|
...in the Korean government. In addition, the policies with respect to the employment of people with disabilities and the theoretical implications of the Korean government experience are presented. (2)
A comparative study of national approaches toward an issue allows the subject of the study to assess the situation more objectively and provides insights as to where the subject stands in global perspective. In order to make this study more comparative, the case of the American federal government is briefly reviewed based on the annual report of the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). (3) The US EEOC monitors each agency's employment of persons with disabilities in terms of workforce distribution, grade level, placement, and advancement.
Various differences exist between both nations' governments in terms of legal obligations, internal working environment, and recruiting processes. One of the significant differences, for example, is composition of social demographics. American society is very heterogeneous so that sensitivity to social minorities is substantially high, while Korea is relatively homogenous so that diversity issues have not been seriously realized for a long time. Also, the civil rights movement has made a great social impact in the United States, while political demonstrations against authoritarian regimes have dominated modern Korean history doing relatively little for social minorities. Roughly speaking, Korea did not have a substantial disability policy until it achieved a significant degree of economic well-being and stability, while the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) of 1990 became the vantage point of business, government, and people with disabilities in the United States. (4) Considering such differences between the United States and Korea, it is fair to say that public policy for disability rights is less developed in Korea than in the United States.
The Employment of Persons with Disabilities: Comparison
This section deals with an analysis of the employment of people with disabilities in the American federal government and the Korean government. By analyzing the government employment data of both countries, this study discusses various public personnel issues in the employment of people with disabilities. An analysis of the American case would provide the prospective readers a comparative perspective to better understand the Korean case.
The Employment of Persons with Disabilities in the American Federal Government
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Public Law 101-336, is one of the most sweeping nondiscrimination pieces of legislation since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (5) Signed into law by President George H.W. Bush on July 26, 1990, the ADA gives civil rights protection to individuals with disabilities similar to that provided to individuals on the basis of race, sex, national origin, age and religion. It supports equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities in public accommodations, employment, transportation, state and local government services and telecommunications. Employment discrimination is prohibited against "qualified individuals with disabilities." Section 3 of the ADA defines an "individual with a disability" as "a person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, has a record of such an impairment, or is regarded as having such an impairment." This definition was based on the definition of "individuals with handicaps" that was used to identify persons protected by the nondiscrimination provisions of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. Sec. 706).
The U.S. Government's Standard Form 256 (Self-identification of Handicap) lists 94 disability codes. Nine categories of severe disabilities are "targeted" for emphasis in affirmative employment programs for people with disabilities. These disabilities are as follows: deafness (16 and 17), blindness (23 and 25), missing extremities (28, 32-38), partial paralysis (64-68), complete paralysis (71-78), convulsive disorders (82), mental retardation (90), mental illness (91) and distortion of limbs and/or spine (92). These nine categories of severe disabilities refer to disabilities that are referred to in the federal government's report and this article as "targeted disabilities."
The other codes refer to other disabilities that are referred to in this article as "reportable disabilities or disabilities reported." (6) Since some employees elect not to complete the Standard Form 256 (because it is a "voluntary" self-identification form), its limitations must be noticed; the workforce totals might be underestimated in the federal government's report.
During fiscal year 1999, the percentage of people with "reportable" disabilities in the federal government was 6.79, while the percentage of people with specified severe (targeted) disabilities in the federal government was only 1.13, as shown in Table 1. (7) Thus, people with targeted disabilities are underrepresented. (8)
Table 1 shows that there was a steady increase in the number of people with disabilities from 1982 to 1993. (5) Only 0.82 percent of the federal workforce consisted of people with targeted disabilities in fiscal year 1982. During the 1982 to 1993 period, the number of people with both reportable and targeted disabilities showed a substantial increase. The number of people with specified severe (targeted) disabilities employed by the federal government increased to 1.24 percent in fiscal year 1993.
Since 1994 however, the number of people with targeted disabilities exhibits a declining trend. One of the major reasons for such a new phenomenon would be the downsizing trend of the total workforce. In 1990, there were about 2.79 million federal civilian employees, but the total workforce in 1999 was about 2.45 million. In other words, the total workforce in the American federal government gradually declined over the last decade. The total number of the workforce declined as well as the number of people with disabilities. (10) As of 1999, the number of people with "reportable" disabilities was 165,525, (11) while the number of "targeted" disabilities was 27,601. (12)
These figures indicate that although there has been some progress in the hiring and retention of persons with targeted disabilities within the federal government over the years, the latest downsizing movement in government negatively affected the employment of persons with disabilities. Accordingly, attention should be paid to employment challenges of persons with disabilities in government. Persons with disabilities, especially persons with targeted disabilities, remain well below their estimated availability. The percentage of persons with targeted disabilities in the federal workforce decreased for the fourth consecutive year totaling almost 12 percent for the 1995 to 1999 five-year period. (13) During the last five years, the federal workforce decreased by six percent, while persons with targeted disabilities decreased by 12 percent. Persons with targeted disabilities have never reached 1.5 percent of the federal workforce, well below...
NOTE: All illustrations and photos
have been removed from this article.
More articles from Public Personnel Management
Looking for loyalty in all the wrong places: a study of union and orga..., June 22, 2006
How accurate are your performance appraisals?, June 22, 2006
One more reason not to cut your training budget; the relationship betw..., June 22, 2006
Hypotheses concerning the prevalence of competencies among government ..., June 22, 2006
The loss of talent: why local and state law enforcement officers resig..., June 22, 2006
Looking for additional articles?
Search our database of over 3 million articles.
Looking for more in-depth information on this industry?
Search our complete database of Industry & Market reports by text, subject, publication
name or publication date.
About Goliath
Whether you're looking for sales prospects, competitive information, company
analysis or best practices in managing your organization,
Goliath can help you meet your business needs.
Our extensive business information databases empower business
professionals with both the breadth and depth of credible,
authoritative information they need to support their business
goals. Whether it be strategic planning, sales prospecting,
company research or defining management best practices -
Goliath is your leading source for accurate information.
|
