Safety and Accident Prevention

Organizational culture involves many different details, including customer service, employee benefits, and hiring/termination processes. In this essay, you will further explain the role of organizational culture and its influences. the one below is from the csu libary create another one on your own need by tommorow 2pages
 
Within your essay, include the following points:
 
 What are the cultural influences on training and development? Provide two examples.  Discuss the effects of cultural continuity and change on organizational succession planning. Provide two examples.  How do internal and external social media influence organizational culture?  Is social media the most effective way for employees to share knowledge? Explain.
 
Your essay must be a minimum of two full pages in length, not including the title and reference page. You are required to use a minimum of two outside sources; one must be from the CSU Online Library. All sources used, including the required reading assignments, must be cited and referenced according to APA standards.

Employers’ perceptions of the benefits of workplace accommodations: Reasons to hire, retain and promote people with disabilities
Helen P. Hartnetta,∗, Heather Stuarta, Hanna Thurmanb, Beth Loyc and Linda Carter Batistec aDivision of Social Work, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA bWest Virginia University Divisions of Social Work and Public Administration, Morgantown, WV, USA cThe Job Accommodation Network, Morgantown, WV, USA
Revised/Accepted: August 2010
Abstract.DespitethelegalmandatesoftheADA,peoplewithdisabilitiescontinuetobeunderrepresentedintheworkforce.While there does exist an established body of research devoted to the hiring of individuals with disabilities, information on retaining individuals with disabilities in the workplace has not been reflected as often in the critical discourse devoted to disability and employmentpractices.ThisarticleanalyzesdatafromanongoingstudyconductedbytheJobAccommodationNetwork(JAN),a serviceofODEP(DepartmentofLabor1004062R),showingthatemployersbenefitedfromhiring,retaining,andaccommodating individuals with disabilities. Benefits derived by employers include the ability to retain quality employees, increased company profitability,andanavoidanceofcostsassociatedwithhiringandtraininganewemployee.Inadditiontothesebenefits,providing accommodationsinordertoretainemployeesisshowntoimproveorganizationalcultureandclimate,aswellasfosteringasense among all employees that employers recognize both the value of the individual worker as a human being, and the inherent social benefits of creating and sustaining an inclusive workplace.
Keywords: Disabilities, employment, accommodation benefits, social service practice and disabilities
1. Introduction
Employment opportunities for all people have long been considered an important component of the selfsociety connection. For others, it becomes the most importantanti-povertystrategy.Forpeoplewithdisabilities, inclusion in the workplace can translate into the differencebetweenindependenceanddependence,and providebenefitsnotonlytoindividualswithdisabilities themselves, but to their coworkers and communities as well. Others claim that the employment of people with disabilities also benefits employers.
∗Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 304 293 8808; Fax: +1 304 293 5963; E-mail: [email protected].
The research presented in this article highlights the natureofthesebenefits,aswellascompanymotivations for providing accommodations. This article attempts to fill a gap in critical discourse related to employment for individuals with disabilities. At present there is an established body of writing examining the hiring of people with disabilities, yet there exists much less information on the retention of employees with disabilities and the securing of appropriate workplace accommodations. Funded by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP), the Job Accommodation Network (JAN) serves as the nation’s most comprehensive resource on workplace accommodations in support of increased employmentopportunitiesforpersonswithalltypesof disabilities.
