Betul Yalcin
University of Leeds
EMPLOYERS’ VIEWS ON EMPLOYMENT OF DISABLED PEOPLE:
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS IN THE EU CONTEXT
Betul YALCIN
FP7-Marie Curie Initial Training Network
DREAM Project-Early Stage Researcher,
School of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Leeds
(Work in progress please do not quote and cite without permission. E-mail: B.Yalcin@leeds.ac.uk)
1. Introduction
With the advancement of interconnectedness between countries, industrialized economies
have entered into a new era where economic rules are set in a global context. In the process
of globalization, citizenship, which declares the rights and responsibilities of members of
society, has undergone important changes, and social protection policies has started to be
replaced by active labour market policies (Falk, 2000; Yeates, 2001).
Parallel to these transformations, the EU, with its sui generis governance system, puts its
effort to create a socially and economically integrated union between the states of Europe.
Compatibly, all activities and legislation are predominantly directed towards completion of
single market and enhancing economic competitiveness (Hantrais, 2007). Within this
framework, there is an emphasis on active labour market policies, in the belief that it would
contribute to the overarching goal of securing sustainable economic growth. Active labour
market policies, defined as ‘measures taken in order to improve functioning of the labour
market that are directed towards unemployed’ (Calmfors, 1994, p.8), are incorporated into
policies, including the policies addressing disabled people. However, increased emphasis on
employment at macro policy level is not reflected in micro level policy outcome. It failed to
meet the expected outcomes most of the time (Jeager and Kvist, 2003; OECD, 2010;
Gammenos, 2011). Despite substantial efforts, the employment rates amongst disabled
people are still far below those of their non-disabled counterparts in most EU member
states (OECD, 2010; Gammenos, 2011). The Academic Network of European Disability
Experts (ANED) report provided the most recent proof. According to the report, the average
employment rate for disabled people is around 45%, whilst the rate for their non-disabled
counterparts is 72 % in the EU. Relatively speaking, disabled people’s employment rate is
63% lower compared to non-disabled people (Gammenos, 2011).
For disabled people, experiencing challenges in participation in social and economic life is
mostly attributed to institutional, attitudinal, and environmental barriers (Hannon, 2007;
Hodghes-Aeberhard and Raskin, 1997; Barnes and Mercer, 2005; Hahn, 1985; 1988). As one
of those obstacles, attitudes towards disabled people gained attention amongst scholars
and governance bodies in the last few decades (Hannon, 2007). Yet, the existence of
negative attitudes is acknowledged as a risk factor that can create a volatile ground for
disabled people’s integration and prevent stipulation of enabling policies and their effective
implementation, which, as a whole is thought to inhibit the enjoyment of full citizenship
rights (Rosenthal et al, 2006; Hannon, 2007; Dwyer, 2004; Barnes and Mercer, 2005; Hanh,
1985; 1988; Kamieniecki, 1985).
Studies on attitudes towards disabled people provide extensive information (Hannon,
2007). Regarded as one of the main factors hindering the employment of disabled people,
1
employers’ attitudes towards disabled people were also investigated to see in what ways
they interact with the policy implementation. However, there is a gap in the literature,
which investigates this issue in a multi-national context. Additionally, none of the attitude
studies investigating the effects of individual and country level variables addresses disability
issue (Gelissen, 2000; Svalford; 1999; Roosma, 2012; Nauman, 2011; Blekesaune and
Quadagno, 2003). Whilst, the Eurobarometer Opinion Survey Series can answer to what
extent European citizens hold discriminatory attitudes, it relies only on descriptive statistics
when discussing who holds such attitudes. Additionally, it briefly touched upon employers’
attitudes. Limited reference to country context is another shortcoming of the
Eurobarometer series (EORG, 2001; 2004; TNS 2007; 2009).
This paper, therefore, sets its aim as to fulfilling those gaps in the literature. Its main
objective is: (1) to provide information on employers’ views on employment of disabled
people in the European Union labour market and (2) to untangle underlying factors behind
employers’ views by taking individual and country level factors into account. Within the
scope of this paper, the following questions guide the investigation: what is the pattern in
the employers’ views on employment of disabled people in the EU labour market, and who
holds such views?.1 In order to answer the first question, responses given by employers to
the employment related statements in Eurobarometer 2012 are scrutinized. For the second
question the statement, addressing discrimination at the recruitment phase, was selected
for statistical analysis, as it is implicitly linked to potential recruitment behavior of the
employers. Whilst patterns are displayed with mainstreamed descriptive techniques, the
present study employs logistic regression analysis to untangle the factors behind the
employers’ attitudes, where both individual and country level factors are taken into
account.
Providing the first multi-national analysis, this paper concurrently scrutinizes the effects of
individual and country level factors on employer’s views on employment of disabled people.
Initially, a brief description of attitudes is given. Under the same section, literature
background on the general and employer attitudes towards disabled people are discussed.
Factors that influence the attitudes are also addressed. In the following section, information
on data and statistical analysis is provided. After the discussion of main results, implications
for governmental and non-governmental bodies, the European Union organs, and literature
are specified, as concluding remarks.
2. Literature Background
Attitude, defined as ‘an idea (cognitive) charged with emotions (affective) which
predisposes a class of actions (behavioural) to a particular class of situations’ (Triandis, et
al., 1984, cited in Hannon, 2007, p.9), serves as a framework through which people interpret
and link themselves to the social world. They are evaluated in a threefold way: cognitive,
affective, and behavioural. Whilst cognitive and affective evaluation mostly refers to
internal thoughts and attached emotions, behavioural evaluation denotes observed actions
in relation to the questioned issue (Hannon, 2007).
1
This paper partially reflects preliminary findings of an ongoing doctoral research that aims to identify how states can
better promote the employment of disabled people in open labour market, private sector in particular. Mentioned
research has a layered framework for policy analysis, where each layer relates to one another in a progressive manner to
render a more comprehensive understanding of the current situation of disabled people’s employment. Whilst, macro
level focuses on the similarities and differences between EUMS’s employment policies for disabled people, meso level
analysis focuses on the impact of those policies. Unlike the former layers, micro level analysis investigates interpretation
and implementation of employment policies for disabled people.
Betul Yalcin
University of Leeds
Yet, fundamentally an internal process, attitudes are believed to be an implicit but
influential determinant that shapes the policy due to the interaction between public
attitudes and policymaking processes (Page and Shapiro, 1983; Hanh, 1985; 1988; Hick,
1990 cited in Blekesaune and Quadagno, 2003; Jacobs and Shapiro, 2000, cited in
Blekesaune and Quadagno, 2003). Regarding disability policies, societal attitudes are
believed to dictate policies to a substantial degree (Hahn, 1985; 1988; Massie, 2006;
Hannon, 2007; Kamieniechki, 1985). When discussing societal attitudes, Hahn says that the
experiences of disabled people are determined not by their functional limitations, but more
by others’ attitudes towards their limitations (Hahn, 1985). In his writings, Mike Oliver
(1990) touched upon evolvement of understanding of disability. According to him,
contemporary understanding of disability is shaped by the interaction between mode of
production and social values attached to the disabled body. He states that industrialization
devalued labour of those who are unable to meet expectations for an average worker. In
Barnes and Mercer’s 2005 article, they address the association between globalization of
economies and social exclusion. They claim that the global rise of industrialization created
competitive markets where the ethos of profit maximization further decreased the value of
disabled workers, thus causing disabled people to emerge as a categorically excluded group.
Kemp (2006) further suggests that with the increase in the importance of high levels of
education and qualifications in today's world, the demand for low-skilled workers has
declined. This, in turn, placed disabled people, who are more likely have lower educational
attainment, in an even less favorable position in the labour market.
In general terms, experiencing challenges in participation into social and economic life is
mostly attributed to institutional, attitudinal and environmental factors (Hahn, 1985; 1988;
Hodghes-Aeberhard and Raskin, 1997; Barnes and Mercer, 2005; Hannon, 2007). In
economic integration, employers’ attitudes are thought to play the most crucial role. Thus,
promoting employment of disabled people is highly linked to the employer’s willingness to
employ disabled people. Together with it, existence of an employment support system, ease
to access to this system, awareness level of employers, earlier experience of having disabled
employee, or interaction with disabled people, were seen equally important factors for
recruitment behaviour of employers (House of Commons, 1999).
In one of the earliest surveys, commissioned by the Committee on Education and
Employment (the UK), results depicted that rather than attitudes, awareness level and
earlier interaction and experience with disabled people are the main barriers to
employment. Some employers even stated that they could employ disabled people if they
apply for the job (Honey, et al, 1993; Dench, et al, 1996). On the other side, hesitation of
disabled people to apply for vacancies is attributed to lower expectation of being recruited,
fears of rejection and/or labelled as unproductive (Crisp, 2001). Regarding the support
systems, a study carried out in the USA, revealed that those employers who use support
systems hold more positive thoughts. Moreover, employers who have prior contact with
disability display more positive thoughts about employment of disabled people. In his
paper, Blessing (1999) addresses the same issue, and suggests that the companies that have
a history with disabled employee are more likely to hire a disabled employee. A more recent
study, from Sweden, showed that employers who have a history of hiring disabled
employees have a tendency to hire again (Anderson, 2012). A study from Canada (Roeher
Institute, 2000), showed that employers’ negative attitudes decrease the likelihood of
employing disabled people, but once the interaction was built, negative attitude observed
to be diminished. One last survey from the same continent revealed that those employers,
3
who hold negative attitudes towards employment of disabled people, have misconceptions
about the cost of reasonable accommodation, report lack of physical accessibility, lack of
experience in handling disability at work place, and difficulties managing work-fit (Dixon,
2003 cited in Hannon, 2007)
Misconceptions about employment of disabled people surfaced in a number of studies. In a
study, commissioned by HM Department for Work and Pension, in the UK, roughly 2000
work places, varying in size and sector, were visited to explore the barriers to employment.
