Workplace Fairness Legislation needs to mandate reasonable accommodations to adequately protect persons with disabilities including autistics

Introduction of the Workplace Fairness Legislation (WFL):

It was announced in Ministry of Manpower (MOM) press release on 12 February 2023 that the Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness released an interim report on their recommendations for Workplace Fairness Legislation (WFL). The summary of the recommendations can be found in Annex A of the MOM press release and the full interim report can be downloaded at go.gov.sg/wfl. It is a good step towards protecting minority groups against discrimination.

A gap in the WFL - missing "reasonable accommodations", and why it must be included

However, what is lacking is the recommendations do NOT include mandating that employers make reasonable accommodations in the workplace despite its clear necessity to ensure persons with disabilities (PWDs) are adequately protected.

A requirement for "reasonable accommodations" is aligned with the United Nations (UN) Conventions on the Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPD) requirements. Article 2 of the CRPD stipulates that denial of a reasonable accommodation, by definition, constitutes a "discrimination on the basis of disability". Article 2 defines “reasonable accommodations” as “necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments not imposing a disproportionate or undue burden… to ensure persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with others of all human rights and fundamental freedoms”. In many developed countries’ existing laws, “reasonable accommodations” and “undue burden” (or “undue hardship”) are established legal concepts with prescribed assessment criteria. Employers do not have the liberty to claim something is “unreasonable” or causing them undue burden (and thereby denying a PWD an accommodation) at will. Readers interested to read more on other countries' law can refer to this link - https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc7bkgrndra.ht. I have also elaborated a little on this in the next section of this blogpost.

Reasonable workplace accommodations enable PWDs to perform and meet their job requirements/expectations. Some may even over-perform. PWDs suffer greatly without accommodations, such as loss of confidence or morale, or being wrongfully penalised for supposedly not meeting work expectations even in situations where in reality it is not due to lack of ability but due to environmental barriers that could otherwise have been removed by making accommodations. These can take a toll on their mental health.

Contrary to misconceptions, workplace accommodations are often not costly nor overly time consuming. For example, autistics may simply need clearer, more detailed and explicit instructions, or a workstation with less sensory stimuli (e.g. less sound/noise for those who have sensory sensitivity to sound, dimmer lights for those with sensory sensitivity to light). Other examples of workplace accommodations for autistics may include:

Giving work instructions in a form that they can understand, such as visual instructions for visual learners (all the more so for those with auditory processing difficulties where listening to verbal instructions is challenging to catch all the important points), audio recorded instructions for auditory learners
Giving them time to write down the instructions if they need to, rather than verbalising all the instructions quickly and insisting that the autistic should listen first and write later (what if he has difficulty with retaining the information if he does not write it down immediately?)
Spelling out work rules and expectations that are otherwise unsaid or vague (which most non-autistic people may find intuitive because they are more attuned to such unspoken rules and etiquette in a non-autistic world)
Giving autistics the option to receive and provide feedback by email or any other form of communications that they are comfortable with.
Giving them the freedom of choice on whether they want to participate in any social activities, including meal breaks, team bonding events, town halls, and celebrations. In other words, allowing them to skip such activities if it is too stressful for them.
Likewise, if they choose to participate in such social activities, allow them to participate in a way that is comfortable for them and make accommodations where needed, such as:

pre-empting them of the flow of events and what to expect beforehand (autistics thrive on predictability and do not handle surprises well),
allowing them to leave the event abruptly if it is too stressful or sensory overloading,
allowing them to wear eyeshades if they sensory sensitivity to light or noise cancelling devices if they have sensory sensitivity to sound
pre-empting the emcee of the event (e.g. if it is a dinner&dance event) to NOT call on the autistic to volunteer for activities without warning (autistics have difficulty taking surprises) but yet at the same time giving the autistic the autonomy to volunteer himself if he wants to

Mandating such accommodations prevents supervisors from denying accommodations or granting them at the autistics’ expense, such as by turning around and marking down autistics’ performance appraisal and artificially disguising this form of discrimination by falsely claiming that the need for clearer, more detailed and explicit instructions demonstrates autistics’ lack of ability to “work independently with minimal supervision”. When practices like this are made to appear neutral on the surface but actually inherently puts PWDs at a disadvantage, they are, by definition, discriminatory in nature.

I wish to clarify that we are NOT asking employers to lower the work standards or work deliverables expected. Rather, we are saying that autistics (and other PWDs) often CAN deliver the work expected when workplace accommodations are made. Simply put, for a PWD's performance appraisal to be negatively impacted because he needed an accommodation to produce the same work output IS discrimination, no matter how employers try to justify or disguise it by saying it is "lesser ability to work independently" or that more time and effort was spent on the PWD (to make the workplace accommodations) to get the same work output. In contrast, for a PWD's performance appraisal to be negatively impacted because he could not meet the work expectations is not discrimination, provided the reasonable workplace accommodations were granted in the first place.

What counts as "reasonable"? What is "undue burden"? What if accommodation is costly?

For readers who may be asking or wondering - "what if the accommodation is very costly to the employer", please refer to the second paragraph of this section of this blogpost that cited the definition in CRPD Article 2 which already covers such scenarios. Click the link cited at the end of that paragraph on the laws in other countries and you will see that laws already protect the employers in such circumstances.

An important point to note is employers cannot claim something is "unreasonable" or is causing them "undue burden" at will or to their whims and fansies; it has to be in accordance with the criteria in laws. I feel that the Singapore Government ought to study these laws in other countries as a reference to frame the laws and legal framework here in Singapore.

