Currently in the Netherlands there is some debate going on about employment and disability.
Reason;
The government decided that come 2013 companies that pretty much exist to hire people with disabilities (social workshops) will not be subsidized anymore.
Now, I can fully understand this from a business perspective. Afterall, if you run a business and you can?t sustain it by the profits you make, there?s no reason for you to exist. And this is pretty much true for most of these workshops. It?s the kind of labor that can be done by a machine faster (and cheaper) but they pretty much dumb it down to make it manual labor, just for the heck of having people have a job. In my humble opinion that?s hardly creating employment.
So, end of subsidizing this. Which also means; over 75% of the disabled people that have these ?special needs? jobs, will be without a job. Since, the ?normal? companies won?t hire them, unless there?s minimal effort. But if you need to hire people to coach other people to do their job, that?s where management goes ?no thanks!?. Again, a clear business decision.
This means that most of these people will now end up on social security for the time being? oh wait, those laws have become stricter as well. So any of these people that made a decent living (meaning; at least minimum wage) will have to step back from even that (and do with about half of minimum wage), on top of the expenses they make for their medication, therapy, coaching and whatnot.
So currently, there?s a small debate going on about a new law that should be in effect in 2014. And it?s something I once touched as a response to a blog before.
The idea of this new ruling is that every company in the country should have at least a 5% quota of disabled people on their payroll. They will still get some financial aid from the government, but that?s considerably less expensive that those social workshops they had earlier. The law however states something rather funny in terms of being ?disabled?. Being disabled isn?t about a medical/psychological disorder there. It?s about being ?disabled for employment?. Along this line you can count people that, due to whatever reason need a part time job. This might include a mom who needs a part-time job cause she takes care of her disabled son. She?s unfit to work 8 hours a day (in any type of shift). So she?ll be clumped in with the rest. The government is also planning on fining a company a big sum of money for every slot they haven?t filled in with so called ?disabled? people.
What this creates is the following;
I?m interested to see how this goes down the next year. Especially since I?m probably affected by it, as well as most people in my social group. Any of ?us? can probably do a job, and even more so if requirements are met that work for us (and preferably the company we work for). It?s beyond supply and demand, and that?s the first basic thing they?re already overlooking by imposing this concept of a new law/regulation.
Reason;
The government decided that come 2013 companies that pretty much exist to hire people with disabilities (social workshops) will not be subsidized anymore.
Now, I can fully understand this from a business perspective. Afterall, if you run a business and you can?t sustain it by the profits you make, there?s no reason for you to exist. And this is pretty much true for most of these workshops. It?s the kind of labor that can be done by a machine faster (and cheaper) but they pretty much dumb it down to make it manual labor, just for the heck of having people have a job. In my humble opinion that?s hardly creating employment.
So, end of subsidizing this. Which also means; over 75% of the disabled people that have these ?special needs? jobs, will be without a job. Since, the ?normal? companies won?t hire them, unless there?s minimal effort. But if you need to hire people to coach other people to do their job, that?s where management goes ?no thanks!?. Again, a clear business decision.
This means that most of these people will now end up on social security for the time being? oh wait, those laws have become stricter as well. So any of these people that made a decent living (meaning; at least minimum wage) will have to step back from even that (and do with about half of minimum wage), on top of the expenses they make for their medication, therapy, coaching and whatnot.
So currently, there?s a small debate going on about a new law that should be in effect in 2014. And it?s something I once touched as a response to a blog before.
The idea of this new ruling is that every company in the country should have at least a 5% quota of disabled people on their payroll. They will still get some financial aid from the government, but that?s considerably less expensive that those social workshops they had earlier. The law however states something rather funny in terms of being ?disabled?. Being disabled isn?t about a medical/psychological disorder there. It?s about being ?disabled for employment?. Along this line you can count people that, due to whatever reason need a part time job. This might include a mom who needs a part-time job cause she takes care of her disabled son. She?s unfit to work 8 hours a day (in any type of shift). So she?ll be clumped in with the rest. The government is also planning on fining a company a big sum of money for every slot they haven?t filled in with so called ?disabled? people.
What this creates is the following;
- Affirmative action towards disabled people. Because it simply means that some non-disabled people regardless of their skills will not be hired just because they need to reach their 5% quota.
- A rather sick cost/profit scheme. If you do not hire a disabled person, you get fined. But if the type of product you sell will net you more per piece (on a regular basis) than the fine you get filling in the jobs with ?normal? people, I don?t see them taking this regulation really serious.
- Companies will go bust, because aside from hiring these people (and maybe make a slight loss over productivity) need to adapt their working place. Who is going to pay for all the ergonomic measures you need for say? someone in a wheelchair? And what about an elevator? So far, the government is not willing to cover those expenses.
- Companies will hire disabled people just as an easy cash grab. I don?t think that there should be an incentive to hire someone. Companies should do this themselves. If they?re having an attitude and not willing to hire these people, so be it. This clearly says something about the company. The fact that they will roll over if there?s a bit of money involved on behalf of hiring someone who can function equally, but because of medical condition is being stigmatized is in my opinion wrong? and that?s an understatement.
- There has been no official statement yet what qualifies as a ?company?. The cynic in me thinks ?every? company. And of course running a one man thing, you can?t divide into 5%, but you can state that 1 in 20 needs to be disabled. For really small companies, this will be a huge weight, which they probably can?t handle.
- Does this mean that companies have to restructure and overview who does which job. Or does it mean that I can hire people for job X only? I can see the silliness going along these lines; John is in the finances department of a big shipping firm. Before that, he used to work in the warehouse and got promoted and did courses on the side. The company needs to hire disabled people, yet the only ones available are a few, that can?t deal with the way things are being run in a warehouse and need an office job. Do they demote John back to his warehouse job (maybe even with less pay), because they can (and have to) fill in the slot with someone, just to reach their 5%
- Does this also mean that people will get fired just in order to clear jobs to take in 5% disabled people? I mean, it?s not like we can create jobs out of nothing. And hiring 3 people to do the job of 2 is redundant.
I?m interested to see how this goes down the next year. Especially since I?m probably affected by it, as well as most people in my social group. Any of ?us? can probably do a job, and even more so if requirements are met that work for us (and preferably the company we work for). It?s beyond supply and demand, and that?s the first basic thing they?re already overlooking by imposing this concept of a new law/regulation.