The study revealed that employers often have incomplete knowledge about disability,
disabled people and the policies addressing them. More interestingly, when employers
provided information about which disabilities are concealed by legislation or prompted
what is regarded as reasonable accommodation, reported proportions were increased to a
substantial degree. Regarding reasonable accommodation expenditures, employers were
mostly positive and refer it as normal costs. Overall, employers provided positive attitudes
towards employment of disabled people. A majority of the employers disagree with all the
statements, which have negative slants about the employment of disabled people
(Goldstone, 2002). In another large-scale survey, this time commissioned by the Disability
Rights Commission (the UK), at about 1000 small sized enterprises were visited. It was
shown that a majority of employers disagree with the statement that disabled people are
less productive. Similarly, a majority of them think disabled people fit into their work force.
Yet, concerns over mismatch between qualifications and job requirements were
pronounced (DRC, 2005). In a literature review on myths about employer attitudes towards
disabled people, it was concluded that employers could clearly identify both advantages and
disadvantages of employing disabled people. Review suggests that employers’ thoughts
about hiring disabled people are predominantly positive. The belief that more should be
done to integrate disabled people into the labour market has also frequently appeared in
the literature review. However, based on the revised literature, it was also implied that
favourable thoughts on employment of disabled people tend to decline when employer’s
own recruitment behaviour is questioned. This would suggest that positive thoughts have
limited capacity to be transferred into actual recruitment behaviour (Unger, 2002). In a
recent study, carried out by Davidson (2011), displayed that employers see some risks in
employing disabled people. Amongst the cited risks there were: reputation of the company,
risk to customer base, and risk to business, especially for food industry. Risk of frequent
absenteeism has also been pronounced. Additionally, the capability of the disabled people
and handling them within the site were provided as the main concerns of employers. More
importantly, although they knew that employers play an important role in the employment
of disabled people, they acknowledge to the researcher their struggle to keep the business
going.
Considering general attitudes toward disability, overall findings of literature reflect the fact
that, in most of the cases, the researched population is aware of the difficulties that
disabled people face in daily life. Existence of prejudice towards disabled people is a
common belief. Respondents mostly agreed with the notion that more should be done to
provide equal opportunities and secure integration of disabled people into society.
However, there has been a downward trend in the percentage of people supporting the
welfare polices for disabled people in the last decade. It was also revealed that economic
and individual factors make a difference in people’s perception. A number of researches and
a survey on attitudes towards disability have cited those factors as: gender, education,
income, social status, occupational class, frequency of religious practice, age, familiarity,
Betul Yalcin
University of Leeds
and personal health condition are the listed factors (EORG, 2001; 2004; TNS 2007; 2009;
Robinson, et al., 2007; Staniland, 2009; Hannon, 2007; Bromley and Curtice, 2003; Bromley,
et al, 2007; Ormstone, et. al, 2011; Unger, 2002; NDA, 2002; 2007; 2011). It was also argued
that people who are more likely to be affected by the policies could display differentiated
attitudes due to individual’s self interest. Thus, it is not surprising to see that people display
differentiated views when they feel like their own interest is be enhanced/ endangered
under such circumstances (Hasenfeld and Raferty, 1989; Ormstone, et. al, 2011). Although
Euro barometer series provides the foremost multi-national analysis of attitudes towards
disability, it is still limited in terms of its reliance on observed percentages and as well as the
consideration of country level context. As likely, minute referral to employer attitudes were
made in those surveys. Similarly, there is no prior literature on the effects of quota systems,
as a coercive measure, on individuals’ views. Except for the Euro barometer survey series,
there is no known research that addresses disability issues in a multi-national context.
None of the revised attitude literature exploring the effects of individual and country level
factors tackles disability issues. In terms of country level factors, those studies revealed that
a number of country level factors, including institutional structure of a given country, as well
as welfare regime can play an important role in shaping attitudes towards social issues
(Gelissen, 2000; Svalford, 1999; Roosma, 2012; Nauman, 2011; Blekesaune and Quadagno,
2003). In her theoretical reflections on the welfare state and its citizens, Annette Henninger
(2006) marks the importance of individual level interpretations of policies. She argues that
postmodern virtues of individualism, uncertainties of market, globalization, and increased
numbers of crises put employers in a position where they placed their own priorities at the
first place, which might conflict with welfare states’ priorities. In her paper, she cites that
active labour market policies, which generally involve sanction and coercive measures, have
a potential to create differentiation in individual level behaviour. She claims that, state
involvement in such issues can affect but not determine individual level interpretations and
experiences, especially at the time of economic crisis. Thus, she says it is essential ‘to
analyse individual interpretations and actions in the face of political regulations’ (Henninger,
2006, p. 11).
Just as understanding the patterns of individual level interpretation of disabled people’s
employment is important, so understanding the factors behind it important for better
implementation of enabling policies, and awareness raising and intervention programs. Due
to interconnectedness between policy and attitudes, it is, therefore, crucial to investigate
patterns in employers’ views as well as the factors causing differentiations at the times of
economic down turn. The following section is allocated to provide information about the
data and the methods that are employed for the present analysis.
3. Data and Measurement
Within the scope of the present paper, employers’ views on employment of disabled people
were explored over the Eurobarometer Opinion Survey Series 2012. Eurobarometer series
are conducted on behalf of the European Commission and based on face-to-face interviews
with people who are age 15 and over. The 2012 dataset covers EU27 member states and
provides information on 26,662 European citizens. The sample size for the countries varies
between 500 and 1,570; however, most of the countries have sample size around 1,000 per
series. For the present analysis, respondents, who are liable to hold responsibilities of an
employer, such as recruiting, hiring, supervising, evaluating and assessing the work of
others, are chosen to constitute proxy employers sample. In the survey population, 3,377
5
respondents met the criterion. In total, 254 general managers, 1,736 middle-ranked
managers, 722 shop owners, 444 business owners, and 221 supervisors were withdrawn
from the general survey population for the present analysis.
As stated before, the present study takes individual and country level factors into account
while investigating employer’s views on employment of disabled people. In light of the
literature, individual level factors are selected as: age, gender, schooling period, and
subjective health condition, familiarity with disability, perceived social level, and political
orientation. Following literature findings on the interaction between welfare typology and
individual attitudes, and Henninger’s theoretical postulates, welfare regime typology and
quota system were selected as country level factors.
Prior to analysis, all variables are recoded into dummy variables. Categories, which act as
reference categories for comparison, are given zero (See Annexes- Table 1 and Table 2).
Similarly response categories were collapsed into two, and coded 1 for positive slants and 0
for the other way around. On the basis of relevance, below questions were selected to
present employers attitudes towards employment of disabled people.
‘When a company wants to hire someone and has the choice between two candidates with
equal skills and qualifications, which of the following criteria may in your opinion, put one
candidate at a disadvantage_ disability_ ‘
‘Do you think that economic crises is contributing to an increase in discrimination in the
labour market on the basis of _disability_’
‘Do you think that enough is being done to promote diversity in your work place as far as _
disability_ is concerned’?
‘To what extent do you support or oppose to the following measures in the work place to
foster diversity’
‘Training on diversity issues for employees and employers’
‘Monitoring composition of the work-force to evaluate the representation of groups at
risk of discrimination’
‘Monitoring recruitment procedures to ensure that candidates from groups at risk of
discrimination have the same opportunities as other candidates with similar skills and
qualifications’
In order to disclose employers’ views on employment of the disabled people, SPSS 20
version was employed. The pattern is presented based on the calculation of observed
percentages over total base, through descriptive statistics. On the other hand, influence of
the factors on employers’ views is investigated with logistic regression analysis. Whilst Table
3 (See Annexes) presents the pattern in the latest Eurobarometer series, Table 4 (See
Annexes) displays results of the logistic regression analysis based on the same dummy
variable recoding. Logistic regression analysis allows to “specify and test if the independent
variable has an effect, but the effect varies depending on the characteristics of the
respondent after controlling for the other factors” (MacDonald, 2008, p.7). For the second
analysis, seeing disability as a disadvantage in the labour market was set as dependent
variable, as it is thought to be implicitly linked to the potential recruitment behaviour of the
employer by the researcher. When running the logistic regression analysis, all factors are set
as a categorical variable in order to spot the effects of sub-divisions of the factors. Whilst
observed percentages provide information on patterns of employers’ views, logistic
Betul Yalcin
University of Leeds
regression analysis provides information on whether simultaneously presented factors and
their subdivisions have a statistically significant effect on dependent variable, when all the
other factors are controlled. More importantly, it provides likelihood of occurrences
amongst subdivisions of the researched sample (MacDonald, 2008; Budzier, 2010).
