| Back
to: Third Session of the Ad Hoc Committee
Daily summary of discussions
Daily summary of discussions related to Article 22
RIGHT TO WORK
UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities
Third session of the Ad Hoc Committee - Daily Summary
A service made possible by Landmine Survivors Network *
Volume 4, #7
June 2, 2004
Morning Session
Commenced: 10:04 AM
Adjourned: 1:00 PM
Yemen proposed appending to 22(b), “this should be
preceded by rehabilitation and training to benefit from devices and
programs.” In 22(e) it suggested replacing “reasonable,” a vague term,
with the more precise “appropriate.” 22(f) should be appended with:
“and the skills required by the labor market in its various fields.”
Chile proposed adding “labor training” after “vocational
training” in 22(b). Chile recommended including “political” in 22(h)
dealing with legislation. 22(j) should include measures that prevent
the emergence of discriminatory conditions, for example, PWD access
to employment or jobs. Chile expressed concern that while there is mention
in some subparagraphs supporting the employment of PWD, it recommended
a separate paragraph, in accordance with Article 9(a) of this Convention,
“To promote the employment of PWD as well as the development of their
skills facilitating their access to credit and other services without
any restrictions and limitation that may be applied to PWD.” Another
new subparagraph would obligate states to protect PWD so that they can
be in the competitive employment market.
Sierra Leone proposed revising the chapeau of this
Article to maintain consistency with others: “States Parties shall take
appropriate steps to safeguard and promote the realization of the right
of PWD to work including measures to:” It considered 22(a) to be sufficient
as it stands, and stated that there is no reason to further spell out
the meaning of “inclusive” as highlighted in FN 89. In 22(c), “equal”
should follow “promote,” so that it would read: “promote equal employment
opportunities”. It expressed concern that issues of quotas and affirmative
action raised in 22(d) could be problematic in some States, e.g., those
that struggle with quotas for employing women. It suggested a rewording
of this subparagraph to read: “Encourage employers to hire PWD and,
where appropriate, through incentives.” “Incentives” is an appropriate
word to cover affirmative action and quotas without specifically mentioning
these. 22(e) should remain as it stands, as reasonable accommodation
has been fully covered in the Convention and there is no need to elaborate
further.
There should be some reference to on-the-job training, as training and
education are elements of the right work It suggested that the Committee
refer to ILO provisions, as there is enough experience from ILO provisions
and guidelines to prepare or to draft this particular article.
Brazil affirmed its support for subparagraphs (b),
(c), and (d), in particular with enumerating mechanisms that encourage
employers to hire PWD, like affirmative action programs, incentives,
and quotas.
The Republic of Korea proposed amending the second
sentence in the chapeau to read “State Parties shall set a leading example
in employment of PWD and……” pursuant to FN 91 on the responsibility
of governments as employers. It suggested in inserting “, compensation
and benefits” after “with regard to employment” in 22(h).
Bahrain proposed the insertion of “and to training”
after “the right of PWD to work” in the chapeau. It suggested a new
subparagraph that would read: “Encourage the creation of workshops for
persons with disabilities and to promote their production.” 22(d) should
be reworded as follows: “To provide incentives to sector which hire
persons with disabilities.”
Jordan suggested replacing “persons” with “women and
men” in the chapeau, and to replace “protecting” with the more positive
phrase, “acquisition of skills and assets that protect”. In 22(b), (c),
and (d), the words “Enable,” “Promote,” and “Encourage” should be replaced
with the stronger phrase “To ensure that”. It proposed appending to
22(c) “acquisition of work experience” and to delete 22(f), as it is
subsumed into (c). The ideas in 22(j) are already in Article 5 (Promotion
of positive attitudes to persons with disabilities) so this subpara
could be deleted. 22(h) is of general concern to the overall Article,
and should therefore be moved to its beginning.
Namibia suggested alternative language to begin 22(c),
in accordance with FN90: “Pursue active labor market policies which
would promote employment opportunities of…”. 22(d) should be amended
to read: “Ensure that employers, public or private, employ and/or hire
PWD”. The content of 22(a) belonged more appropriately in the chapeau.