1052-2263/11/$27.50 © 2011 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved
18 H.P. Hartnett et al. / Employers’ perceptions of the benefits of workplace accommodations
This paper seeks to examine the self-described accommodationoutcomesbyemployerswhohavecontacted JAN. It is not without limitations. The sample represents those people who were customers of JAN and who agreed to participate and/or were able to be contacted for this project. The respondents most likely represent people who are either highly engaged or dissatisfied with the accommodation process. The voices ofemployerswhohavenotcontactedJANarenotrepresentedhere.Therefore,theresultsshouldbeinterpreted with caution, but it is hoped that social workers, rehabilitation professionals, policy makers, employers and others interested in increasing accommodation opportunitiesforpeoplewithdisabilitiesintheworkplacecan gain useful information. Increasingemploymentandretentionandpromoting the advancement of individuals with disabilities in the workplace are key goals for rehabilitation professionalsandsocialworkers.Professionalsworkdirectlywith individuals with disabilities in many settings toward these aims. However, employers express concern over both real and perceived barriers to hiring and retaining employees with disabilities. According to Unger [8], these barriers reflect culturally entrenched discriminatoryattitudestowardspeoplewithdisabilities,concerns about the cost of providing accommodations, and anxieties about the ability of employees with disabilities to perform necessary job functions. Despite the legal mandates of the ADA, employers’ impressions of the accommodation process may be dominated by considerationsofpossibleobstaclesasopposedtothebenefits of providing accommodations. In order to respond to employer concerns in productive ways, rehabilitation professionals and social workers need to possess an understanding of the range of concerns expressed by employers in their considerations of hiring and retaining employees with disabilities. For example, Bruyère [2] reports that human resource professionals in one study identified changing co-worker or supervisor attitudesasthemostdifficultchangetomakeinemploying or advancing individuals with disabilities in the workplace. Schartz et al. [6] point to the cost of accommodation asanotherprimaryconcernforemployers.However,in their assessments of monetary costs, employers need to evaluate the costs of accommodating employees with disabilities relative to the costs associated with accommodating employees without disabilities. If an employee with a disability was in need of a retrofitted office chair, for example, the employer would have to evaluate this cost in relation to the price of stan
dard ergonomic chairs supplied to other non-disabled employees. While further research needs to be conducted in this area, existent studies indicate that the directcostsofaccommodatingemployeeswithdisabilities are low, and the benefits are numerous. Benefits highlighted in this article include avoiding the expenditures of both time and money associated with job searches, as well as hiring and training new employees. In addition, employers are able to retain qualified employees while encouraging the positive social and psychological benefits of creating an inclusive workplace. Schartz et al. [6], point out that while absorbing additional costs may continue to be a key area of concern for companies, employers’ fears of the costs associated with providing workplace accommodations areoftenunsubstantiatedandnotreinforcedwithempirical data. Research by Unger and Kregel [9] supports the idea that job performance has been documented as another prime consideration for employers. In a national study sponsoredbytheU.S.ChamberofCommerceexamining employers’ experiences with employees with disabilities,onedimensionoftheresearchattemptstowork against the myths and misconceptions surrounding the capabilities of these workers. The study indicates that the job performance of employees with disabilities has been shown to be equally and in some cases more competentthannon-disabledworkers.Employeeswith disabilities are said to be punctual, reliable and conscientious. In turn, the effectiveness of these employees contributes to companies’ overall profitability and productivity [9]. These kinds of positive contributions – increases to companies’ overall profitability and productivity – translate to benefits to a company’s bottom line.Informationpresentedtoemployersintheseterms may be more likely to impact their employment practices. AccordingtoTravis[7],inadditiontomonetarygains associatedwithaccommodations,accommodatingindividuals with disabilities has also been shown to benefit nondisabled workers. These are known as third party benefits. Some of these benefits include the expansion of medical privacy in the workplace and the greater focusonanindividual’sabilitytoperformtheessential tasks required by a job, as opposed to an individual’s personal characteristics. One such example is the use of an elevator as a benefit to coworkers in addition to theindividualwhorequestedtheaccommodation.Ifan elevator is installed in a workplace other employees’ use of the elevator may allow lifting tasks not only to be faster, but less straining as well [7]. Emens [4] indi
H.P. Hartnett et al. / Employers’ perceptions of the benefits of workplace accommodations 19