In the light of the literature, differentiated views in sub-divisions of employers sample are
expected. For logistic regression analysis, it is hypothesized that the effect of the
simultaneously presented factor on dependent variable would be statistically significant,
when all the other individual and country level factors are controlled. Null hypothesis,
therefore, implies no significant effect. In the real social world nothing can be brought about
by a single factor, thus the result of the logistic regression might reveal different but more
credible findings than what the descriptive statistics present regarding likelihoods.
3. Limitations
There are some limitations affecting the merit of the present analysis that should be kept in
mind. The most important limitation is the social desirability effect. In the disability research
area, particularly in attitudes researches, social desirability effect, which is the tendency to
reflect more positive thoughts than they really are, raised as a limitation for attitude
researches (Hannon, 2007; Scruggs et al., 1996; Hernandez, 2000; Deal, 2006).
There are also data limitations to be identified. To reveal employers’ views on employment
of disabled people, a proxy employer sample, composed of general managers, middle-rank
managers, business owners, shop owners, and supervisors was extracted from the total
survey population. Still, within the given sample there might be employers who have
relatively more or less responsibility for the others. Another limitation is that the
Eurobarometer dataset does not allow the researcher to differentiate public and private
sector managers from one another. Similarly, questions that tap attitudes towards special
measures refers to all groups of individuals who are at risk of discrimination (Roma people,
disabled people, elderly people, etc..) It is, therefore, advised to take the above-mentioned
limitations into account when reading the findings of the present analysis. Despite all these
implications, this study can still provide significant insight to the literature and the
governing bodies.
Although it merits a much more detailed discussion of all of the analysis, the focus is placed
on the responses given to the statement that tap discrimination in the recruitment phase.
For the same reason, the cited statement was used to disentangle the effect of individual
and country level factors on employers’ views on employment of disabled people2.
4. Results
In order to explore the employer’s views on employment of disabled people and to
understand the factors that lead to differentiation, two different statistical techniques were
employed for the present analysis. Whilst, descriptive statistics were used to depict patterns
in employers’ views, logistic regression analysis was utilized to understand those who are
more likely to hold such views.
Initially, observed percentages over the responses are displayed to provide a general
outlook of the employers’ views on employment of disabled people and specific measures
2
Results of descriptive and logistic regression analyses are presented in the annexes section (Table 3, Table 4 ).
7
to promote diversity in the labour market. It is followed by the presentation of results by
individual and country level factors where descriptive and logistic regression analyses
results are integrated to provide a grounded base for discussion of who sees disability as a
disadvantage.
4.1. General outlook
General outlook of the employers’ views are displayed based on the responses given to the
employment related statements cited above. The result of the descriptive analysis showed
that (Table 3, See Annexes) in the EU, six out of ten employers do not see disability as a
criterion that put an individual at a disadvantage in the recruitment procedure. A similar
number of employers believe that recent economic crises caused an increase in
discrimination against disabled people in the labour market. Concerning the employment of
disabled people, roughly half of the employers state that enough is being done to increase
diversity at their work places. For the question, which recon employers’ views on
implementation of special measures to promote diversity in the labour market, a majority of
employers has displayed favourable views. 85% of them support the statement addressing
training for employers and employees on diversity issues. In the similar way, 82% of
employers display supportive thoughts to the special measure of monitoring the
recruitment procedures to ensure equal opportunities for all. Employers, who provide
favourable thoughts on monitoring composition of work force, constitute 72% of the total
base. To put it in another way, seven out of ten employers support the idea of monitoring
composition of work force to evaluate representation of groups at risk of discrimination.
Results of the preliminary analysis revealed that employers are mostly in favour of
implementation of special measures like monitoring recruitment procedures and
composition of work forces. They also see the importance of training for employers and
employees to boost the understanding of diversity issues in the labour market. Four out of
ten employers think that disability puts an individual at a disadvantageous position in the
recruitment phase. However, most of them foresaw that recent economic crisis would lead
an increase in the discrimination based on disability in the labour market. Additionally half
of the employers believe that enough is being done to promote diversity at their work
places to accommodate disabled employees. Overall the picture generated by these findings
implies positive employer thoughts on employment of disabled people and the special
measures on increasing the diversity at work places. 3
The following parts are devoted to presentation and discussion of the effects of individual
and level factors on employer’s views on employment of disabled people.
4.2. Dynamics of Attitudes
As presented in previous sections, literature implies that people’s view towards disabled
people differentiate as a function of economic and individual level factors. Amongst the
individual level factors believed to lead to a differentiation in people’s view, there lies: age,
gender, income, occupational status, education, and familiarity with disability, as well as
religious practices. Subjective experience disability and chronic illnesses were also found to
be an important factor that causes differentiation in attitudes towards disability. Although
Under the micro level analysis of the on-going doctoral research, employers and disabled employees interpretation
and experience of active labour market policies are also explored via semi-structured interviews. In order to
illustrate the experiences in the actual context, quotes from interviews with the employers are presented in the
annexes section. When micro level investigation is finalized, there will be illustrations from 6 countries, in three
pairs. It will include examples of actual context from liberal, social democrat and conservative countries.
3
Betul Yalcin
University of Leeds
there are conflicting literature findings in some cases, those studies still provide important
insights for developing better intervention and awareness raising programs (EORG, 2001;
2004; TNS, 2007; 2009; Robinson, et al., 2007; Staniland, 2009; Hannon, 2007; Bromley and
Curtice, 2003; Bromley, et al, 2007; Ormstone, et al., 2011; Unger, 2002; NDA, 2002; 2007;
2011). In almost all-aforementioned literature, observed percentages, i.e. descriptive
statistics, were employed to discuss who is more likely to hold such attitudes. Present
analysis, on the other hand, employs logistic regression to this end, following Bromley and
Curtice, (2003), Broomley, et al., (2007), and Ormstone et.al. (2011).
In order to disentangle the individual and country level factors behind the employers’
perceptions, the statement that taps discrimination at recruitment phase was chosen, as it
is thought to be implicitly related to potential recruitment behaviour. Results of the
descriptive and logistic analysis are presented together; however, focus is mostly placed on
logistic regression findings in the discussion.
4.2.1. Individual level factors
Following the literature findings, factors that are suggested as having important affect on
individuals view were selected. For the present analysis, as cited in the methodology
section, gender, age, educational attainment, subjective health condition, having familiarity
with disabled people, social level, political orientation served as individual level factors.
Both logistic regression and descriptive analyses were run over the dataset. Amongst the
individual level factors, logistic regression analysis revealed no significant effect of
educational attainment, social level, and subjective health condition, meaning that, given
our model, after controlling for the other factors, employers’ views do not change as a
function of those factors. On the other hand, logistic regression analysis revealed statistical
significance on the observed variances for gender, age, familiarity with disabled people, and
political orientation.
Given employer sample, 41% of female employers were found to perceive disability as a
criterion that put an individual at a disadvantage in the labour market. Male employer’s
shares of seeing disability as a disadvantageous crtieria in the labour market were one point
more than those of females. When results of descriptive analysis were taken into account, it
is highly unlikely; one can spot the difference between genders. Logistic regression analysis,
on the other hand, revealed significant effect of gender on dependent variable at p=.500
significance level after controlling for the other individual and country level factors. Male
employers were found to have slightly higher odds compared to female employers. Having
Coefficient of 1.06 and positive (B) value means that compared to female employers, male
employers are 6% [Exp(B)-1*100=x] more likely to believe that disabled people are at
disadvantageous position in the labour market. This can be interpreted as the chance of a
male employer seeing disability, as a disadvantageous criterion is higher than that of a
female employer. However, their odds are minimally lower compared to females.
Proposed as another important socio-demographic factor, age, displayed differentiated
shares within its subdivisions. Younger employers, aged less than 24 years old, were found
to display higher share of seeing disability as a disadvantageous criterion. 44% of younger
employers see disability as a criterion that puts an individual at a disadvantage in the labour
market; this share is around 41% for employers who are in their early and late adulthoods as
well as for employers who are 55 and older. For the parent variable testing for whether
age, given the employer sample, after controlling for the other factors have an effect on
dependent variable, was found to have a statistically significant effect on dependent
9
variable. Compared to the youngest employer group, employers who are aged between 25
and 39 displayed lower odds. They are 25% less likely to perceive that disabled people are
discriminated against in the labour market. When it comes to employers in their late
adulthood, it was found that they are 35% less likely to see disability as a disadvantageous
criterion in recruitment compared to the youngest employer group. Similar coefficient odds
were found for employers who are aged 55 and older. From the logistic regression results, it
can be said that after controlling for the other individual level and country level factors, age
revealed differentiated outcomes in employers’ views. That means employers’ perception of
experiences of disabled people in the labour market change as a function of age.
Additionally, increase in the age resulted in a decrease in the likelihood of seeing disability
as a disadvantageous criterion. This finding was in line with what previous literature
suggests.
