The Aging Workforce and Disability
Accommodation: Employee Perceptions
and Potential Policy Implications
Kevin Banks, Faculty of Law, Queen’s University
Richard Chaykowski, School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University
George Slotsve, Department of Economics, Northern Illinois University
Overview
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Policy context: labour market exclusion and its consequences
Role of the legal duty to accommodate
Potential for improved implementation of the law
Information needs
Plan of analysis
Initial findings in PALS data
Conclusions (tentative)
We can expect the incidence of disability among
workers to increase as the population ages
Incidence of Workers with a Disability by Age, Canada, 2006
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
With a Disability
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
Increased incidence of labour market
disadvantage: PWD less likely to be employed
Source: Galarneau and Radulescu, 2009
PWD more likely to be unemployed
Source: OECD 2010a
Limits on career progression
Those experiencing the onset of an ongoing health or activity
limitation while working:
• are more likely to remain at their initial job (are less mobile in
the labour market);
• tend to start out with lower wages and to fall further behind
their co-workers;
• fall significantly behind in earnings, reflecting emergent gap in
hours worked and a widening disparity in wages; and
• are less likely to move into management.
Source: Spector, 2010
Lower Earnings
Source: Spector, 2010
Poverty
Policy Issues
• Lost “opportunity equal with other individuals to make for
themselves in the lives that they are able”. (Canadian Human Rights
Act, section 2)
• Workers lost to a labour market with slowing supply growth
• Poverty is one of the strongest correlates of poor health, and
poverty reduction can improve health outcomes. (Forget, 2011)
• Unemployment may aggravate health conditions. (Canadian Public
Health Association, 1996)
• Better use of relatively large income support programs: in 2007
– Canada’s public expenditures on disability sickness programs
were probably more than 1.5 times those on unemployment
benefits, and
– Total public and private expenditures on disability benefits were
about $25 billion, of which about 80% public and 20% private
(OECD, 2010a and 2010b).
The multiple causes of labour market
disadvantage
Social and economic conditions outside the workplace:
• Barriers to education (ASSETS, 2008)
• Income support systems that create disincentives to paid
employment (OECD, 2010; Stapleton 2011)
• Lack of mobility support
• Lack of social capital (Nishii, Rubineau and Bruyere, 2011)
Causes within workplace relations
• Lack of job readiness
• Discrimination, including failure to provide accommodation
– Lack of information
– Stereotyping
– Costs (direct and indirect)
• Accommodation amounting to undue hardship
• Inclusive practices beyond those legally required not
implemented due to lack of information or incentives
The Important Gap in
Accommodation
• In 2006, 48% of working-age PWD required some form of
accommodation to work safely and effectively.
• 37% of employed PWD required accommodations.
• But 59% percent of unemployed PWD required
accommodations. (Cahill, 2011)
• A large gap remains even after considering differences in
severity and accommodation types.
Evidence of Widespread Discrimination at
Work
Evidence of widespread and probably systemic discrimination in
workplace relations:
• Adjusted pay gap of about 25%, most probably the result of hiring
and job placement decisions rather than overt pay discrimination.
(Gunderson 2011).
• PWD reports of widespread discrimination and harassment (e.g.
Public Service Commission, 2011; Shier, Graham and Jones, 2009)
• Differential access to on the job training opportunities – about 2/3
as likely to receive training in 2007 (ASSETS 2007).
• The disproportionate percentage of human rights cases involving
disability: 54% of new applications to the HRTO in 2011-12,
compared to 25% for the next most frequent ground (sex,
pregnancy and gender identity).
Reasons to think that implementing antidiscrimination law could be done better
1. A number of countries have implemented advice and
information services: often possible to make a business case
for accommodation once the information is available. (OECD,
2010a)
2. Limited reach of complaint-driven approaches. (Federal
Labour Standards Review Commission, 2006)
3. Incentive problems may make some practices particularly
impervious to case by case adjudication.
 Countering the difficult insider/outsider problem
 Addressing the problem of private costs and public
benefits: e.g. Job Access Australia Employment
Assistance Fund
Information needs
• Which accommodations are most likely to be needed as the
population ages.
• Where and when such accommodations are provided and not
provided
• Reasons why they are not provided:
– lack of information
– stereotyping or other invidious perceptions
– costs (direct or indirect).
Key Issues that we analyze:
1. How does the incidence of disability increase with age and
how is it distributed among workers and workplaces?
2. What kinds of accommodation at work are disabled workers
most likely to need?
3. Given that you are an employee with a disability and
that you require a workplace accommodation,
then what factors determine the likelihood that you receive one?
Defining the Sample and
Scope of the Empirical Analysis
Labour Market
- Employed
-Unemployed
Labour Market
- Employed
-Unemployed
Employed Workers
- Without a disability 0
- With a disability 1
Labour Market
- Employed
-Unemployed
Employed Workers
- Without a disability 0
- With a disability 1
Employees with a Disability
- Do not require accommodation 0
Require an accommodation 1
Labour Market
- Employed
-Unemployed
Employed Workers
- Without a disability 0
- With a disability 1
Employees with a Disability
- Do not require accommodation 0
Require an accommodation 1
Given you require an
Accommodation
- Did not receive accommodation 0
- Did receive accommodation 1
Statistics Canada data: PALS 2006
Survey of individuals across Canada; we restrict the analysis to the
employed;

