Work and employment are the basic tissue of
our existence, with it we employ various fundamental functions and needs in our
lives. Work provides activity (if not even creativity) which is the basis of
our identity[1],
it is also an instrument that enables us to provide for other needs we have –
either by creating what we need or by producing means, in modern society
usually income, for acquiring it. Work is through employment also the basic
status that provides us with full citizenship and the basis of the contractual
power in social and economic interchanges with others. It is also among the
most potent ‘organisers’ of our experience – pride of what we produce, work
mates as the second most important source of friendship and social contacts and
timetable that organises our time and other activities. All of these functions
are included in employment or more precisely work place (Flaker et al., 2015).
If and when people are not employed these
needs become precarious. However, there are subsidiary and surrogate social
arrangements that at least to some degree compensate the lack of employment.
One is education. It provides us with activity, gives us a status of a student,
pupil, organises our time and experience, to the lesser degree it provides
income (grants, parental sustenance). Education can be seen also prerequisite
for (a better) employment but also as an activity of its own end (e.g.
University for the third life period). The employment can be compensated at least
by other sources of income – social benefits, allowances, grants etc. These
seldom provide more than survival, but allow more activity and opportunity for
socialising and organising our life experience. These sources of income are
mostly related to surrogate social statuses to the status of employment. These
are statuses of pensioners, old age and disability, of sick absence, child,
pupil, student… Not only these statuses provide less income they also give a
kind of negative, devalued identification. Another way of compensating the
absence of employment are useful activities or useful employment. In community
activities or personal hobbies we maintain ourselves as active people, get into
sort of ‘natural exchange’ of goods and services, acquire dignity and respect,
also affiliation and status in some group, and they help us to structure time,
gain pride and friends. If all these subsidiary functions fail or are
unattainable there is social care that can seek to activate us, supports us in
instrumental activities and provides us with possibilities to survive. The
status is not determinate – a social care or work user, in some countries
long-term care recipient – it becomes a very determinate one in case of
institutionalisation – a resident. The social care takes care also of
organisation of our time and experience, sometimes even with good results.
These registers of employment and its
shadows are hierarchical by the degree of subsidiarity to employment –
employment being an optimal solution others subsidiary with social care (or
abandonment and banishment in case where there is not social care) as the last
resort (Flaker et al., 2015).[2]
The institutions are the last resort of the
last resorts and has only a few opportunities for meaningful activity (e.g.
occupational therapy, physiotherapy, residents help in running institution).
This on one hand means that shutting down the institution will liberate a
number of potentials and on the other that there will be many obstacles to work
and employment (Flaker et al., 2008).
In other words, while there are many
residents in most institutions that are capable of employment, there are many
more, especially in Demir Kapija that will never attain a regular employment.
The same is obviously true for the old age homes. On the other hand, there will
be an explosion of activities and meaningful deeds after the closure. If we
take for an example, a person who spends his or her day in a bed, just taking a
regular walks is over 100 % more than he or she does at the moment on all
counts. He or she will be more active, his or her very basic activity of being
more mobile will provide him or her with more survival potential, e.g. eating
at the table, meeting people, give him or her more status (of a stroller) and
make his or her schedule more full and interesting.
There are, as some personal plans show,
however, people in the institutions who want and are able to work (outside). In
comparison to the work therapy and other ways of working inside the
institution, having a real job outside the institution could be an important
contribution to someone’s life as it is for all of us. It is also very
important to work for a person to become a valuable member of the community.
Some will be able to get work with not much support and some will need ample
support to do so. In enabling people to work in employment or elsewhere (useful
unemployment) there has to be change in logic of people enrolling into work
situation. While classic view on getting employment is that one has to be first
qualified to do a job we need to place a person in a viable working situation
and then find the way to enable him or her to be productive in it. It is safe
to assume, therefore that minority of residents of institutions will need supported
employment while other residents will need diverse kind of activities in the
mainstream community.
The situation with people in need at large,
outside institutions, is different and more complex. People of old age
obviously do not need employment, but need to be active as much as possible and
a number of them would need better income to retain or reacquire their dignity.
Children are of course (at least up 15 years) out of employment and getting
ready to it, there main issue is education, leisure activities and
participation in the community. Adults in working age with disability and
mental health issue have access to labour market but are discriminated against.
Moreover, people with disability are as
rule employed in sheltered facilities, they are underrepresented in the public
sector, and there is no proper communication between the employer and the
person with disability for the purpose of accommodation in the workplace
(Ombudsman’s observations quoted in Šavreski & Kočoska, 2017: 26-27).
At stake is also the employment and income
of relatives. Those who work have problem with the employers since they do not
have sympathy for their situation – e.g. more days off work. For those who do
not work the special allowance is not enough, the life of a person with
disability costs more (focus group in Kavadarci). They would need specially
calibrated employment (part time, just first shift etc.) or an extra parental
allowance; or to be relieved by some support (e.g. personal assistance) to be
able to work and have more income.
Claimer: This blog is intended as a part of
Situation Analysis and Assessment/ Evaluation Report of Implementation of
National Strategy on Deinstitutionalisation 2008-2018 which will be soon
presented to the public within the EU framework project Technical assistance
support for the deinstitutionalization process in social sector. For this blog
Andreja Rafaelič is considered to be co-author.
References:
Flaker, V., Mali, J., Urek M. and Grebenc,
V. (2015) 'Work and Money: Exploring the Life-World Contingencies of
Employment, Work and Income in Long-term Care'. In: Sozialpolitische
interventionen – Eine festschrift für Tom Scmid, P. Pantuček-Eisenbacher, M. Vyslouzil & J. Pflegerl (Hrsg), . Pölten: FH St. Pölten, Ilse Artl Institut fur Soziale
Inklusionsforschung, 2015, pp. 217-231.
Šavreski, Z. & Kočoska, E. (2017) ANED Country
report on social protection and Article 28 UNCRPD – FYR Macedonia, Academic
network of European disability experts, [On line]
Available at: http://www.disability-europe.net/country/fyr-macedonia?theme=social-protection