Literature on attitudes also states that people, who are more likely affected by the
proposed statement or the policy, are likely to display differentiated views. Given our
sampling and model, disabled employers showed similar views with the non-disabled
employers. In this, having disability did not lead to a differentiation in the outcome. Having
an acquaintance or family member with disability, on the other hand, leads to a
differentiation in employers’ view. In the researched sample, 38.4% of employers who have
no acquaintance with disability hold the view that disability puts an individual at a
disadvantage during the recruitment phase. On the other hand, 42.9% of employers who
have acquaintance with chronic illness or disability see this condition as criteria that place
this person at a disadvantage in the labour market. Logistic regression analysis testing
whether having familiarity with people with disabling conditions has an effect on dependent
variable revealed statistical significance at p=.500 significance level, after controlling for the
other factors. Employers who have an acquaintance or family member with disability are
18% more likely to hold the view that people with disability are disadvantaged in the labour
market. Although some literature suggests that people who are more likely to be affected
by the addressed issue would display differentiated attitudes, present analysis revealed
contradictory findings. Similar thoughts between non-disabled and disabled individuals
were observed. Yet, differentiation was present between employers who have/have not
acquaintance with disabled people.
Political orientation, thought to be an important factor that affects individual’s views on
social issues, was found to have brought about changes in employers’ views. Employers who
hold right wing political orientation were found to display a lower agreement rate than
other political orientation groups. While 45.8% of employers from left wing say that
disability puts an individual at a disadvantage at recruitment phase, 40.9% of employers
who hold central political view say so. Employers, who hold right wing political orientation,
display 38.1% agreement with the given statement. Meaning that, 4 out of ten employers
from the right wing political orientation see disability as a criterion that put an individual at
disadvantage in the labour market. Logistic regression analysis for the same variable
revealed that political orientation as a parent variable has significant effect while explaining
the variances in employers’ perception that disability is a disadvantageous criterion in the
labour market. Compared to the reference group leftist employers, employers who hold
central political views displayed lower odds. They are 12% less likely to state disabled
people are discriminated against at the recruitment phase. When it comes to employers
from right wing, coefficients display lower odds after controlling for the other factors.
Compared to leftist, they are 33% less likely to say that disability put an individual at a
Betul Yalcin
University of Leeds
disadvantageous position. In total, leftist people are more likely to see disability as
discriminatory criteria. They displayed the highest odds, whilst right wing followers
displayed the lowest.
Overall findings on individual level factors revealed that general assumptions of significant
effect of individual factors are partially supported by present analysis. Whilst, gender, age,
political orientation, and familiarity with disability revealed findings in line with the
literature, subjective health condition (having chronic illness and/or disability), social level
and educational level disclosed contradictory findings. These factors do not lead to any
differentiation in the employer’s view on discrimination in the labour market based on
disability. As a whole, it can be concluded that compared to those, who are female, older,
having right wing political orientation, or no acquaintance with disability, employer’s, who
are male, younger, have an acquaintance with disability, have leftist political view, have
higher tendency to perceive disability as a disadvantageous criterion in the labour market.
4.2.2 Country Level Factors
Studies, considering the effects of country level factors, mostly on public attitudes towards
social issues, revealed that welfare regime and institutional structure of a state can lead to
differentiation in individuals’ views. However, none of these researches involve disability
issues. There is neither a research that tackles the effect of welfare regimes, nor employers’
attitudes, on employment of disabled people in a multi-national context.
In terms of country level factors, descriptive analysis displayed a higher share for employers
who live under a social democrat welfare regime. In terms of seeing disability as a
disadvantageous criterion in the labour market, employers of social democrat regimes
display 48.7% agreement, whilst employers of conservative regimes display a 40.5%
reporting rate. Employers of post-communist emerging welfare regimes, on the other hand,
showed a 37.3% mentioning rate. Employers from liberal regimes, have the lowest,
displayed a 27.3% share of seeing disability as a disadvantageous criterion. The parent
variable testing whether welfare regimes have an effect on employers’ views about
discrimination in the labour market based on disability was found to be statistically
significant in logistic regression analysis. Compared to referenced social democrat regimes,
employers from liberal welfare regimes, found to have extremely lower odds. Having .348
coefficient and negative (B) value means that, compared to social democrat regimes,
employers living in liberal regimes are 65% less likely to see disability as a disadvantageous
criterion. And again, compared to employers from social democrat regimes, employers from
post-communist emerging welfare regimes are 31% less likely to say that disability is a
disadvantageous factor after controlling for all the other factors. Regarding the welfare
regimes, employers of social democrat regimes display the highest agreement with the
given statement therefore set as a reference group. On the other hand, it was followed by
conservative, post-communist emerging welfare regimes. In countries where, a liberal
welfare regime is the main political structure of the state, employers displayed least
likelihood of seen disability as a disadvantageous criterion.
Employers from countries where no quota system applies, display 46.3% share of seeing
disability as a criterion that puts an individual at a disadvantage in the labour market. For
the countries that have a quota system for the private sector, employers display a 45.7%
share. Those who live in the countries where a quota system only applies to the public
sector, display 39% agreement, while countries where quota applies both to public and
private sector reveals 37.4% share on the idea that disabled people are disadvantaged in the
11
labour market. Logistic regression analysis over the 2012 series data set revealed that as a
parent variable, quota system is found to have an effect on dependent variable. That is
employers’ views on attitudes towards disabled people in the labour market changes as a
function of applied quota system. Employers from countries where a quota system applies
to the public sector are 20% less likely to see disability as a disadvantageous criterion
compared to non-quota system after controlling for the other factors. Whereas people who
live in countries where a quota system applies only to the private sector, have 7% lower
odds. For people who live in countries where a quota applies to both public and private
sector, people display lower odds compared to non-quota systems. They are 49% less likely
to see disability as a factor that puts an individual at a disadvantageous position. That
means, compared to employers from countries where quota applies to both public and
private sector, employer of no quote scheme countries are twice as likely to see disability as
disadvantageous criterion in the recruitment phase.
Both welfare regimes and quota systems, as country level factors, were found to be
important factors that shape individual level perception of employment of the disabled
people. For the country level factors, employers from social democrat countries and
countries where no quota system applies tend to display more likelihood of seeing disability
as a disadvantageous criterion. When these findings are evaluated in the light of EU
employment outlook for disabled people (Table 5, See Annexes), it can be seen that those
countries where no quota system applies, have employment rates for disabled people that
is mostly higher than EU average. Amongst the 7 countries that do not apply any quota
system, only the UK is below the EU average by one point. For other systems, distributions
are as follows. Amongst 20 countries, which apply quota of any kind, have 13 countries,
which is below the EU average employment rate for disabled people. For welfare typology,
it is seen that all the social democrat regimes have substantially higher employment rates
than the EU average. Amongst the 13 conservative regimes countries, only 5 countries
displayed employment rate, which is higher, then the EU average employment rate for
disabled people. Countries allocated to liberal regimes, the UK and Ireland, are below the
EU average employment rate.
5. Discussions and Conclusion
The present study sets its aim to examine the pattern, as well as the factors that are thought
to shape employers’ perceptions. The present analysis addressed the research questions
with two different statistical techniques. Similar to previous literature, patterns were
presented in observed percentages. On the other hand, logistic regression was used to
untangle the effects of individual and country level factors on employers’ perceptions of
attitudes towards disabled people in the labour market.
The present findings are the initial findings as far as effect of individual and country factors
on people’s view on disability related issues are concerned. In terms of individual level
factors, the literature states that females are more likely to hold supportive views on
disability related issues (Staniland, 2009, EORG, 2001; 2004). If we only looked at descriptive
statistics, we would not spot an apparent difference between males and females. However,
the logistic regression analysis revealed gender makes a difference in employers’ views.
Additionally, age, as an individual level factor, revealed statistically significant effects, where
older employers are found to display less likelihood of seeing disability as a disadvantageous
criterion, compared to younger employers. This finding was found to be in line with
previous literature (Broomley, et al., 2007; EORG, 2001; 2004). Educational attainment,
cited as another important factor on people’s views, does not reveal a statistically
Betul Yalcin
University of Leeds
significant effect, in contrast to the literature suggestion (Staniland, 2009; Broomley and
Curtice, 2003; Ormstone, 2010; EORG, 2001; 2004). Contrary to previous literature, present
analysis does not reveal a significant effect of social level (EORG, 2001; 2004; Staniland,
2009). And again, subjective health condition, i.e. having chronic illness or disability, does
not come up as a significant factor. Both disabled and non-disabled employers displayed
similar views. These findings contradict with the literature which states personal experience
of disability leads to a differentiation in the attitudes towards disability and disability related
policies (Ormstone, et. al, 2011) Whilst personal experience of disability is not revealed to
have a significant effect, having familiarity with disabled people, was found to be an
important factor that shapes employers’ views on discrimination in the labour market based
on disability. Employers, who have a disabled family member or an acquaintance, tend to
refer to disability as a disadvantageous criterion in the labour market as the literature
suggests (EORG, 2001; Anderson, 2012; NDA, 2002; 2011; Broomley et.al, 2007). Political
orientation, once again, was depicted as having a significant effect in individuals’ views.
Compared to leftist employers who hold central political orientation, and those who hold
right wing political orientation are less likely to see disability as a disadvantageous criterion.
These were to some extent in line with Svalford (1999) and Roosma’s (2012) policy analyses.