Namibia proposed two additional subparagraphs to address the lack of
language on employing PWD available at http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc3namibia.htm
South Africa suggested deleting the reference to “equal
treatment” in the chapeau, since this defeats the purpose of reasonable
accommodation. The term “economic empowerment” should take its place;
the lack of these programs affect all persons including PWD. The meaning
of “general” technical programs in 22(b) is unclear so this word should
be deleted. It would be prudent to substitute “continuing” with “life
long” training in this subparagraph. The reference to “obtaining” in
22(c) implies a focus on recruitment processes and not to broader employment
issues, therefore this term should be replaced with “securing”. It also
proposed deleting “and starting ones own business,” since is the same
as “self-employed.” the subparagraph would read: “Promote employment
opportunities and career advancement for PWD in the open labor market
through assistance in finding, securing, and maintaining such employment,
including opportunities for self- employment;”. The reference to “professional”
in 22(g) is unclear and should be deleted. This subparagraph should
address the promotion of all work and employment-related rehabilitation
processes. In 22(j) “abilities” should be deleted, as it contributes
to the stereotyping of PWD work abilities such as relegating them to
basket weavers or telephone operators.
Israel noted the high levels of unemployment of PWD,
so the provisions of this article should be as concrete and practical
as possible. In 22(c) “promote” should be replaced with “pursue active
labor market policies with a view to promoting,” as governments need
to be proactive to close the wide gaps in employment. A proposed new
22(h) would read: “Ensure that all employment protection laws and standards,
including in relation to the minimum wage apply to all persons with
disabilities working in the open labor market, any derogation from such
laws and standards being made only in circumstances where derogation
can clearly be shown to be justified.” Where there is clear proof of
reduced output in a supervised manner, this will permit, for example,
the lowering of the minimum wage.
Paragraph 22(i) should be retained, despite interventions calling for
its deletion, and should read: “Ensure that persons with disabilities
have equal opportunities and appropriate representation including by
way of reasonable accommodation in the public sector recognizing the
heightened responsibilities as employers of government and other state
funded bodies to set a leading example in this regard.”
Israel proposed new paragraphs, available at http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc3israel.htm,
on reasonable accommodations and sheltered workshops.
Reasonable accommodation in 22.2 must be dealt with in the employment
context “where it has specific relevance”. Family members of PWD should
also be protected, as they too require reasonable accommodations in
the interest of promoting the rights of PWD. While States should not
be required to institute affirmative action and quotas, but have the
freedom to choose the most appropriate method of hiring PWD. These references
should, contrary to proposals from the EU and others, remain in this
Convention, as this will avoid future needless litigation on whether
affirmative action is discriminatory. Various legislatures, including
Israel’s and Canada’s, have explicitly provided for affirmative action
that is legitimate for pursuing de facto equality for PWD.
Paragraph 22.3 acknowledges that while the framework for sheltered and
assisted employment is not the desired form of employment, it does exist
and will be implemented in many countries.
Japan requested clarification of “reasonable accommodation”
in 22(e) as this is a new concept in the human rights context - who
judges what is reasonable, the differences between this concept and
“affirmative action” and whether it is a legal criteria or a guideline.
While Japan supported the retention of text in 22(e), it recommended
revisiting this concept. In 22(h) the words “through legislation” should
be deleted because the issues enumerated in this subparagraph are limited
and Japan recommended broadening its scope, and thus protection should
be done not only through legislation, but also through public governance
and constitutions. In 22(j) the last part of this subparagraph, starting
with “and to combat stereotypes,” should be deleted, as this is too
important an issue to be limited to the workplace and labor market.
Uganda recommended, in the chapeau, replacing “persons”
with “men and women” and inserting “of lawful working age” between “disabilities”
and “to” in order to ensure that both men and women are specifically
covered, but also to protect the possible exploitation of young PWD
in the labor market. In 22(c), the words “Pursue active labor market
policies and” should be inserted at the beginning; and changing "obtaining
and maintaining" to "obtaining, maintaining and retaining."