The total employed “sample” size (n) is 36565.
 The sub-sample of those employed persons with a disability has
5531 observations.

7.13 percent of the employed population has a disability.
The usual caveats apply since disability limitations and whether a
worker requires an accommodation or is provided with an
accommodation are self-reported (and as a result based on the
worker’s perception).
Variable Name
Sex
Age Group (5 Year Age Groups)
Urban
Mother Tongue
Education (Completed)
Marital Status
Low Income (After Tax)
Employment Income
Industry
Occupation
Additional variables available for
employees with a disability
Covered by a Union
Usual Hours per Week
Paid Worker
Establishment Employment
Multiple Locations
Employment at All Locations
Permanent Job
Unemployment
Changed Work
Changed Amount of Work
Changed Job
Denied
Severity of Limitation
• Any Limitation
Disaggregated:
• Hearing
• Sight
Categories
of
Limitation
• Communication
• Mobility
• Agility
• Pain
• Other
Analysis
• 0 = with no disability;
1 = with any disability
Given you have a disability, then:
• 0 = no accommodation required;
1 = accommodation required;
• 1 = no accommodation received;
1 = accommodation received
Cross-Section of First Wave of Results:
Age, Disability, and Accommodation
Outline:
- Analysis of the incidence of disability within
employed workforce
- Profile of accommodation needs of workers
- Analysis of the effects of some key worker
and job characteristics on the likelihood of
receiving accommodation.
18
Incidence by Age
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
With No Disabity
With Disability
 Among those with a disability,
the incidence is markedly skewed towards the higher
ages.
Incidence by Sex
100
90
80
 Among those with a disability,
the incidence among males
and females is similar.
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
With No Disability
Male
With Disability
Female
Females Relative to Males: Probability of Disability by Age and Income
70,000
45,000
25,000
Difference in
Probability
0
12,500
2,500
-0.001
-0.002
-0.003
-0.004
-0.005
Age
65-69
60-64
55-59
50-54
45-49
40-44
35-39
30-34
25-29
20-24
15-19
-0.006
-0.001-0
-0.002--0.001
-0.003--0.002
-0.004--0.003
-0.005--0.004
-0.006--0.005
Relative to males,
 for females, the difference in probability of having a disability is smallest for younger,
or for high income persons;
 the difference in probability is greatest for females who are older and low income;
 the difference grows with age and as females have lower income.
25
Incidence by Industry
20
15
10
5
0
With No Disability
With Disability
 The incidence among those with a disability is higher in BPS industries and in
Primary, Construction, and Transportation industries.
Incidence of Workers With a Disability by Firm Employment Size
(all locations)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Less than 100
100 to 500
With Disability
More than 500
Incidence of Specific and “one or more” Required Accommodations
50
45
40
Percentage
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Highest Incidence:
• Job redesign;
• Modified hours;
• ergonomics;
• chair & back.
Incidence of (one or more) Provided Accommodations (Given Required)
100
90
80
Percentage
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Highest Incidence:
• Modified hours;
• ergonomics;
• Parking
• Elevator
• Washrooms
• transportation
Probability of Accommodation Not Provided (Average Marginal Effects)
Females Relative to Males
Mother Tongue Relative to English
Education Level Relative to University
Establishment Size Relative to Small Establishments (1 - 99)
Difference in Probability
0.2
0.15
 Probability of NOT provided is lower for
females (relative to males) and those with
HS relative to university educated
0.1
0.05
0
-0.05
Female
Mother
Mother
High School or Trade School Establishment Establishment
Tongue French Tongue Other
Less
or College Emp.: 100 to Emp.: 500+
500
Probability of Accommodation Not Provided (Average Marginal Effects)
Age (5 Year Increase)
Usual Hours Per Week (One Hour Increase)
Time Duration of Limitation (One Year Increase)
0.006
Change in Probability
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
0
Age (5 Yr Group)
Usual Hours per Week
 Increase in age of 5 yrs increases the probability of
accommodation not being provided;
 Increases in hours worked per week increases the
probability of accommodation not being provided;
 Increases in the duration of the limitation increases
the probability of accommodation not being provided;
Limitation Duration
Accommodation provided or not
provided by

