention. Statutes that codify an
employer’s duty to accommodate have been around for years. Employers, disability management
professionals and human resource policy makers know the law and what it
means. Whether the specific law, rule or
regulation is under Human Rights legislation, the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), or a workers’ compensation statute,
most medium to large organizations are aware of the duty to accommodate. They train their managers and likely have
supervisors and union leaders with a common understanding—at least for the more
common physical disabilities.
We also have many high-profile examples of
persons with disabilities excelling in sports, politics, science, and
medicine. These examples are changing
perceptions and awareness. Although many
workplaces have had to make few accommodations, most workers and managers would
see both the legal and moral imperative behind the duty to accommodate. More importantly, they see the value and
potential of the individual person rather than the stigma of the impairment. Having role models and seeing more co-workers
accommodated will continue to make accommodation easier. There may be no hardship involved in
accommodating if the environmental barriers no longer exist. If accommodation is not needed, then the
impairment is not likely a workplace disability.
Technology is further enabling that
potential. Driverless cars, bionic
hearing implants, thought-to-input devices, exoskeletons, and many other
technologies are lessening the impact of physical impairments. Our concept of “disability” is changing and
our ability to accommodate is being enhanced.
Few would argue that the cost of providing technological aids would
constitute an undue hardship. Technology
is making accommodation easier and, in some cases, costless or productivity
enhancing to implement.
Accommodations are not restricted to
technological interventions. There
continue to be real barriers to accommodation of persons with psychological or
mental conditions and impairments. Persons
with degenerative (Parkinson’s, certain cancers) and episodic conditions
(epilepsy, migraines) are also harder to accommodate. Whether because of fear or ignorance,
co-worker or customer attitudes can be significant and continuing
barriers. How effectively are we
accommodating persons with severe Turret’s ticks, schizophrenia, recurrent
depression, post-traumatic stress disorder?
Even industries with low injury rates may
find it increasingly more difficult to accommodate workers with certain
conditions as the prevalence of those already accommodated becomes significant
in a department or organization. Several
employers have commented to me that past compliance with
mandatory-reinstatement provisions leads to incrementally more difficult
accommodation challenges for each new case.
These employers perceive the duty to accommodate as becoming more
difficult.
It may not have reached the
point of “undue hardship” but is clearly a concern.
One employer noted that about half the
staff in her operation had one or more accommodations (some temporary because
of recent work-related injuries, others permanent because of permanent work and
non-work related impairments). She was
happy to support each individual but her concern over the increasing costs and declining
competitiveness were obvious. As more of
the certain job requirements were concentrated on fewer non-accommodated staff
members, she was concerned about increased risk of injury and the potential for
resentment and increased risk in this group of workers.
Is accommodation become more or less
challenging? The answer is both! And that situation is likely to continue for
some time. With increasing numbers of
older workers, the conditions and co-morbidity associated with ageing will
become more prevalent. The demand for
certain skills in short supply may drive an increased “desire to accommodate”
as the price of attracting or retaining certain expertise. Innovation will also be required, not just to
adapt and apply new technologies but also to reorganize the way work itself is
performed.
The question itself, however, masks the
reality of work environment. The
prevalence of persons with impairments that need accommodation is increasing
and will continue to increase in our workplaces. The biggest barriers to future accommodation
are less likely to be the undue hardship of a technological aid. Attitudes, static organizational structures
and persistent prejudices are likely to continue to be the biggest barriers in
the coming years.
2 comments:
I like the point you brought up about accommodation. It is really important for employers to accommodate workers. Everyone's situation is different and they need to be flexible in order to avoid problems. http://www.nbolawfirm.com/workers-compensation/2228689
Good point about making sure the workers are properly trained to help avoid injuries. No matter how much training you give, accidents will still happen eventually. It is just a matter of time really. That is why we pay into workers comp.
http://ransomgilbertson.com/workers-compensation/
Post a Comment