In 22(d), between “programs” and “incentives,” should be inserted the
words “services to support PWD in the workplace." In 22(h) the
words “workplace training” should be inserted between “employment” and
“career.”
It proposed a new subparagraph 22(k): “Ensure that the government as
an employer promotes and regulates flexible and alternative work arrangements
and an environment that offers reasonable accommodation of the needs
of persons with disabilities”, which would give further obligation to
States Parties as primary actors in the field of employment. A new paragraph,
22.2, should read as follows: “States parties shall take legislative
and other measures to ensure that persons with disabilities enjoy the
rights protected in this article.”
Morocco proposed appending 22(d) with “especially
for women with disabilities"; and appending 22(g) with “and non-exploitation
in the workplace." In 22(h), the words "elimination of any
form of exploitation at work" should be inserted after "career
advancement"; and the words "indemnities after loss of employment"
should be inserted after "grievances."
Thailand supported the chapeau amendment proposed
by the Republic of Korea regarding the role of the State, as well as
the amendments and modifications proposed by Israel. In 22(i), Thailand
proposed appending “without discrimination on the basis of disabilities,”
to strengthen the concept of equal opportunity by including non-discrimination.
The concepts of affirmative action, reasonable accommodation, and quota
systems should be preserved in Article.
Ireland, representing the EU recommended
bringing the chapeau into fuller conformity with Article 6 of the ICESCR
by affirming that everyone has the right to work, irrespective of the
reason. The EU proposed reformulating the chapeau to read: “States Parties
recognize the right to work of PWD on an equal basis as others; this
includes the right to the opportunity to gain a living by work freely
chosen or accepted. States Parties shall take appropriate steps to safeguard
and promote the realization of this right, including measures to:” The
EU commented on the proposals to replace “persons” with “men and women,”
stating that it would diminish the rights of PWD, as the right to work
is recognized to all persons, including children. Protection against
economic exploitation is adequately dealt with in the CRC. The EU proposed
the insertion of two new subparagraphs immediately following the chapeau:
“Promote employment opportunities including free vocational choice for
persons with disabilities so as to enable them to exercise the right
to work and enjoy equal conditions of work. “Enable persons with disabilities
to take full advantage of the right to education and to have access
to vocational and continuing training.” In 22(b) the EU suggested deleting
“assistive devices,” as the issue of assistive devices is already covered
in Article 13 (Freedom of expression and opinion, and access to information)
and does not belong specifically here. The EU did not recommend specifying
particular policies and measures, as different countries adopt different
policies, that should effectively achieve a particular objective, and
thus proposed the rewording of 22(d) to read: Encourage employers to
hire persons with disabilities through appropriate policies and measures.”
In relation to 22(e) the EU considered reasonable accommodation a different
issue from affirmative action, but an essential element in enabling
PWD to work; it proposed a revision of the subparagraph to capture the
idea that reasonable accommodation should be provided by the employer
rather than by the State: “Ensure that reasonable accommodation is provided
to persons with disabilities in the workplace and work environment.”
In 22(g) it recommended appending “for PWD.” The EU disagreed with proposals
to delete references to legislation, as it is essential that various
protections mentioned in this paragraph are backed up by and provided
through legislation. The EU proposed inserting “conditions of recruitment,”
after “with regard to” in 22(h), as unless there is equality in recruitment,
PWD cannot benefit from the other protections in this paragraph. In
22(i) the EU addressed concerns about whether the public sector has
particular responsibilities in relation to the employment of PWD, and
while governments must promote the employment of PWD, the current paragraph
implies that the private sector has no responsibility, and for that
reason suggested the deletion of this paragraph. The EU recommended
the deletion of 22(j) as the issue of combating prejudice and stereotypes
has already been dealt with in Article 5. In consideration of sheltered
workshops, the EU expressed concern about the possibility that persons
who avail themselves of alternative forms of work might be dealt with
less favorably than in the general labor market. It stated that if these
concepts are referred to, that they be meaningful forms of work under
just and favorable conditions. The EU referred delegates to Article
7 of the ICECSR. The EU opposed Israel’s proposals on sheltered workshops
and the exception to derogate from general labor regulations.
