Skip | Print | e-mail

Graeme Axford & CYF New Zealand

Human Rights Errors that lead to an unEqual Employment Opportunity and Discrimination.

Home | CYF Petition | CYF Employment | unEqual Opportunity | Archives | Statement | Disclaimer
Polls | Downloads | Blogs | Videos | Links | Photos | Facebook |  Podcast 

EEO Human Rights unresolved, Nothing Really Changes.

From: NORMAN, Susan   On Behalf Of BROWN, Peter
Sent: Thursday, 19 February 2009 1:07 p.m.
Subject: Collection of Disability Data on Employment Application Forms

… …

The Human Rights Commission has alerted the State Services Commission (SSC) that some Public Service departments are asking potentially discriminatory health and disability questions in application for employment forms. The SSC conducted a review into the collection of disability data on these forms, and found 22 of 35 departments use variations of the following potentially discriminatory question:

Have you had an injury or medical condition caused by a gradual process, disease, or infection, which the tasks of the position may aggravate or contribute to, or that may affect your ability to carry out the work of the position?

The SSC recommends that all disability data be collected at the time of appointment and not at the time of application. Information on disabilities is sensitive, and has the potential to inappropriately influence decisions on an applicant's suitability for employment where the disability is not directly related to the skills and qualifications needed to perform the job for which they are applying. For this reason, collecting disability information after a person is appointed is likely to produce better quality data.

… …

For any questions or further information please contact Amanda Kent at (email address withheld) or on (phone number withheld)

Peter Brown
Deputy Commissioner People Capability

UPDATE: This page was updated and extended by the next page


Please Note: The following has been written by Graeme with assistance from myself. Graeme expressed difficulty in clearly stating the case for others to grasp as simply and clearly as possible. Together we talked through the problems as he saw them. Finally agreeing, as expressed here. It is our hope that the content of this page, will allow you to see the true fallacy and falsehood of what seems to be a self fulfilling discriminatory EEO policy the Webmaster


The First Problem is this:

If the data collected on application is not needed at the time of employment interviews, because of the possibility of discrimination, or the "apperance of discrimination", then the questions need to be answered:

Why ask the question on any application form?
For what reason or purpose is the data collected at the time of application?

We may argue that an employer should be aware of any impairment/disability that a potential employee may have. Logic dictates certain diabilities/impairments may have a dangerous or damaging effect to clients, organisations, even other employees or self.

For Example:
If someone is colour blind and applies to be an aircraft pilot they can be turned down because of this, as it is an issue of public safety and risk. Given the different colored gages one needs to be able to read and see the colors of in order to maintain safe flight. It is for this, among other reasons, that any course of instruction or application for instruction or employment as an aviation pilot requires the applicant to undergo a full and thorough medical at the time.

We may even use Graeme's experience as another example:

In consideration of Graeme's disability the Panel felt this may hinder his ability to complete written reports in a timely manner. As the Service is required to work under pressure and to deadlines the Panel felt this pressure may exacerbate his ability to complete written work. Often when an individual is placed under pressure issues come to the surface and this pressure may impact negatively on Graeme's ability to complete work on time. As a good employer we would not like to place our employees under undue pressure.

Taken From: http://graemea.snap.net.nz/employment/p5_concealedreport.html

However the SSC guidelines and Human Rights Commission seem to agree that, "disability data of employees in the State Sector should be collected at the time of appointment" to the position. If this is so then the question does not need to be asked at the time of application for employment. Or indeed during any interview process.

Yet, it is also true, that failure to disclose disability or impairment during the application process can be held as grounds for non-appointment or dismissal if appointed and later discovered.

Thus, every disabled person applying for employment in the State Sector is "potentially" damned by "potential discrimination" if they do declare and damned to non-appointment or dismissal if they do not declare.

How is that fair, equal or even just? Surely only the unjust could say that such is fair, just and ethical. Either impairments/disabilities mean nothing in the interview process and impaired people are capable in the assumed employment situation or they are not.

If disabled people are capable of carrying out the tasks and duties expected of them on appointment then the issue of ability or disability does not enter into the matter. Thus such does not need to be disclosed at any time during the interview process.

But then, how can those on an interview panel make an honest assessment if this information is kept from them?

Thus the SSC guidelines are in the same boat as the impaired candidate. Either are potentially damned if followed and either may be damned if not followed. This, both Graeme and I suggest to you is not then a fair, just, unbiased Equal Opportunity process that is workable.

You cannot have the cake and eat it too.
Can you not see that the recommendation is a self fulfilling discriminatory process?

 

The Second Question is then:

For what purpose is the data collected at the time of appointment?

If we take the logical, ethical view that the data is collected to judge the Equal Employment Status of the Public Service Sector, then on what is this Status based? It is based only upon the number of disabled/impaired persons appointed to employment!

But that data does not help in the claimed, "impartial, non-discriminatory employment processes" but only gives a percentage of current employees who declared an impairment or disability.

Consider:
If there are in abstract figures 15000 employees and 1500 of those have declared disability/impairment information, then this tells you that 10% of persons employed within the State Sector are impaired/disabled to any degree.