Country level factors revealed that employers from social democrat welfare states are the
most likely to see disability as a disadvantage. Compared to social democrat welfare states,
employers from liberal welfare states are least likely to see it as a disadvantageous criterion.
In terms of the quota typology, compared with employers who live in countries where there
is no quota system, people in countries with quotas displayed lower chances of viewing
disability as a disadvantage. Employers in liberal regimes were 65% less likely to see
disability as a disadvantage in the labour market when compared to those in social
democrat welfare states. Employers in countries where a quota system applies to both
private and public sector were 49% less likely to see disability as a disadvantage compared
to countries with no quota system. These are the foremost findings of the present analysis.
Such evidence might be open to a variety of explanations. One explanation could be related
to the influence of the free market ethos or by the type of quota system implemented,
respectively. Having substantially lower odds against the reference groups might also be
related to the fact that those employers may hold the assumption that their own interests
could be endangered if the overall findings revealed there is discrimination in the labour
market against disabled people. If so, this could be regarded as supporting evidence for
Henninger’s assumptions of employer behavior at the time of economic crises. Having
dramatically lower odds in countries where a quota applies to both sectors might also be
related with the system itself. In these countries employers might hold the view that
disabled people are less likely to be discriminated against due to legal measures.
From country level findings, it is seen that where there is less state intervention in market
dynamics, employers tend to display lower odds of seeing disability as a disadvantageous
criterion. On the other hand, where there is more state intervention in workforce
composition (quota system), employers, are also inclined to display the lower likelihoods of
regarding disability as a disadvantage in the labour market. This implies that state
intervention is a more complicated issue, as far as the employment of disabled people is
concerned. And that needs to be investigated further.
In conclusion, most employers hold positive views about the employment of disabled
people. They mostly support the implementation of special measures to promote diversity
13
in the work place, including: training, monitoring of work force, and recruitment
procedures. Those employers who are older, female, have no acquaintance with disability,
hold right wing political orientation, living in liberal countries, or in countries where quota
systems apply to public and private sector, are less likely to see disability as a
disadvantageous criterion .
Based on the literature review and the findings of statistical analysis, the following
recommendations are postulated.

Recalling the preliminary findings; The EU organs, Member States Governments
should to devise training programs for employers and employees to promote
diversity in the work places, and monitoring-mechanisms to evaluate diversity within
the work force and the recruitment phase,

Recalling the literature findings; Training programs may include, information about
disability and disabled people, reasonable accommodation, employment related
policies and legislations, how to manage work-fit or, how to handle disabled
employees and associated risks at the work place,

Recalling the literature findings and qualitative analysis debriefing (See Annexes);
Supported employment organizations should be allocated more financial and human
resources in order to deliver high quality support for the employers who have/will
have disabled employees amongst his/her work force. Those units can also be
delegated to give trainings to employees and employers,

Recalling the influence of individual and country level factors’ on perceptions; The
EU organs, Member States Governments, Employer Unions, and NGOs working on
empowering disabled people’s employment should consider the present analysis in
their plans for awareness raising and intervention programs,

Recalling the influence of individual and country level factors’ on perceptions;
Countries that are governed by liberal welfare systems, and countries that employ
private and public quota systems, are advised to place a focus on increasing
awareness on diversity issues, with a special focus on disability. When planning
intervention programs and awareness programs, those employers who are less likely
to perceive disability as a disadvantageous criterion should be more targeted. The
risk of creating a false understanding in employers’ mind that disabled people are
less likely to be discriminated against due to legal measures, should be given utmost
care and preventive measures should be added into the intervention programs to
eliminate this risk.

Recalling the statistical analyses methods; Further studies on attitudes should
consider combining descriptive statistics and logistic regression, particularly if they
are exploring who is more likely to hold discriminatory views. However, such analysis
could only be possible when response categories are collapsed into two categories.
Thus, having 5-point Likert-type scale response category would endanger the
possibility of running logistic regression.
Betul Yalcin
University of Leeds
Bibliography
Anderson., J. 2012. Employer attitudes towards people with a psychological disability.
Master’s Thesis. Lunds Universitet, Insitutuionen For Psykologi . [online] Available at
.http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=2797427&fileOId=2797
428. [Accessed December 2012].
APPLICA, CESEP, and EUROPEAN CENTRE., 2007. Study of compilation of disability statistical
data from the administrative registers of the member states. Prepared for DG employment,
social affairs and equal opportunities. 1 November 2007: Final Report.
Barnes, C. and Mercer, 2005. The social model of disability: Europa and majority world.
Leeds: University of Leeds Media Services.
Blekesaune a, M., and Quadagno, J., 2003. Public attitudes towards welfare state policies: a
comparative analysis of 24 Nations. In EspaNET Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark, 13-15
November 2003. [online] Available at.<
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=public%20attitudes%20%20towards%20welfar
e%20state%20policies%3A%20a%20comparative%20analysis%20of%2024%20nations.%20in
%20espanet%20conference%2C&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDcQFjAA&url=http%3
A%2F%2Fwww.sfi.dk%2Fgraphics%2FESPAnet%2Fpapers%2FBlekesaune.pdf&ei=EX0gUbTn
KXd4QTyioDgAw&usg=AFQjCNHWyhMJ7agjIOJimpoyPGNKHjwGOw&bvm=bv.42553238,d.bG
E>. [Accessed].
Blessing, L.A., and Jamieson, J. 1999. Employing persons with a developmental disability.
Canadian Journal of Rehabilitastion. 21(4) 211-221.
Bromley, C. and Curtice, J., 2003. Attitudes to discrimination in Scotland, Edinburgh: Scottish
Executive Social Research
Bromley, C., Curtice, J. and Given, L., 2007. Attitudes to discrimination in Scotland: 2006,
Edinburgh: Scottish Government Social Research.
Budzier, A., 2010. A manual on dissertation statistics in PASW (SPSS). Oxford Univesity.
[online] Available at: < http://users.ox.ac.uk/~mast2876/budzier.pdf >. [Accessed October
2011].
Calmfors, L., 1994. Active labour market policy and unemployment: a framework for analysis
of crucial design features. OECD Economic Studies. No:22 Spring.
Crisps, A. (2001) ‘Tendency to Stigmatize’, British Journal of Psychiatry, 178, 197-1999.
Davidson.. J. 2011. A qualitative study exploring employer’s recruitment behaviour and
decisions: small and medium enterprises. Research Report No: 754. Prepared for
Department of Work and Pension, 2011 . [online] Available at: <
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CGAQFjAB
&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.york.ac.uk%2Finst%2Fspru%2Fresearch%2Fpdf%2Fsmesumm.p
df&ei=056nT6nlE8_E8QOwiuHdBA&usg=AFQjCNGQGgtBtgC7bBuP9qIGEWjf_rMqgA&sig2=n
mO53gg6g0R1cZE58FMNOw >. [Accessed December 2011].
15
Deal, M., 2003. Attitudes of Disabled People towards other disabled people and impairment
groups: A hierarchy of impairments. Disability and Society, 18(7),
Disability Rights Commission Report. 2005. Small employers attitudes to disability. [online]
Available at: <
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CHAQFjAB
&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leeds.ac.uk%2Fdisabilitystudies%2Farchiveuk%2Fopinion%2520research%2520business%2Fsmall_employers_attitu
des_to_disability%2520report%2520word.pdf&ei=QZnT_niNca38QPQirEU&usg=AFQjCNEZhsGW_0zLQwLaK1bWD48tbnjCA&sig2=NoVDeUDp7nr2-P7YrY9Ibg%3E >. [Accessed July 2009].
Dixon, , K.A., Krause, D, van Horn, C.E., 2003. Restricted Access: a survey of employers about
people with disabilities and lowering barriers to work. In F. Hannon(2007). Literature review on
attitudes towards disability. Disability Research Series. National Disability Authority, Ireland. NDA
Dwyer, P., 2004. Understanding social citizenship: themes and perspectives for policy and
practice. Bristol: Policy Press.
Eurobarometer 2004. Special Eurobarometer 198. Wave 65.4 The Erupean Year od People
with Disabilities 2003. (dataset available on registration at GESIS_ZACAT)
Eurobarometer, 2001 Special Eurobarometer . Wave 54.2 Attitudes of Europeans towards
disability. (dataset available on registration at GESIS_ZACAT )
Eurobarometer, 2007. Special Eurobarometer 263. Wave 65.4 Discrimination in the
European Union. (dataset available on registration at GESIS_ZACAT
Eurobarometer, 2009. Special Eurobarometer 317. Wave 72.4. Discrimination in the
European Union. (dataset available on registration at GESIS_ZACAT) .
Eurobarometer, 2012. Special Eurobarometer 393. Wave 77.4. Discrimination in the
European Union. (dataset available on registration at GESIS_Zdataset available on
registration at GESIS_ZACAT preliminary data set available since 21 December, 2012)
Falk, R., 2000. The decline of citizenship in an era of globalization. Citizenship Studies, 4(1),
pp. 5-17.
Fenger, H.J.M., 2007. Welfare Regimes in Central and Eastern Europe: Incorporating post communist countries in a welfare regime typology. Contemportaty Issues and Ideas in
Social Sciences.
Goldstone, C., 2002. Barriers to employment for disabled people. In-house report 95.