New Zealand circulated a revised, simplified draft
of this article. The chapeau should incorporate 22(a) and specify the
concept of equality so as to emphasise non-discrimination: “States Parties
recognize the equal right of PWD to work, which includes the opportunity
to gain a living by work that they freely choose or accept. In order
to safeguard and promote the realization of this right, states Parties
shall take appropriate steps to promote a labor market and work environment
that are open, inclusive, and accessible to all persons with disabilities,
including measures to:.” New Zealand agreed with the EU on keeping the
word “persons” in the chapeau, as children have the right to work, if
it is not exploitative. In many countries this can encourage children
to build a work ethic. It proposed moving 22(c) to become 22(a), with
the insertion of “equal” before “employment opportunities” to further
strengthen the non-discrimination aspect of the article, and avoid any
implication that this Article is about making work schemes and sheltered
workshops rather than guaranteeing the equal right to work and to be
protected from discrimination. In 22(b), it suggested updating the terminology
by replacing “vocational guidance programs” with “career guidance programs”
and replacing “vocational and continuing training” with “job training.”
New Zealand identified two ideas in 22(b), first, a non-discrimination
provision, that this Article attempts to guarantee equal access to mainstream
general career guidance programs such as employment services that all
people have access to; the second is that PWD might need some sort of
assistance to enable them to enter the workforce, and it expressed concern
that these two ideas were not clearly differentiated. In 22(d), it agreed
with other suggestions to delete “affirmative action, incentives, and
quotas,” which are too specific. It suggested deleting 22(f) because
historically, employers have, in the guise of “work experience” exploited
PWD labor. “Return-to-work programs” in 22 (g) is already included in
professional rehabilitation and could be deleted. In 22(h), it proposed
shortening the subparagraph focusing on its two key concepts: “Ensure
that PWD have equal remuneration for work of equal value and are able
to exercise their labor and trade union rights." It supported proposals
to delete 22(i), as the non-discrimination clauses elsewhere in the
Convention cover this, and the public sector should not be singled out.
Australia suggested rewording the chapeau to read
“States Parties recognize the equal right to work of PWD in an environment
that provides equal opportunity and that is non-discriminatory. States
Parties shall take appropriate steps to safeguard and promote the realization
of this right.” While the measures listed in the balance of the article
have considerable merit to assist States to implement their obligations
under the Convention, they are too prescriptive for an international
convention and should be deleted. Australia was flexible on this, noting
that the proposed removal would not preclude their inclusion in guidelines
to assist States Parties in their implementation in the Convention.
Costa Rica suggested deleting from the chapeau the
words “which includes the opportunity to gain a living by work,” as
this concept is implied with the States Parties recognition of the right
of PWD to work. In 22(a) “all” should be deleted before “PWD,” as “all”
is implied. In 22(b) “recruitment, and” should be inserted before “placement
services”; and “technical aids” should be inserted after “assistive
devices.” In 22(c) the words “and other productive and labor alternatives”
should be inserted after “starting ones own business”; and the word
“creating” should be inserted after “assistance in." A new paragraph,
22(c)(bis), should be added, as follows: “Promote access to credit and
necessary technical assistance to develop self employment opportunities
for persons with disabilities.” In 22(d), “incentives and quotas” should
be deleted and replaced with “avoiding discrimination on the basis of
the different types of disability.” It suggested replacing “reasonable”
with “necessary” in 22(e); and deleting 22(f) because its relevance
and need is not clear. “Vocational and professional rehabilitation”
in 22(g) should be replaced with "technical and professional training
programmes." It suggested inserting in 22(h), after “equal opportunities,”
the words "health and safety in the workplace." In 22(i),
in order to ensure equal opportunity, the words “and promote affirmative
action programmes to facilitate access to work” should be inserted after
“public sector.” Costa Rica identified some translation problems in
the Spanish text.
Mexico proposed several revisions, available at http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc3mexico.htm
along with a commentary.