cates that third-party benefits of accommodations are often overlooked as are those encompassing employer benefits, such as reduced absenteeism. Studies have been conducted regarding employer perceived benefits and concerns around hiring individuals with disabilities [8], however, they seldom specificallyaddresstheperceivedbenefitsofworkplace accommodationinordertoretainworkerswhobecome disabled after having been hired. Though in a work environment affected by socially circumscribed barriers to employment it is important to focus on hiring individuals with disabilities, it is equally important to concentrate upon employer efforts to retain employees who become disabled while working. Within the body ofscholarshipdevotedtodisabilityissues,emphasishas been placed upon hiring individuals with disabilities while the specifics involved in retaining employees with disabilities has been given far less critical attention.Likewise,astheresearchofHabecketal.[5] indicates, policy efforts to retain individuals with disabilitiesneedtocoincidewithpolicyeffortstoincrease hiring. A November 2008 Technical Report from the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) Survey of Employer Perspectives on the Employment of People with Disabilities, found that 19.1% of companies employ people with disabilities. This report examined the type of information that would encourage companies to employ, hire, and actively recruit people with disabilities. Overall, companies surveyed (representing 2,469,000 companies) reported that they would be persuaded by information about satisfactory job performance, increases to companyproductivity,andbenefitstothecompanybottom line. Survey data prepared by Domzal et al. [3] under contract to the Office of Disability and Employment Policy indicate that small and medium-sized companies find information about satisfactory job performance most persuasive, while large companies are most persuaded by information supported by statistics or research. It is helpful for professionals to be equipped with an understanding of the range of motivationsemployershaveforprovidingaccommodations. In this paper, we share employers’ perspectives on these benefits, as well as providing data that may be more likely to persuade large companies and quantitative data about job performance that may be more persuasive for small and medium-sized companies. Rehabilitation professionals and social workers are in an excellent position to assist employers in recognizing both the direct and indirect benefits that companies
may sustain in creating and sustaining an inclusive workplace.
2. Methodology
This paper explores one component of an on-going evaluation project (Department of Labor 1004062R) being conducted on behalf of the Job Accommodation Network (JAN). JAN consultants provide individualizedandconfidentialconsultationtoprivateandfederal employers, rehabilitation and service providers, and individualswithdisabilities,andtheirfamilymembers. Data for the evaluation are collected using a structured telephone survey that contains both open and closeended questions. This allows the evaluation to capture thecomplexitiesofbothaccommodationdecisionsand solutions. The survey was designed and approved by the Office of Disability Employment Policy and the Office of Budget and Management (Control Number 1225–0059). The purpose of the survey is to collect satisfactiondatafromcustomersaswellasinformation regarding the accommodation processes. Interviews last approximately 20minutes. The instrument uses a variety of question formats (Likert Scales, Forced Choice lists, and open ended). Upon completion of service, JAN consultants ask if customersarewillingtoreceiveafollow-upphonecall to complete the evaluation survey. The research team thenattemptstocontactallwhoagreetoparticipateand prompts them to recall the specific case for which they used JAN services (some may be repeat customers). Some choose not to participate, or are not able to be reached after the third or fourth call. For this paper, only the data collected from employers are presented and analyzed using SPSS. The data for this paper represent the data collected from July 2008 to October 2009. This includes data regarding employee demographics (e.g., age, gender, race, income, and length of timeinemployment)aswellasemployerdemographics (e.g.,companysize,andpercentofpeoplewithdisabilities).Descriptivestatisticsarealsoincludedtoexamine accommodation decisions, solutions, costs and benefits. Given previous literature [3], company size is also discussed. Open-ended responses are also presented. These datawereanalyzedbyrunningallresultsandcodingfor themes. The themes were then reviewed by interviewers and JAN staff to check for consistency with their experiences in providing services or collecting data. Although components of the survey instrument, client
20 H.P. Hartnett et al. / Employers’ perceptions of the benefits of workplace accommodations
satisfactionwithweb-basedandtelephoneconsultation are not provided in this paper. For the purpose of this paper, accommodation decisions refers to whether or not an accommodation was made, if the decision was pending,oriftheimplementationwaspending.Accommodation solution refers to type of accommodation an employer reported providing.
3. Results
3.1. Sample
3.1.1. Employers The total number of respondents was 387, representing a response rate of 49.30%. The majority of respondentswereprevioususersofJAN(45.2%),while (18.1%) found JAN through an internet search. Other respondentsreportedareferralfromanagency(16.0%), and from a co-worker or friend. Agencies include a combination of state and government entities involved in employment. Of the employers (90) who were able to report the percentage of people in the company considered to have a disability, the majority (16.3%) responded 0, followed by 12.5% reporting 5 percent, and10%reporting2%.Ofthoseabletoreportthenumber of employees considered to have a disability (83), 16 percent reported one employee followed by 9.8% reporting two employees. Employerswereaskednumberofemployeesinorder to measure company size. Company size varied from 35 to 350,000. The data were examined based on following ranges used in the ODEP report: small (5–14), medium (15–249) and large (250 or more) employees. The majority of respondents were employed by large companies(72.1%),followedbymedium(26.4%),and small companies (1.6%).
