Job Access: Driving Disability Employment- Part B

This blog was first published by The Dignity Project in June 2021.

JobAccess is ‘the national hub for workplace and employment information for people with disability, employers and service providers. Created by the Australian Government, it brings together the information and resources that can ‘drive disability employment’’¹.

With one in five Australians now living with disability and only 53% of those participating in the workforce, it is ‘a lack of awareness, exposure and understanding [that] can cause people with disability to be overlooked for employment opportunities’¹. Thus, the primary function of Job Access is to bridge this divide, by supporting both employees and employers to ensure the skills and talents of people with disability is not overlooked.

Job Access aims to foster employment opportunities by building capacity. They also provide an employer engagement service through a National Disability Recruitment Coordinator (NDRC), provide financial support for workplace modifications through the Employment Assistance Fund (EAF), offer a complaints and referral service, and National Disability Abuse and Neglect Hotline.

The Dignity Project team spoke to some of our members about their own experiences with Job Access, including their stories and advise.

Dr Riona Tindal – Senior Disability Advisor

Student Disability and Accessibility | Student Success | Student Life

Hmm, at the time of writing, I have been given a final report and I was successful in all but one crucial item. It is deemed that it is the responsibility of the employer to provide the iPad.

My experience with various Job Access Assessors has been varied but quite supportive until this time. Something has changed, something has shifted.

Is it because of NDIS?

It is because the funding pool is a lot smaller, and they have taken on a hard-line stance?

Is it because the overall structure has changed to focus more on saving money than spending it and getting brownie points?

Or is it because they are relying on external reports that give Job Access advice?

So, the question is: Do Job Access select the companies and people based on their ability to provide reports that does not offer quotes that require a considerable chuck out of the budget? We shall never know!

My access was still not fully inclusive. Until I got a message from my Occupational Therapist (OT). Oh, what a surprise! The OT working with me, had a conversation with the external assessor and reached a compromise. A standard iPad, which I have accepted. I am not going to argue, it will work as a video. A little slower with memory and smaller… but it will do.

With that significant win, it still gives us thought to ponder on the structure and the processes. Would you think that the Job Access is something that was created to support people where they need it the most?

Reading the link on the Job Access website regarding Managing Deafness or hearing loss at Work – I note that that they encourage people to use text messaging as you can see in this paragraph:

‘Consider the use of instant messaging or email for communication rather than phone use, and text messaging on mobile phones with vibrate alerts rather than voice calls; provide access to webcams for those that use sign language to communicate.’

With Auslan being a 3D language, this statement clearly shows that:

‘Auslan is the uniquely visual spatial language that conveys meaning using hand shapes and movements, facial expressions, and body orientation. Auslan has its own syntax, grammar and semantics and is not based on English.’

So, when people are being encouraged to text or email: what about English? That is English-based and is not inclusive because Auslan is a language of its own – with its own syntax, grammar, and semantics. It is not based on English.

Video relay calls are based in Auslan because this is a visual language and with its own structure and a 3D aspect.

So, what does that mean?

It is something to ponder and may require adjustment of their criteria, as it is not inclusive enough.

Griffith University has spoken that they have a good inclusive policy in a lot of instances, and it still a work in progress. I agree.

The question remains is:

• Who really is the decision maker?
• Is it the external reports?
• Is Job Access, or
• Do they blindly follow the criteria and reports from the external assessors?

Imagine potentially having Independent Assessors for NDIS, as has been proposed? It is a scary thought to think – how truly inclusive these independent assessors are? The OT who changed the Job Access' mind, took the time to know me better. That is important.

Is it important that assessors need to be from within a workplace, instead of external assessors… where they conduct their work by meeting you for two hours … a mere drop in your 10-year working life, and assess as well making a judgement, according to the criteria which may not be always inclusive?

I do believe that if the person's OT and the external assessors work together, the outcome is more positive than two conflicting reports.

Would that be a workable solution?

I would like to think so. After all, I have been respected and treated well by the OT who changed the mind of the external assessor.

I am silent… and I hesitate to say much.

The external assessor, while polite and formal – believed they were doing right thing. Their perspective is different to my own, and I am respecting that difference. I shall now leave it as it is… as thanks to my OT, it is no longer my problem now that I have access in the workplace, and I am happy.

So, whose responsibility, is it? Me, you, her, them, they, or what?

Cathy Easte – Manager

Student Disability and Accessibility | Student Success | Student Life

President, Australian Tertiary Education Network on Disability

Employment Access Fund (EAF) is what I like to sometimes call Elusive Accessible Fumbles.

Ok, maybe that is a bit cruel, after all, the Federal Government is trying to help employees with disabilities and their employers, and in perhaps a lot of instances – they do get it right.