Palestine proposed adding to the chapeau, after “the
right to work,” the words “and to receive training to work,” which differs
slightly from vocational training; and inserting “that preserves their
dignity” after “they choose and accept.” 22(f) should be attended with
“by preventing discrimination against PWD.” In 22(i), “private” should
be inserted after “public.”
Cameroon emphasized the importance of strengthening the promotion of
both paid employment as well as independent or self- employment. It
supported the Costa Rican proposal on the new 22(c)(bis), so as to emphasise
independent as well as remunerative work. It suggested adding a new
paragraph, also 22(c)(bis), which reads: “Take appropriate measures
aimed at promoting the creation of independent employment for persons
with disabilities, in particular through technical and or financial
support and employment with tax benefits where appropriate.” It supported
proposals deleting 22(f) and (i).
Afternoon Session
Commenced: 3:20 PM
Adjourned: 5:57 PM
The Holy See supported streamlining this Article following
New Zealand’s proposal. It suggested merging some paragraphs. Although
it supports all the concepts in 22(j), these are addressed by Article
5 so this paragraph should be moved there.
Colombia agreed with Costa Rica about adding the concept
of community social work, and about replacing “reasonable” with another
word. In 22(c), after “promote,” it proposed adding “strategies for
employability.” The ideas of equality of opportunity in the private
sector, and priority for PWD, should be retained.
Lebanon stated that this Article uses the words “encourage”
and “promote”; instead it should guarantee employment without discrimination.
In the chapeau, before “take appropriate steps,” should be inserted
the words “States Parties shall commit themselves to guarantee the enjoyment
of this right and.” The words “private sector” should be added to 22(i)
because they do not appear in the previous paragraphs. In 22(h), “unemployment
allowances” should be inserted after “grievance.” 22(d) should be appended
with “through the use of means and alternatives, to announce vacancies
and interviews for employment so that persons with disabilities would
not be excluded among possible candidates.” In 22(j), after “stereotypes
and prejudices,” should be added “exploitation, in particular prejudice
regarding their capacity,” and the words “about persons with disabilities”
should be deleted. In 22(c), the words “and starting one's own business”
should be replaced by “and facilitation of the use of new technologies.”
Canada supported the New Zealand proposal to shorten
this article. In the chapeau, the word “all” should be inserted before
both instances of "persons with disabilities." In 22(a), "market"
and "environment" should be made plural. It proposed deleting
22(b) and moving 22(e) up in its place. The new 22(b) should include
the concepts of the deleted 22(b) with the addition of “workplaces and
work environments” at the end of the paragraph. It proposed changing
the current 22(c) to read “promote employment and career opportunities
for all PWD in the open labour markets," then deleting the next
clause. Those deleted concepts would be added to a new paragraph, 22(d),
reading “provide assistance to persons with disabilities in finding,
obtaining, maintaining, and returning to employment including through
vocational and professional programs." In the current 22(d), the
words “including through positive measures” should replace “such as
through affirmative action programmes, incentives and quotas.” The current
22(f) should be deleted as redundant and 22(g) should be moved to another
article. The current 22(h) should be revised to read: “Protect PWD from
discrimination with respect to all terms and conditions of their employment."
Labor and union rights should be moved to a new paragraph, 22(g), as
follows: “Ensure PWD are able to exercise their labor and trade union
rights.” The current 22(i) would would then become 22(f) and would retain
the same language. It supported Jordan and EU in deleting 22(j) because
its concepts are already addressed in Article 5.
Ukraine proposed adding to the chapeau, after "includes,"
the words “employment as well as.” In 22(d), it suggested inserting
at the beginning the sentence the words “stimulate employers to create
posts for persons with disabilities by creating necessary facilities
for persons with disabilities in their jobs and in the production sphere."
In 22(e), it suggested inserting at the beginning the words “encourage
employers to create new accommodated working places ensuring the necessary."
Viet Nam noted that PWD find it difficult to be recruited
for jobs, and proposed the following new language for 22(d): “Promote
employers to hire PWD through preferential policies and programmes so
that vocational training, job placement, tax exemption and credit access.”