3.1.2. Employees for whom employers call JAN Employersreportedthatmostoftheworkaccommodationsdiscussedinvolvedretainingacurrentemployee (76.8%), followed by seeking information on a job applicant (4.3%), hiring a new employee (3.3%), and promoting a current employee (1.0%). The other categoryaccountsfor12.6%oftheresponses.Theseinclude cases which involved more than one employee, and requesting information for future use in the accommodation process. Of the employers who were able to report demographic information, the following data are presented. Some employers did not have access to the employee file at the time of the interview and did
not know or were not comfortable providing the following information. Employers (281) reported that the majorityofemployeeswerefemale(59.4%),and40.6% were male. Employers (281) stated that 9.7% employees were Black, 60.3% white, (6.95%) Latino, (3.1%) Asian and (1.4%) American Indian/Alaska Native. Employers (180) reported the following education levels: (37.2%), high school or equivalent (28.3%), college (18.9%), graduate degree (11.1%), associate’s degree (2.8%), high school certificate, and (1.7%) did not complete high school. Two hundred and thirty employers were able to report that the majority of employeesforwhomtheywerecallinghadanagerange of 46–55 (33.0%), followed by 36–45 (29.1%), 26–35 (17.8%), 56–65 (13.9%), and 18–25 (5.7%). Only one employee was reported to be over the age of 66.
3.2. Accommodation decisions
Dataindicatethat43.9%ofemployersmadeaccommodations for employees and 11.2% stated that the implementation was pending, while 9.1% report the decision whether or not to accommodate was pending. Only 13.3% stated that no accommodation was made, while 22.5% fell into the other category. The other categoryincludesemployerswhowerecallingforgeneral information,theemployeehadnotyetreturnedtowork, orthatoptionswerebeingexplored,employeeresigned, orthataccommodationshadbeenmadepriortocontacting JAN. Employers did not report cost as a factor in the decision making process. For those employers who made accommodations, the satisfaction rate (4.04), on ascaleof1(verydissatisfied)to5(verysatisfied).More than half of the respondents had made the decision to accommodate(55.1%)andwereverysatisfiedwiththe outcome.
3.3. Accommodation solutions
Of the accommodations made, the following represents the types as reported by employers. These are not mutually exclusive; some reported more than one accommodation. The majority of employers reported an accommodation solution that involved changes in work schedule (22.9%), followed by buying a productorpieceofequipment(12.7%),modifyingworksite (5.3%), moving the employee to another job (9.8%), formal education of co-workers (4.1%), providing an interpreter, job coach, reader or personal attendant (2.9%), change in workplace policy (2.5%), and telework (2.5%). Other accommodations included mod
H.P. Hartnett et al. / Employers’ perceptions of the benefits of workplace accommodations 21
ification to organizational processes such as having employee carry emergency instructions with them, allowing longer lunch breaks, allowing medicine to be stored in a secure area, and providing detailed work assignments and reminders.
3.3.1. Cost information Employers were asked both actual onetime costs and actual annual costs. Not all were able to provide this information. This data should be interpreted with caution, as there is a wide standard deviation in responses. For actual onetime costs reported by 125 employers, the range is from zero dollars to $10,000 with a mean of $478.66 (SD=$1,434.74). For actual annual costs reported by 92 employers, the range from zero dollars to $4,800 with a mean of $150.05 (SD=$692.28). Of importance is to compare cost to solutions. The majority of employers reported that the solution is of no cost. For example, moved employee to another job, change in workplace policy, or changes in work schedule are among the list. Hence, many accommodations were of little or no cost. When asked who helped or will help pay for the accommodation, employers were the most frequently responsible (87.8%). However, employees (5.6%), rehabilitationservices(1.4%)andinsurancecompanies (4.2%),alsocontributedtothecostofaccommodation. The other category also accounts for 13.9% of those will helped pay. The survey instrument does not ask who this category might include.