Prepared Department of Work and Pension, 2002 [online]
Available at:
<
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CJ4BEBYwA
A&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.disabledworkers.org.uk%2Fdownloads%2Fbarempdis.pdf&ei=
hZunT4vlLOql0QXQyI2CBA&usg=AFQjCNHQ6h93OHbOXGQzQKxb47n2_ksMw&sig2=it1pqa5vUeOOwLFBkt9Uiw>. [Accessed July 2009].
Grammenos, S., 2011.IDEE Indicators of disability equality in Europe: comparative data on a
selection of quantitative implementation indicator. Prepared for ANED .
Greve, N., 2009. The labour market situation of disabled people in European countries and
implementation of employment policies: a summary of evidence from country reports and
research studies. Academic Network of European Disability Experts. [online] Available at: <
Betul Yalcin
University of Leeds
http://www.disabilityeurope.net/content/aned/media/ANED%20Task%206%20final%20report%20%20final%20version%2017-04-09.pdf>. . [Accessed July 2009].
Hahn, H., 1985. Introduction: Disability policy and the problem of discrimination. American
Behavioural Scientist 28, pp.293 -320.
Hahn, H., 1988. The politics of physical differences: disability and discrimination. Journal of
Social Issues, 44(1), pp.39Hannon, F., 2007. Literature review on attitudes towards disability. Disability Research
Series. National Disability Authority, Ireland.
Hantrais, L., 2007. Social policy in the European Union. New York: Palgrave Macmillan and St
Martin’s Press.
Henninger, A., 2006. Welfare state citizens: objects of control or reflexive actors in the
context of market, family and social policy. In EspaNET Conference. Bremen, Germany, 27
July 2006.
Hernandez.R.L., Keys, C., and Balcazar, F., 2000. Employer attitudes toward workers with
disabilities and their ADA employment rights: a literature review. Journal of Rehabilitation,
66(4), 4-16.
Hicks A. (1999): Social Democracy and Welfare Capitalism. Ithaca, Cornell University Press.
In Blekesaune a, M., and Quadagno, J., 2003. Public attitudes towards welfare state
policies: a comparative analysis of 24 Nations. In EspaNET Conference, Copenhagen,
Denmark, 13-15 November 2003. [online] Available at.
Hodges-Aeberhard, J. and Raskin. C., 1997. Affirmative action in the employment of ethnic
minorities
and
persons
with
disabilities.
[online]
Available
at:
<http://labourdoc.ilo.org/record/315688 >. [Accessed April 2012].
House of Commons 1999. Employer Attitudes and Discrimination. Education and
Employment- Ninth Report. Printed 9 November 1999.
Jacobs L R. and Shapiro R Y. (2000): Politicians Don’t Pander: Political Manipulation and the
Loss of Democratic Responsiveness. University of Chicago Press. In Blekesaune a, M., and
Quadagno, J., 2003. Public attitudes towards welfare state policies: a comparative analysis
of 24 Nations. In EspaNET Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark, 13-15 November 2003.
[online]
Available at. <http://www.sfi.dk/graphics/ESPAnet/papers/Blekesaune.pdf.
[Accessed November 2012].
Jeager, M.M. and Kvist, J., 2003. Pressures on the state welfare in post industrial societies: is
more or less better?. Social Policy and Administration, 37(6), pp. 555-572.
Kamienciecki, S., 1985. The dimension underlying public attitudes towards blacks and
disabled people in America. American Behavioural Scientist 28, pp.367-376
Kemp, P.A., 2006. Comparing trends in disability benefit receipt. In P.A. Kemp, A. Sunden
and B. Bakker –Tauritz, ed .2006. Sick societies: trends in disability benefits in post
industrial welfare states. International Social Security Association. Geneva. Ch.1
MacDonald, K., 2008. Comparative research design and methods module. Quantitative
methods: practical classes/workshops 4: Interaction effects; introducing logistic regression.
17
University of Oxford, UK.
Massie, B., 2006. Participation: have we got an attitude problem?. Paper presented in NDA
5th Annual Conference, Civic, Cultural and Social Paticipation: Building an inclusive society.
[online]
Available
at.<
http://www.nda.ie/cntmgmtnew.nsf/0/5A19C972AF5A7B93802571E60052A06B/$File/conf
20064.html>. [Accessed December 2012].
Nauman, E., 2011. The dynamics of individual attitudes in times of welfare state
retrenchment. 9th Annual ESPAnet Conference. Sustainability and transformation in
European Social Policy. 8-10 September 2011.
Nauman, E., 2011. The dynamics of individual attitudes in times of welfare state
retrenchment. 9th Annual ESPAnet Conference. Sustainability and transformation in
European Social Policy. 8-10 September 2011.
NDA., 2002. Attitudes to Disability in Ireland in 2001. Dublin: NDA.
NDA., 2007. Attitudes to Disability in Ireland in 2006. Dublin: NDA.
NDA., 2011. Attitudes to Disability in Ireland in 2011. Dublin: NDA.
Oliver, M., 1990. The politics of disablement. Hampshire: MacMillan
Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development. 2010. Sickness disability and
work: breaking the barriers, a synthesis of findings across OECD countries. Paris: OECD.
Ormstone, R., Curtice, J., McConville., S, and Reid, S. 2011 Scottish Social Attitudes survey
2010: Attitudes to discrimination and positive action. Scotish Center for Social Research.
Scottish Government.
Page, B.I. and Shapiro, R.Y., 1983. Effects of public opinion on policy. American Political
Science Review, 99(2), pp. 251-267.
Park., A., Clery., E., Curtice J.., Phillips M., and Utting, D., 2012. Bristish Social Attitudes 29..
[online]
Available
at.
http://www.bsa29.natcen.ac.uk/media/13421/bsa29_full_report.pdf>. [Accessed December 2012].
Robinson,C., Martin, J., and Thompson K., 2007. Attitueds towards and perceptions of
disabled people: findings from a module included in the 2005 Bristish Social Attitudes
Survey
.
[online]
Available
at:
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disabilitystudies/archiveuk/robinson/NatCenDisabilityModuleAug2007.pdf. [Accessed June 2009].
Prepared for Disability Rights Commision
Roeher Insititure,. 2004. Employment and intellectual disability-best practices, alternatives
and economic impacts. In F. Hannon, 2007. Literature review on attitudes towards disability.
Disability Research Series. National Disability Authority, Ireland.
Roosma, F., Gelisien, J., and Van Oorschot, (2012). The multidimentionalaity of welfare state
attitudes: A European cross-national study. Social Inidcators Research. DOI 10.
1007/s11205-012-0099-4. Published online 12 June 2012.
Rosenthal, D.A., Chan,F., and Leivenh,H., 2006. Rehabiltastion students’ attitudes toward
persons with disabilities in high and low stakes social contexts: a conjoint analysis. Disability
and Rehabilitation, 28(24), pp.1517-1527.
Betul Yalcin
University of Leeds
Scruggs ., T.E. Mastroperi. 1996, Teacher perceptions of inclusion/mainstreaming, 19581995: a research synthesis.Exceptional Children, 63, 59-74.
Scruggs, T.E., Mastropeiri. M.A, 1996. Teacher perceptions of inclusion measinsteraming.
1958-1995: A research synthesis. Expetional Children, pp. 63, 59-74.
Seeleib Kaiser, M., 2012a. Introduction to comparative analysis. Presentation at
Comparative Research Methods Workshop. 12 January 2012. University of Oxford.
Stailand., L., 2009. Public perceptions of disabled people. Evidence from British Social
Attitudes Survey 2009. Office for Disability Issues. HM. Government.
Svalflfors, S., 1995. The end of class politics?. tuctureal celavages and Attitudes in Swedish
Welfare policies. Acta Sociologica, 38, pp.53-74.
Unger., D.2002 Employers’ attitudes towards persons with disabilities in the work force:
myths or realities. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities. 17(1).
Yeates, N., 2001. Globalization and social policy. London: Sage.
19
ANNEXES
123456-
Debriefing Note (Interviews with Employer)
Table 1- Variable Coding
Table 2- Country Coding
Table 3-Descriptive Statistics Results
Table 4-Logistic Regression Results
Table 5-EU Employment Outlook
Betul Yalcin
University of Leeds
DEBRIEFING NOTE
This paper partially reflects preliminary findings of an ongoing doctoral research that
aims to identify how states can better promote the employment of disabled people in
the open labour market, private sector in particular. The research involves macro, meso
and micro level analyses where each layer relate to one another to render broader
understanding of current situation of active labour market policies. Micro level analysis
investigates interpretation and implementation of employment policies for disabled
people from the perspective of public, employers and disabled employees. In addition to
secondary analysis of Eurobarometer datasets, the micro level analysis has another
pillar, where up to 7 work places, from the UK, Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, France and
Italy, planned to be visited to hold face-to-face interviews with employers and disabled
employees to illustrate the implementation of active labour market policies in their
actual context. There are questions about workplace, recruitment, awareness and
familiarity, work-fit, reflections on policies and policy recommendations. So far, 15
interviews with the employers, mostly from the retail sector (7 employers and 7
disabled employees in Ireland) have been completed.
Results of the thematic analysis showed that employers have referred to certain themes
and words while expressing their experience and thoughts on employment of disabled
people. Thematic analysis disclosed themes that were clustered under the following
superordinate and subordinate themes.