After “equal opportunity” in 22(h), it suggested adding “especially
women with disabilities.” In order to include both public and private
sectors in 22(i), it proposed using the phrase “in all sectors.”
Peru stated that this Article should address all rights
to a job for PWD. It proposed deleting 22(b) because this is already
dealt with in the education article; and deleting 22(e) because equal
opportunity is addressed in Article 7; and deleting 22(j) because it
is a mixture of issues and negative attitudes are not only in the workplace.
Serbia and Montenegro supported the EU principles
but stressed the need to discuss alternate forms of employment for people
who cannot find work in the open labor market, as advocated by the ILO.
Alternate work must be meaningful work, and must not have less favorable
conditions. It suggested addressing these issues in a new paragraph,
22(c)(bis). Unlike the EU, it favored retaining affirmative action in
22(d). It supported Korea and others who suggested that States should
set a leading example in hiring PWD. It also supported deleting 22(i)
because PWD should be hired in all sectors, not just the public sector.
Thailand stated that both the public and the private
sector discriminate in the employment of PWD so it supported retaining
22(i) and adding private sector, or moving the concept to the chapeau.
If private sector is not added, it will diminish the Article's effect.
Kenya proposed a new paragraph: “States Parties shall
promote employment of persons with disabilities in the informal sector
through the creation of an enabling environment and the provision of
incentives and necessary support services." This would support
the participation of PWD in the informal sector, where the bulk of employment
occurs in developing countries. It supported retaining 22(d) because
affirmative action is useful in developing countries.
India proposed replacing “skills” with “competencies”
in 22(j) in accordance with the social model of disability and its perspective
that work promotes human dignity.
The Chair opened the floor for comments from NGOs.
The International Labour Organization (ILO) supported
Article 22 and the inclusion of “women and men” in the chapeau. Given
the high unemployment of PWD, it welcomes measures to create open and
accessible work environments. Many currently unemployed PWD are capable
of working given the right opportunities and the appropriate support.
In rural areas they are most likely to enter into informal as opposed
to formal employment. This fact is not reflected in the Article, nor
is the reality that many PWD are outside the open labour market, working
in protected workshops.
For these reasons, the following amendments were proposed in a circulated
re-draft of this Article: In 22(b), the words “and career” should be
inserted after “vocational;” and the words “employment counseling and”
should be inserted following the word “programmes.” Also, the deletion
of “assistive devices and vocational and continuing training” was proposed,
since this is covered elsewhere. Following this deletion, ILO proposed
the addition of “supplemented by information in accessible formats on
rights and obligations under labour-related law and other forms of labour
regulation.” In 22(c), proposed “maintaining” should be replaced with
“retaining.” After “employment" should be inserted “providing,
where necessary, on a transitional basis, for adequately resourced,
alternative forms of employment, in conditions that ensure useful and
remunerative work, and provides opportunities for vocational advancement.”
In 22(d), after "disabilities," should be added “and to retain
those who acquire a disability while in employment”; the phrases “such
as” and “incentives and quotas” should both be deleted; and the paragraph
should end with the added words “and making available technical supports,
assistive devices, wage subsidies, and other incentives.” In 22(e),
in order to add more detail regarding reasonable accommodation, the
word “environment” should be followed by the words “by requiring employers
to take steps to improve the accessibility of the work premises and
to make adaptations to the recruitment and hiring process, to workstations,
tools and equipment, job descriptions, including duties and tasks, and
work schedules.” In 22(g), ILO suggested deleting “Promote vocational
and professional rehabilitation, job retention and return to work programmes,”
and adding “job retention and return to work” to 22(h) following “career
advancement." It suggested adding “ensuring that they are covered
by the provisions of national labour law” following “grievances,"
and deleting “to ensure persons with disabilities.” The Article should
be simplified and shorter.
National Human Rights Institutions, and the Asia-Pacific
Forum of National Human Rights Institutions, noted that this articles
is currently too inflexible and prescriptive for an international Convention.
