Written by: Samuel Ragot
Canada was recently criticized by Tomoya Obokata, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Slavery, in relation to the shortcomings of the temporary foreign worker program.
However, this was not the Special Rapporteur’s only criticism. The working conditions of persons with intellectual disabilities also drew his attention.
As a researcher on issues related to the financial security and employment of persons with disabilities, and as someone who works in the field of public policy, I would like to shed some light on a controversial practice that is still widespread in Canada: sheltered work programs.
What are sheltered work programs?
Relatively unknown to the general public, sheltered work programs are a historical legacy of the longstanding segregation and exploitation persons with intellectual disabilities have experienced throughout North America. Unlike institutionalization, which has been in relative decline, sheltered work programs are still thriving, despite repeated calls to end them in both Canada and in Quebec.
Sheltered work programs are generally described as programs in which:
individuals with a disability (particularly those with an intellectual disability) are brought together, without being mixed with people who do not have a disability;
people provide a form of work without being paid, or they receive a stipend (a few dollars a day);
different labour laws and standards do not apply, including minimum wage standards.
Historically, the primary aim of these programs was first and foremost, to offer a supportive environment in which to train people considered unemployable. The reasoning was that if these people were made to perform repetitive tasks in a non-competitive environment where they were “protected” from the rest of society, they would be able to develop work skills and eventually enter the regular job market.
However, far from fostering inclusion in the workplace, the on-the-job training that starts out as temporary often becomes permanent. This raises ethical, political and social questions about the practice itself.
Comentários