To further expand on these concepts, let us refer to the ""Explainer series" titled "Discrimination and Reasonable Accommodations" published by Disabled People's Association (DPA), which included a section "What Are Reasonable Accommodations?". As they rightly pointed out, the concept of "reasonable accommodations" is essential to promoting equality and non-discrimination for persons with disabilities and this is evident in its repeated emphasis throughout the CRPD. They further emphasised that reasonable workplace accommodations made for PWDs benefit not only the PWDs but other demographics too. That section of the Explainer series also, citing the UN CRPD's Committee General comment No. 6 (2018) on equality and non-discrimination,further explains that it is difficult to subtantiate that an accommodation request is unreasonable or that it presents an “undue burden” if there are the presence of one or both of the following:

The provision of funding to cover, totally or partially, costs related to reasonable accommodation;
The provision of technical assistance to all relevant stakeholders and in particular to employers and persons with disabilities on the concept of reasonable accommodation,

In Singapore context, employers have access to both:

funding is available through, for example,SGEnable's Open Door Programme, Assistive Technology Fund (ATF), and Accessibility Fund
As clarified in the said section of the Explainer series - technical assistance from the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is available upon ratification of the CRPD. Also, there exists technical assistance within Singapore from SGEnable and other disability organisations such as DPA and from independent disability advocates.

In the case of accommodations for autistics, some of the examples listed in the previous section in fact incur little to no direct financial cost.

Will stringent laws have unintended consequences?

Some ask: Will stringent laws have unitended consequences of making employers not want to hire PWDs in the first place because it is too intimidating?

Well, I would say laws or no laws, there will always be employers who are reluctant or afraid to hire PWDs, and there will be those who are open-minded. So, if the goal of avoiding making a law seem stringent is so that employers are more open to hiring PWDs, will that even achieve the intended outcome? Those who are persistently reluctant will continue to be (until and unless they change their mindsets), and some may even find excuses not to jump on the bandwagon, even if there were no stringent laws that they need to be afraid of. While those who are open minded will be, laws or no laws. Therefore, it is important to pass laws that mandate reasonable workplace accommodations to adequately protect PWDs and give them equal opportunity to excel and prove their capability and potential to themselves and to employers, rather than holding back passing such laws for fear that it will 'intimidate' or 'scare away' employers from hiring PWDs.

Some opine that a mindset change in employers need to be effected first so that more PWDs can get employed, then only pass laws like reasonable accommodations to protect PWDs that are already employed. It is like getting one foot in the door first (getting PWDs employed first) rather than 'scaring away' employers by making it seem intimidating to hire PWDs. But my view is that mindset change and passing laws/legislations should go hand in hand concurrently.

Moreover, there are many benefits to having a diverse workforce. Several companies, including giants like Microsoft and SAP, have tried and tested it and testify of the benefits they reaped from having autistics part of their team, such as higher productivity, innovation and creativity, lower absenteeism, lower turnover etc. Autistics tend to have eye for detail, be metiiculous, be very focused and be very determined to complete a task or project once they get started on it, all the more so if it is something they have strong interest in. Honesty and loyalty are also hallmark traits of autistic people. Indeed, simply adopting a different mindset when it comes to autism in the workplace can lead to significant business benefits. There is a Harvard Business Review article substantiating why Neurodiversity as a Competitive Advantage

I have included more references in the Appendix (at the end of this blogpost) for those interested to read more.

Employment Sustainability

Getting employed is one thing, sustaining employment is another. Enabling autistic people (and other PWDs) to sustain employment benefits not only themselves but the economy as a whole. PWDs bring unique strengths and fresh perspectives to the table that are good for organisations. Keeping PWDs employed enables them to contribute to the economy through their work and through paying taxes on their income (like other working adults do) and less reliant on government handouts.

Singapore believes more in workfare than welfare, and this view has its merits. Aligned with this, every effort should be made to enable PWDs to sustain long-term employment to maximise their potential - they too can be contributors to our society and economy if given the chance and given the right environment they can thrive in, just like saltwater fish thrive in salt water and freshwater fish thrive in fresh water.

It is therefore important to have laws that mandate reasonable workplace accommodations so that PWDs can perform well at their job.

Coming to 10 years since Singapore ratified the UN CRPD

Singapore ratified the UN CRPD in July 2013 expressing (symbolic) commitment to granting equal rights to the disabled. It is May 2023 at the time of writing this blogpost. It is coming to the 10th anniversary in two months' time, yet such disability specific anti-discrimination laws have not been passed. If not now, then when?

Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong spoke about greater inclusion in employment of PWDs at the Inclusive Business Forum 2022. He also said that Forward Singapore exercise will look at better support for people with disabilities. The UN CRPD Committee, in its Concluding Observations in the CPRD Committee's recent review of Singapore, recommended disability laws to be passed. The full report of the Concluding Observations is downloadable at this UN webpage

NOW is the time for the Singapore Government and policymakers to walk the talk and show/prove their commitment to enabling persons with disabilities with equal opportunities by passing disability anti-discrimination laws; in this context of the Workplace Fairness Legislation, it will be laws that require employers to make reasonable accommodations for PWDs in the workplace.

Doing so will bring us another step closer towards full participation of PWDs in our Singapore society.

Appendix

Articles on the benefits of having autistics in your workforce, including real life testimonies from employers

Search This Blog

Advocate for Inclusion and Neurodiversity