It uses terminology and concepts that could become fixed in time. It
supports the NZ text’s simplified chapeau with one change, the substitution
of “protect” for “safeguard” in the second sentence. It also suggested
rewording 22(c) of the NZ draft, and 22(d) in the WG draft, to read
“ensure that employers hire PWD”; and deleting the rest of that paragraph.
European Disability Forum (EDF) highlighted the links
with Article 7 and noted that the right to work must be enforced through
the combination of a comprehensive, strong statement against non-discrimination
and positive action measures. The goal is to ensure equal employment
levels for PWD in private and public, open and alternative settings.
As the Israel statement notes, this is far from reality. Employment
non-discrimination obligations should include recruitment, career advancement,
life-long learning, dismissal, and people who become disabled while
on the job, especially by workplace safety hazards. The refusal to reasonably
accommodate constitutes discrimination. General, publicly-funded positive
action measures, such as placement services, are not usually open for
disabled people; this should change. Alternative means of employment
are a fact, and are helpful in accommodating some PWD who have reduced
productivity, thus enabling them to become a part of the labour market.
However, as Serbia and Montegro stated, these PWD need to be guaranteed
the same labour rights as workers in the open labour market.
Arab Organisation of Disabled People (AODP), based
on the recommendation of the Cairo Expert Meeting organized by the Arab
League and AODP, restated the Palestinian delegation's position on Article
22.
Disabled Peoples' International supported this Article
but noted the lack of specific provisions addressing issues such as
forced labor and economic exploitation, as pointed out by Uganda. DPI
urged the Committee to reference Article 8 of the ICCPR, and to consider
including a provision either in Article 22 or in a separate article
to address this. Pointing to footnote 93, on reasonable accommodations,
DPI stated that if such a provision is included, it should link to 22(f)
on hiring PWD, as a lack of understanding about the duty to accommodate
may lead employers to refuse to hire qualified PWD.
Inclusion International and the Canadian Association
for Community Living empahsised that workplace accommodations
remain inadequate and do not address the support needs of people with
intellectual disabilities. An inclusive labor market must examine the
sources and causes of labor market exclusion of persons with intellectual
disabilities, the majority of whom live in poverty. People with intellectual
disabilities need supports to obtain and maintain employment, and many
of these supports are tied to income. Critical supports are often lost
as income increases, making it difficult to maintain employment. Supports
should be personalized, flexible, and at times, ongoing. II and CACL
strongly opposed sheltered workshops, as they keep people excluded and
foster notions that people with intellectual disabilities cannot be
meaningfully employed. They called on all States Parties to end this
practice and act as model employers.
(Australian) National Association of Community Legal Centres,
along with People with Disability Australia Incorporated
and Australian Federation of Disability Organizations,
strongly supported the intervention of ILO and Uganda's insertion of
the words “of lawful working age” in the chapeau, and its explicit recognition
of the circumstances of women with disabilities. It also supported Jordan's
proposal in 22(b), (c), and (d), to replace “Enable,” “Promote,” and
“Encourage” with “Ensure that.” They also supported the ILO's amendment
to 22(c) on alternative forms of employment, to ensure that such forms
would not be permanent and would facilitate entry into the open labor
market. Alternative forms of employment must be provided within inclusive
mainstream settings, and should be transitional, avoiding permanence
and total segregation. In 22(h), the words “at all levels” should be
inserted after “public sector.” A new subparagraph should be added to
address the situation of geographically isolated people, with language
similar to that found in the Bangkok draft.
World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry
reaffirmed this article, especially 22(a), requiring that environments
are open, inclusive, and accessible, because oftentimes public service
employment application forms ask about past history of mental illness
as a way to screen out potential employees. WNUSP recommends retaining
22(h) as it stands, as it provides explicit protection in all aspects
of employment. It opposed the idea of sheltered workshops for people
with psychosocial disabilities because it leads to segregation in the
work environment. Reasonable accommodations are preferable. The equal
pay for equal work provision in 22(h) protects against economic exploitation
that can occur in sheltered workshops.
* Disclaimer
|