i. Type of accommodation required: 


Job redesign
Modified hours or days
Ergonomic Station
Special chair/back
support
and
 Sex
ii. By selected characteristics:  Union status
 Usual hours per
week
Accommodation Provided, Female by Age Group
(Average Marginal Effect)
0.14
Difference in Probability
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
-0.02
-0.04
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
Age
Job Redesign
Modified Hours or Days
Ergonomic Station
Special Chair or Back Support
Relative to males (on average):
 Only the probability of accommodation for modified hours or days is lower for females.
- The difference in probability is constant across ages.

The largest (positive) difference in probability is with respect to ergonomic station.
Accommodation Provided, Union Coverage by Age Group
(Average Marginal Effect)
0.35
0.3
Difference in Probability
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
-0.05
-0.1
15-19
20-24
Job Redesign
25-29
30-34
35-39
Modified Hours or Days
40-44
45-49
Age
Ergonomic Station
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
Special Chair or Back Support
Relative to nonunionized employees (on average):
 Only the probability of accommodation for modified hours or days is lower for unionized workers.
- The difference in probability is constant across ages.

The largest (positive) difference in probability is with respect to ergonomic station; and is large for
chairs/back support.
Accommodation Provided, Usual Hours per Week by Age Group
(Average Marginal Effect)
0.001
Change in Probability
0
-0.001
-0.002
-0.003
-0.004
-0.005
-0.006
15-19
Job Redesign
20-24
25-29
30-34
Modified Hours or Days
35-39
40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69
Age
Ergonomic Station Special Chair or Back Support
Relative to those working fewer hours (on average):
 only the probability of accommodation for special chair or back support is higher for those
working longer hours.
- The difference in probability increases with age but then declines as age increases past about 60.

The largest (positive) difference in probability is with respect to chairs/back support.
Bibliography
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Access and Support to Education and Training Survey 2007 and 2008
Canadian Public Health Association (1996) The Health Impact of Unemployment
Forget, Evelyn (2011) The Town with No Poverty: The Health Effects of a Canadian
Guaranteed Annual Income Field Experiment, Canadian Public Policy – Analyse de politiques, vol. xxxvii, no. 3 2011
Galarneau, Diane & Radulescu, Marian. Employment among the disabled. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, May 2009
Gunderson, Morley (2011) Disability-based Pay Gap Analysis Based on the 2006 Participation and Activity Limitation Survey
Nishii, L., Rubineau, B., & Bruyère , S. (2011). Organizational practices to increase employment opportunities for people with
disabilities: The Power of social networks . Presentation to AAFES, September 22, 2011.
OECD (2010a) Sickness, Disability and Work: Breaking the Barriers-Synthesis. France: OECD Publishing, 2010
OECD (2010b). Sickness, Disability and Work: Breaking the Barriers-Canada: Opportunities for Collaboration: Canada, 2010
Participation and Activity Limitation Survey 2006
Public Service Commission of Canada (2011) Recruitment of Persons with Disabilities – A Literature Review
Shier, M., Graham, J., Jones, M. (2009) “Barriers to employment as experienced by disabled people: a qualitative analysis in
Calgary and Regina, Canada” in Disability and Society, Jan2009, Vol. 24 Issue 1, p63-75.
Spector, Aron (2010) Examining the effects of onset of an on-going disability on labour market attachment, job retention
and career progression, Policy Research Directorate, Human Resource and Skills Development Canada
Stapleton, John and Procyk, Stephanie (2011) What Stops Us from Working? New ways to make work pay, by fixing the
treatment of earnings under the Ontario Disability Support Program