What it does not tell you is how many of those with a disability/impairment applying for positions were successful in the process of applying for all appointments made. The 10% employed information does not tell you, if the "employment process" is fair, just and non-discriminatory in all areas.

Only those who are employed are taken into account, for all unsuccessful applicants data is not recorded and destroyed. How can you then honestly and ethically say, "We are giving Equal Opportunity to All persons?" Again it seems to us that you cannot, for the "Opportunity" arises at interview and the process leading to appointment.

Selection for appointment is afterall the aim of every candidate, and appointment of the most capable and useful candidate is the aim of every employer. But the current disability data cannot ever give a true indication of the fairness, justness, impartiality or otherwise of the current employment processes.

Consider:
If the data is collected for EEO purposes, then it is useless as such. For it cannot be collated against a data base of the number of persons applying for positions. But only against itself, those of other appointed applicants, or other agencies and organisations both Governmental and non-governmental.

To give a true, honest and ethical report one needs to examine the number (percentage) of appointments against the number of applicants with and without disability or impairment. Moreover, to give a true picture of any potential "discriminatory practices in any area, or department" that data must be examined for each department.

But is this data retained? No!

For Example:
Using the hypothetical figures of 15,000 employees of whom 1,500 are impaired/disabled tells us that 10% of all employees are disabled/impaired.

That looks good, but it does not address the stated issue of "Equal Employment Opportunity." In fact the above figure could be totally misleading in this matter.

Sure the figures can be broken down to show the percentages of persons employed within each department/agency. But that still can not and does not tell you if there are "discriminatory practices."

To begin to obtain that information you need to examine the data of all applicants over a given period. (please not the following figures are hypothetical only)

For Example:
Number of disabled/impaired applicants in the last year: 1200
Number of other applicants in the last year: 4200
Number of all applicants in the last year: 5400

Impaired/diabled persons employed: 40
Other persons employed: 1860
Total employed in the last year: 1900

Percentage of disabled successful applicants: 3.3%
Percentage of other applicants: 44.3%
Percentage of all successful: 35.2%

Now the "retained" data can begin to show you if the EEO policy is working: Something that it presently does not and can not do as unsuccessful application data is not retained.

1200 applicants with 40 employed tells you that 3.3% of impaired/disabled applicants were successful in gaining employment. Although that figure may appear good in comparison to all persons who applied and were appointed, the 3.3% of disabled is comparatively disproportinate. As the 40 employed only equal 2.1% of the 1,900 new appointments in the last year, while 97.9% were persons without impairment or disability.

Whereas the percentage of disabled applicants equaled, 22.2% of the total 5400. Now theoretically if you are giving "Equal Employment Opportunity" the number of successful applicants among the disabled would be considerably more than 3.3% given that the number of applicants exceeded 20%.

But here is the Crunch of the matter:
This "application information is gathered potentially used in a discriminatory manner and then destroyed" This data is not retained, for "Equal Opportunity Analysis Purposes" if the applicant is unsuccessful then all data is destroyed.

Hello! We know the lights are on at SSC, CYF, and other places Graeme can testify to such after his recent visit to Wellington. But it still appears that there is no one at home.

Misleading Information

Thus, in our opinion it is clear that the retained "appointment data" is for no purpose other than to give a misleading and false impression to Government, to Self and the Public at large, that the State Sector is not discriminatory in it's employment process and practices.

Please understand clearly, we are not saying that State Services or any departments or agency is discriminatory in any employment process. We are saying, the data used by State Services and other Government departments does not and can not show nor prove that there is no discrimination in the Employment Process.

For the data used by SSC and other agencies to make this claim ignores every unsuccessful applicant. Such is unethical, unprofessional and as such breaches the SSC Code of Conduct guidelines on many levels.

Afterall Opportunity does not equate to Appointment. The Opportunity given can only offer a fair, just and "Equal Opportunity" if there are "no discriminatory practices."

Of course, as others have done when confronted with this problem, you may tell Graeme to shut-up and go away. But he shall do neither.

Either there is "Equal Employment Opportunity" or there is not, and based upon the current practices within Sate Services and those departments, agencies and organisations guided by the SSC guidelines, it does seem that the guidelines and current practices do not lead to any clearly verifiable "Equal Employment Opportunity" for many applicants, and all disabled/impaired applicants.

And therein resides the issue. Counting numbers of disabled/impaired employees does not tell anyone if the employment process has been conducted, fairly, justly and without discrimination. All such counting does is give a misleading and false impression of impartiality. Such does not and can not show non discriminatory practices.

 

This page has been written by Graeme with assistance from myself. Graeme expressed difficulty in clearly stating the case for others to grasp as simply and clearly as possible. Together we talked through the problems as he saw them. Finally agreeing, as expressed here. It is our hope that the content of this page, will allow you to see the true fallacy and falsehood of what seems to be a self fulfilling discriminatory EEO policy the Webmaster


UPDATE: This page was updated and extended by the next page


Back   ^ UP ^   Next

Print   Content

copyright © Graeme Axford  |  site hosting snap.net.nz