Approach to Disability Issues
Referral to disability: When chunks, classified under approach to disability, were read
through in depth, it was seen that disabled people were generally referred to with negative
slants. Employers generally referred to terminologies related with mobility impairment and
intellectual disability. Blindness was referred to just twice, while deafness is not referred at
all. Temperament, sensitivity to change, and assistance need, were amongst the
characteristics declared by the employer, whilst giving descriptions of disabled people.
VN72 ‘disability is such a vague......the spectrum of people’
(VN79). ‘I would describe a disabled person that would have difficulty, basically
doing some tasks, that doing in assistance with’
Referral to equality: General statements on equality and non-discrimination entail that
employers see the equality as perquisite of optimization of the life chances and the
capabilities of disabled people. All employers believe that disabled people should not be
discriminated against based on their disability. While referring to the everyday routines at
work places, most of the employers said that all the workforce are treated on equal terms
without any favouritism towards disabled people.
VN72 ‘I would not have any description ……it is itself like discrimination’.
(VN76A) ‘you do not want to treat them differently; you want to treat them fairly.’
Disabled People and Economic Life
Recruitment: When the related chunks were evaluated as a whole, it is seen that employers
who have been working with them for a longer duration of time, can provide more detailed
information about the disabled people. Most of the disabled employees have been
recruited by following the same procedures applied to others, through collaboration of head
21
office and supported employment organizations. Employers mostly said that disabled
employees fit into their workplace. Job match and qualifications were also referred.
VN72: ‘the role of the manager is to find what people are good at and then assign
them those tasks’.
VN72 ‘There is no point in giving them jobs just for the sake of giving jobs. I mean,
they have to be real jobs’.
Work-fit: In terms of execution of job requirements, limitations in carrying out job
requirements were referred to in a substantial degree. Still, some employers stated that
disabled employees are able follow the schedule and know what to do. Employers have
referred to limitations in the execution of jobs, failure to take responsibility, and a lower
chance of being promoted. All employers also referred to Job types, some of them said that
disabled people are good at repetitive jobs and never get bored.
VN79: ‘They have got responsibilities. But they are limited and some of them work
with co-workers’
VN80 ‘if they want to live a proper life, they have to take responsibility. The
responsibility that they never take care of’
Information for Employers: Supported Employment Organizations are acknowledged by half
of the employers as the source of both information and support when they are in need.
However two of them are in regular contact with those organizations. When chunks were
evaluated as a whole, it can be seen that being in collaboration with a supported
employment unit, leads to a differentiation in the interpretation and experiences of
employers. Those employers who disclose more negative slants about employing disabled
people were those who report minimum or no collaboration at all.
VN72: ‘Whenever I need, I just have to ring. They are huge support’.
Contribution: There are considerable amounts of annotations referencing the contribution
of disabled people’s employment. These include contributions to the firm, to disabled
people themselves, and colleagues. Contributions to the image of the company were also
referred to. Just one of the employers stated that it is not good employing disabled people,
if the disabled employee is not meeting the job requirements.
VN76B ‘even customers, who may have family member with disability… can see that
people with disabilities can be employed’.
VN76A ‘they can make contribution to overall functioning of the store. They are
capable of making contribution’.
VN80. ‘they are hired before the recession, even if it is weekly four hours, it is not
good for the company’.
Communication: Disabled employees adaptation to the social environment of the work
place again showed a similar trend. Disabled people’s communication style with their
manager, colleagues, and customers were mainly referred to with positive statements.
Some also display concerns over peace at the work place.
VN76A: ‘we can communicate and we are happy that they can understand our
communication’.
Betul Yalcin
University of Leeds
VN80 ‘They have to understand that this is a work place, it is not like a place for
chatting with friends’
VN79 ’staff do not see his disability. They get frustrated with him and with me’
Reasonable Accommodation: All employers refer to reasonable accommodation and all
announce that their disabled employees have flexible working hours. Yet the work roster
and the routine of disabled employees are arranged according to disabled employee’s
preferences.
VN76A: ‘we suit them’
VN79’: ‘we would have probably five or six customers who regularly come here. So it
is good for them to have access to the store’.
Considerations
Reservations: When employers are directly asked this question, all of the employers state
that they have no reservations about recruiting disabled employees. Some later added that
there were reservations at the beginning, which were no longer experienced.
VN76A ’may be at the beginning, it was new to us’
VN80: ‘ if I had my own business, I would not do it ‘
Problems: On the question of experienced problems or disadvantages of having disabled
employees, three of the employer’s direct answers were -no experienced problem-. Two,
later expressed that they experienced problems at the beginning.
VN76A ‘how to handle may be worrying at the start, once they come in and settle,
you can see they are fine’
VN79 ‘they were given instructions that they could follow unaided, you cannot babysit them’.
VN80 ‘it is hard to deal with it…. hard to deal with it, you have to talk to them like a
child’…. ‘try to work with her for an hour’
Risks: There are a large number of references about the risk of having disabled people at the
workplace, which mostly co-occur with safety aspects. The articulated risks of employing
disabled individuals gathers around workplace reconciliation, legal risk, safety of customers,
risk to themselves, and colleagues, and as well as employers’ well being.
VN80: ‘I never met such a situation before. If you do not meet this kind of situation
that is gonna scare you. Scare you….I got panicked; shocked….I did not even know
who I am.’
VN79 ‘Honestly, yes… not only because of their disability, but because of the liability
that comes with worry…The problem is where this (legal) responsibility lies’ .
VN80 ‘even if I train her as a waiter …when the table is rude, she will spill a glass of
water on them’.
Impact of crisis: is referred to within statements to a substantial degree by all employers.
References were mostly gathered around the unemployment it creates and its impact on
people/disabled people and the business sector. Whilst, talking about the effects on people,
spending cuts, proliferated effects on people with less education were also tackled.
23
VN72’ they would have been hit as hard as anyone else, maybe harder’.
VN80 ‘we are losing money, step-by-step, year-by-year. Our business is getting
worse’
Keeping up the business: Under the sub-theme, the utterances that refer to the difficulty of
keeping the business under the pressure of economic hardship, assembled together.
VN79 ‘People (referring to general population) have less money to spend and….I
suppose it is important to give better value to customers as possible. You know we
are a business so we need to maintain, be profitable as a business to stay open.…It
has affected us badly’
VN79 ‘Frustrations of cost and the productivity there’.
Disability Policies
Workplace Policies three employers have made only three references. Two of the employers
articulated that they have a policy towards disabled people’s employment. The other one
said that there is no particular policy for disabled individuals. Generally speaking, none of
the work places have a particular policy on employment of disabled people, however, those
who have intense communication with supported employment organizations, report a
tendency to ask for their expertise, whenever an issue is raised.
VN72: ‘if there are issues that pop up, you have to deal with them as soon as
possible’.
Government Policies There are great number of statements referencing the government
policies. Beneath it, funding, accessibility, and training and awareness raising in are amongst
the mostly referred to policy sub-themes. Three employers stated that there should be a
certain percentage of the workforce constituted by disabled employees. However one of
them disagrees with the legal enforcement. When prompted, statements mostly referred to
awareness raising and monetary issues. Accessibility, access to education and training, and
access to built environment were highly articulated, when they were talking about what
governments should do to promote employment of disabled people. Sharing the cost,
providing Incentives for employers, and financial support for reasonable accommodation
have been proposed as policy recommendations by the employers.
VN72 ‘In the perfect world, I would not be (favouring quota). I think the best person
should get the job. That is not the world we live in’
‘I think government should definitely invest to get people into the workplace’.
VN76A ‘It is good to put out information there. It is good to show how a company
could benefit’
VN79 ‘Government has to take half of the cost (of hiring disabled employees), it will
affect the perception of other staff’
VN80‘ we are in recession, it is all about the money you know’
Betul Yalcin
University of Leeds
Table 1- Variable Coding
Gender
Female
Male
Age groups
15-24 yrs.
25-39 yrs.
40-54 yrs.
55 and older
Schooling Period
Before 15
Before 20
After 20
Disability
Non-disabled
Disabled
Familiarity
No acquaintance
Have DP Acquaintance
Social Level
Low
Middle
High
Politic Orientation
Left Wing
Central
Right Wing
Welfare Typology
Liberal
Conservative
Social Democrat
Post-Communist
Quota Typology
None
Only Public
Only Private
Both
0
1
0
1
2
3
1
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
2
0
1
2
2
1
0
3
0
1
2
3
25
Table 2- Country Coding
Welfare *
Quota **
1
France
1
3
2
Belgium
1
2
3
Netherland
0
0
4
Germany
0
3
5
Italy
1
3
6
Luxemburg
1
3
7
Denmark
0
0
8
Ireland
2
1
9
United Kingdom
2
0
10
Greece
1
3
11
Spain
1
3
12
Portugal
1
3
13
Finland
0
0
14
Sweden
0
0
15
Austria
1
3
16
Cyprus
1
17
Czech Republic
1
1
18
Estonia
3
0
19
Hungary
1
3
20
Latvia
3
0
21
Lithuania
3
3
22
Malta
3
23
Poland
1
3
24
Slovakia
1
3
25
Slovenia
2
26
Bulgaria
3
2
27
Romania
3
3
* Welfare Typology: For welfare typology, OECD 2010 disability typology was the main
reference. Additional typology, developed by Fenger (2007), was also employed when
respective country was not listed under OECD 2010. Those countries which are not listed
in either of typology set as system missing
**Quota Typology: Allocation of the quota typology was done according to Greve, 2009
and APPLICA, 2007 reports.
