Abstract
Sheltered work and related practices remain a prevalent service for people with intellectual disabilities. However, as a result of being placed in these, participants overwhelmingly remain segregated and excluded from their wider communities. This paper explores whether, with the advent of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, we can at least begin to assess the equality implications of such placements and argue that the experience of segregation itself represents numerous rights violations and discrimination. Having considered traditional equality mechanisms and their bearing on people with intellectual disabilities, this discussion explores how far the Convention’s re-envisioning of the basic principles of equality can perhaps provide a more promising outlook and ideological stance. Indeed, during the Convention’s inception, the negotiations circled around the conflicting opinions as to the purpose, usefulness, and future of sheltered work, revealing the existing tensions between protection and autonomy, shrouding all disability policy discussions. As a result, the question of sheltered work is not explicitly addressed in the treaty and the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities have been unable to definitively declare that the practice of sheltered work constitutes an act of discrimination. However, the Committee does as times demand that sheltered workshops be phased out where it is obvious that the practice of sheltered work is directly linked to the exploitation of workers. Moreover, certain provisions in the Convention might help in determining wrongful discrimination in some, if limited, instances.
Highlights
People with intellectual disabilities face considerable barriers in accessing employment in mainstream settings
Germany and Spain even reported a growth in sheltered workshop placements (Shima et al 2008; Flores et al 2011) and Dague (2012) finds that 75% of adults with intellectual disabilities in the US remained in sheltered work settings despite claims of exploitation (Kennedy 2007; Diament 2011; Cohen 2014)
Article 2 does not necessarily encourage an exploration of exclusion, which is rooted in any attention to dignity, or lend itself to a blanket statement that renders all segregation experienced in sheltered workshops as discrimination
Summary
People with intellectual disabilities face considerable barriers in accessing employment in mainstream settings. Germany and Spain even reported a growth in sheltered workshop placements (Shima et al 2008; Flores et al 2011) and Dague (2012) finds that 75% of adults with intellectual disabilities in the US remained in sheltered work settings despite claims of exploitation (Kennedy 2007; Diament 2011; Cohen 2014) Even international bodies such as the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development report of the on-going significance and widespread use of segregated employment settings in the wake of controversy (OECD 2003). Bach (2016) remarks that workplace research shows that intellectually disabled individuals are often more loyal, reliable, and have lower rates of absenteeism compared to other workers It is the inappropriate wages or low transition rates that are a major factor in the sheltered workshop controversy, but the very reasoning behind the concept of sheltered and segregated workspaces. Using this as the litmus test of equality, this paper will attempt to question whether, considering that the experience of segregation that is so endemic to the practice, sheltered work infringes upon individuals right to lead a dignified life and otherwise interfere with the enjoyment and protection of their rights
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