As a deaf person, who needs assistive technology, as well as captioning and interpreting support in my job, I feel I am constantly bean counting and limiting which meeting I will make accessible for myself. But let’s talk about technology first. My initial interactions with Job Access (EAF) were great, I asked for an amplification device for my phones at work, and as I work in different locations, I needed more than one – no worries they provided this. The phone systems have changed and we now all have video phones with inbuilt amplification and t-switch capacities – so the external plug-in amplifiers were no longer needed. Great, I could use any phone at my workplace (when I could use a phone – I cannot hear everyone and cannot understand everything on the phone – so I still limit what I do on the phone).

In meetings, I asked for loop type receivers I had trailed at a disability conference in Florida, USA, Roger devices. The Roger Pens were new to Australia at that time, but I also saw Roger Table Mics (Roger Select) and these were better in meetings, where more than one person speaks – so I wanted them too, no issue – with a letter from my audiologist, I received both the Roger Pen and two Table Mics along with Receiver loop. This helped in some meetings – mostly meetings where I knew the participants and could follow. They are great – but I still miss a lot. For larger team meetings with say 20 participants or more, or where I am unfamiliar with the people speaking, I use captioning and Auslan Interpreting, especially for online meetings.

EAF limits the spend on captioning and interpreting to a combined $6,000 annually. When I can be charged $228 an hour for captioning for example, that means I have 26 hours of meetings I can attend with full access support – which is why I rely on the Roger Mics in other meetings. The cost of Interpreting support is not a lot different to this captioning rate. This limit of $6,000 may have been ok when I was working in a lower-level position, and not attending many meetings, but as a Manager of a student support service – less than an hour’s support (captioning/Interpreting) a week, is far from enough (do the maths $6,000 divided by $228). Last week alone I attended 11 hours of meetings and that was a quiet week! So that is 10 hours of meetings on average a week that I have to navigate on my own, half hearing, trying to decipher, using auto-captions which can be far from correct at times.

Who decided $6,000 was enough? It has been set at $6,000 for a number of years – even though captioning and interpreting costs and wages have increased every year, it is still $6,000. Perhaps this is to limit the progression/success of deaf persons? No offence to those who do the all-important work of unskilled labour – say in a factory, or cleaning… maybe $6,000 for meetings does go a long way – but in a professional level job it can be used in a month very easily. Who decides this is equal?

My employer pays for many things for me, visual fire alarms, visual door knockers, ensures I was first in line for video phones, but they cannot pick up the tab for all my captioning and interpreting needs. I pride myself on providing accessibility in all its fullness for my students and my team, yet Job Access or EAF limits my ability to progress.

I participate in meetings without support and have to limit my energy to trying to understand the important items and not stress the social items. I am tired. I go home and am exhausted from trying to listen, to decipher, to understand, in an inaccessible world. I know I also appear ‘less than’ other managers, not as social (I have no funds to cover social gatherings at work), I cannot cover all my essential meetings and as you know, there are lots of social clues in all these meetings.

Nowhere in the application process, do they ask how many meetings I attend, or what my needs are in that respect – it is a set limit, regardless of your job. Imagine if the Prime Minister was Deaf and he could only have support for under an hour’s worth of meetings a week! Jokes aside, that is serious – imagine how incompetent they would look; the news outlets would be busy reporting all the miscommunications or judging the Prime Minsters’ lack of response or interest in crucial topics. I am not the Prime Minister, but that is what I can feel – embarrassed to misunderstand at high level meetings, to limit my terminology, so I do not fluff my lines and live-in hope, that the terminology stays at a level that will keep pace with auto-captions. That sounds catastrophic, doesn’t it? My life is not that disastrous – but it is not easy when you do not have the same access – and Job Access does not do this for Deaf people.

I use Auto captioning apps where I can, but the strain on my eyes watching these on separate or small screens on my phone is draining. Auto captioning apps are only available on my phone. Admittedly, the auto captions can create slight humour at times – but they are not a substitute for access to meetings – where I must understand, participate on budgets and staffing and policy and and and… I do feel it is about time Job Access was reviewed and improved – after all, one cannot use NDIS funds for work, just like EAF cannot be used for personal/social! But the $6,000 cap is limiting – not just limiting access, but success and aspirations.

Have an experience you would like to share… We’d love to hear from you! Participate in the current Have Your Say Forum on Job Access, or write to us on Community Hub or via email: dignityproject@griffith.edu.au

For more information, contact the JobAccess Network:

Website: https://www.jobaccess.gov.au¹

Online Enquiry Form: https://www.jobaccess.gov.au/contacts/online-enquiry-form

Phone: 1800 464 800

TTY: 1800 555 677 (Then ask for 1800 464 800)