Betul Yalcin
University of Leeds
Table 3 Descriptive
Statistics
EU Nation 27
Gender
Female
Male
Age groups
15-24 yrs.
25-39 yrs.
40-54 yrs.
55 and older
Schooling Period
Before 15
Before 20
After 20
Disability
Non-disabled
Disabled
Familiarity
Unfamiliar
Familiar
Social Level
Low
Middle
High
Politic Orientation
Left Wing
Central
Right Wing
Welfare Typology
Social-Democ.
Discrimination in Recruitment
Effect of
Economic Crises
Disagree
Agree
Disagree
Agree
58.7
41.3
40.4
59.2
58.3
40.8
41.7
56.0
58.5
59.2
58.5
Diversity at Work Place
Training
Monitoring work-force
Disagree
Agree
Disagree
Agree
46.2
53.8
59.6
15.1
84.9
37.8
42.3
44.7
47.3
55.3
52.7
62.2
57.7
13.3
86.7
16.5
44.0
41.5
40.8
41.5
42.6
41.0
39.6
40.6
58.2
48.1
44.7
44.6
41.8
51.9
55.3
55.4
57.4
59.0
60.4
59.4
58.1
60.9
57.1
41.9
39.1
42.9
32.9
40.0
41.1
43.1
49.0
55.9
56.9
51.0
44.1
58.8
55.2
41.2
44.8
40.8
34.1
46.3
44.2
61.6
57.1
38.4
42.9
43.4
39.0
60.2
58.1
58.9
39.8
41.9
41.1
54.2
59.1
61.9
51.3
Agree
Disagree
Agree
72.3
17.9
82.1
83.5
26.0
29.0
74.0
71.0
16.3
19.2
83.7
80.8
8.9
15.8
15.9
13.0
91.1
84.2
84.1
87.0
16.2
27.4
28.4
28.4
83.8
72.6
71.6
71.6
11.9
16.8
18.1
19.9
88.1
83.2
81.9
80.1
67.1
60.0
58.9
10.6
15.3
15.2
89.4
84.7
84.8
23.8
26.5
28.8
76.2
73.5
71.2
18.4
17.8
17.7
81.6
82.2
82.3
53.7
55.8
59.2
65.9
15.2
13.4
84.8
86.6
27.5
29.0
72.5
71.0
17.5
20.3
82.5
79.7
52.0
43.5
48.0
56.5
56.6
61.0
15.3
14.8
84.7
85.2
26.6
27.9
73.4
72.1
18.8
17.3
81.2
82.7
34.6
38.5
44.0
48.7
47.5
43.9
51.3
52.5
56.1
65.4
61.5
56.0
17.2
13.9
15.8
82.8
86.1
84.2
25.3
26.1
29.6
74.7
73.9
70.4
15.7
16.4
19.8
84.3
83.6
80.2
45.8
40.9
38.1
38.6
41.0
44.1
61.4
59.0
55.9
46.3
45.1
44.8
53.7
54.9
55.2
13.0
13.3
20.8
87.0
86.7
79.2
24.3
27.9
33.6
75.7
72.1
66.4
15.5
17.6
21.6
84.5
82.4
78.4
48.7
43.2
56.8
42.9
57.1
16.4
83.6
35.4
64.6
23.0
77.0
27
Disagree
Monitoring recruitment
27.7
Conservative
Liberal
Post-Commun.
Quota System ***
None
Only Public
Only Private
Both
Regional Location
Northern
Central
Southern
Western
Eastern
59.5
72.7
62.7
40.5
27.3
37.3
37.6
56.3
38.1
62.4
43.7
61.9
50
29.4
51.6
50
70.6
48.4
17.6
5.6
13.0
82.4
94.4
87.0
28.3
8.9
26.0
71.7
91.1
74.0
17.6
6.3
17.9
82.4
93.7
82.1
53.7
61.0
54.3
62.6
46.3
39.0
45.7
37.4
39.2
36.5
38.6
42.2
60.8
63.5
61.4
57.8
41.2
48.8
47.2
48.8
58.8
51.2
52.8
51.2
13.7
10.6
16.7
16.5
86.3
89.4
83.3
83.5
29.6
12.9
22.2
30.4
70.4
87.1
77.8
69.6
18.7
10.3
16.2
19.2
81.3
89.7
83.8
80.8
48.4
56.5
64.4
72.7
58.9
51.6
43.5
35.6
27.3
41.1
41.3
47.3
29.7
56.3
35.0
58.7
52.7
70.3
43.7
65.0
39.4
42.7
54.5
29.4
53.5
60.6
57.3
45.5
70.6
46.5
12.0
20.5
8.3
5.6
17.9
88.0
79.5
91.7
94.4
82.1
28.4
41.0
12.1
8.9
28.8
71.6
59.0
87.9
91.1
71.2
16.8
27.1
8.2
6.3
18.4
83.2
72.9
91.8
93.7
81.6
Betul Yalcin
University of Leeds
Table -4 Logistic Regression
Gender (1) (Ref, Females)
Discrimination in Recruitment
B
SE
Sig
Exp(B)
.061
.083
1.063
-.289
-.435
-.446
.077
.172
.250
.247
.256
.148
.089
.050
-.025
.204
.090
.141
.091
.156
.161
-.128
-.393
.099
.106
-.228
-.072
-.679
.193
.189
.126
.072
-1.056
-.372
.410
.129
.175
.138
.305
.460
.153
.246
.079
.082
.601
.052
.917
.806
.778
.623
.368
.570
.001
.194
.000
.000
.236
.704
.000
.000
.579
.000
.007
.179
Age (Ref 15-24 yrs.)
25-39 yrs. (1)
40-54 yrs. 2)
55>+ (3)
Disability (1) (Ref-Non)
Familiarity (1)
(Ref-Non)
Schooling period (Ref After 20 yrs.)
Before 15 yrs. (1)
Before 20 yrs. (2)
Social Level (Ref-Low)
Middle (1)
High (2)
Political Orientation (Ref- Left wing)
Central (1)
Right wing (2)
Quota Typology (Ref- none )
Only Public (1)
Only private (2)
Both private and public 3)
Welfare Typology (Ref Social Democrat)
Conservative (1)
Liberal (2)
Post-communist emerging (3)
Constant
29
.749
.647
.640
1.081
1.188
1.051
.975
1.151
1.096
.880
.675
.796
.931
.507
1.074
.348
.689
1.507
Table 5- EU Employment Outlook (Gammennos, 2011)
COUNTRY
UNEMPLOYMENT RATES
DISABLED
NON DISABLED
Ireland-IE
26.4
15.3
Romania-RO
7.6
4.7
Greece-EL
17.9
9.6
Malta-MT
17.6
6.1
Hungary-HU
19.8
9.7
Poland-PO
13.9
8.4
Lithuania-LT
17.0
14.5
Czech Rep-CZ
23.3
7.1
Bulgaria-BG
22.4
14.4
Belgium-BE
23.7
8.9
Spain-ES
25.8
17.3
United Kingdom
8.5
5.3
Italy-IT
13.9
10.6
Latvia-LV
29.4
20.8
EU
17.7
9.2
Portugal-PT
19.4
12.5
Austria-AT
19.2
6.3
France-FR
16.6
9.3
Estonia-EE
15.2
11.8
Slovenia-SI
21.0
9.0
Slovakia-SK
11.4
8.9
Sweden-SE
11.0
6.2
Cyprus-CY
8.4
5.6
Germany-DE
21.1
7.3
Netherlands-NL
5.0
1.9
Finland-FI
14.8
7.6
Luxemburg-LU
13.4
6.4
Denmark-DK
14.4
4.3
ACTIVITY RATES
DISABLED
NON DISABLED
39.5
76.8
31.8
73.1
38.2
75.3
38.8
65.5
40.1
76.2
38.7
76.7
46.1
85.7
50.4
79.9
50.2
84.3
55.8
79.4
57.9
82.1
48.4
83.9
51.9
71.6
63.9
88.3
55.5
79.5
57.6
85.8
59.7
78.2
59.7
79.4
59.8
84.8
64.8
77.5
58.9
82.1
59.3
88.1
58.2
77.4
68.4
82.4
56.8
81.1
65.1
83.5
64.5
74.5
65.7
84.7
EMPLOYMENT RATES
DISABLED
NON DISABLED
29.0
65.1
29.4
69.6
31.4
68.1
32.0
61.6
32.1
68.8
33.3
70.3
38.2
73.2
38.6
74.3
39.0
72.1
42.6
72.4
42.9
67.9
44.3
79.5
44.7
64.0
45.1
70.0
45.7
72.2
46.4
75.1
48.2
73.3
49.8
72.1
50.7
74.8
51.2
70.5
52.2
74.8
52.8
82.6
53.3
73.1
53.9
76.4
54.0
79.6
55.5
77.2
55.8
69.7
56.3
81.1