3.4. Direct and indirect benefits
Employers were asked both forced choice and open ended questions regarding both the direct and indirect benefits derived from providing accommodations. For those who made the decision to accommodate employee/s the direct and indirect benefits reported were numerous. Direct benefits included: Allowed company to retain qualified employee (93.1%), increased accommodated worker’s productivity (79.8%), and increased company productivity (63%). Indirect benefits included: increased company morale(72.2%),increasedinteractionswithco-workers (73.2%), and increased interactions with customers (54.8%). Employers were also asked an open ended question regarding the benefits derived from implementing accommodations. Interviewers attempted to record verbatim the comments of employers. The following represent the themes that emerged from reviewing these data. As will be evident, these cat
egories are often not mutually exclusive. Many of the benefits reported affect many people and various aspects of company success.
3.4.1. Employee benefits Manyemployersreportedthatthebenefitsofaccommodations directly affect the happiness, morale and quality of the work of the employee. For example, one interviewer noted, “agency responsibility – get an employee who knows how to do a job; this enables the employees motivation and productivity. The employee feelslikeaproductivememberofsocietyandhasretirement benefits”. Another recorded, “Happier employee, without fear of consequences”. Another individual interviewednoted,“Expecttohaveanemployeebackso hecanbewithusuntilheretires(heisinhisearly40s). Has a young family”. This final note indicates not only adirectbenefittotheemployee,butatruecommitment of the employer to retain a valued human being. Benefits derived by individual employees also can benefitacompany’sabilitytoretainaqualityemployee and improve organizational culture and climate. One employer noted that the, “Biggest benefit was to keep direct openness with employee. Satisfied employee with issue they were having. They were able to both (employee and employer) come up with a reasonable solution that was agreeable to all”. Another example included: “Individual benefit for employee; more productive employee; keeping a good long term employee – he is best worker at that location in his position”. Clearly, retaining a qualified worker benefits the productivity of the company.
3.4.2. Company benefits Many interviewer notes reflected both direct and indirect benefits to the company. Several included cost savings, and increases in productivity. This category also includes comments that reflect positive outcomes of better image to the public, saving retraining,re-hiringcosts,andhowothersinthecompany benefit from accommodating one employee. Examples included: “The company was able to keep an employee on the job and the employee was able to stay employed. Now, the company has the lean-to stool for otheremployees(women30–50yearsofage)whomay need support in job that requires standing”. Other examples include: − “Abletobringpersonbacktowork.Italsoallowed restructure of departments increasing workplace safety”.
22 H.P. Hartnett et al. / Employers’ perceptions of the benefits of workplace accommodations
− “Better customer service – he’s very good, personable”. − “Employee retention, improved management/ labor relations, positive interaction with union representation, and hiring and training expense avoided”. − “Employer maintains reputation of employee accommodation; creates working environment whereemployees’healthandwelfarearevalued”. − “A happy employee is a productive employee”. − “Goodwill for other employers is they find themselves in a similar situation. It also allowed the companytomaintainanemployeewhohadgiven work and time”. − “Helpedmoraleofcompany.Gaveemployeesthe impression that the company is fair and accommodating in its treatment of workers”. − “I did not have to hire a new employee or train a new employee”. − “It helps a few other employees with disabilities as there is now a designated parking area”. − “Retention is #1 thing; reduction of turn over; supportive of the agency’s mission, goals, and objectives”. − “Retainedloyalemployee,improvedmorale,educatedmanagersonADA,learnedhowtheprocess works – feel better equipped to handle future cases,especiallypleasedwithADAformthatprovides them better documentation from doctor”.
Although a long list of interviewer notes, one might imagine that it is difficult to disregard the sentiments of employers who opted to accommodated employees despite the potential barriers. Clearly employers reported that accommodating employees has multiple benefitstothecompanyprocessandpreparescompany leaders for future cases and compliance with ADA.
3.4.3. Legal benefits Several employers were candid that accommodating an employee eliminated legal processes, which might have been costly. Although for disability rights advocates this may not be the motivation desired, it is important to focus on the outcome. One of the tenets of community organizing is to tap into the self-interest of involved parties to create a positive outcome for all [1].Therefore,understandingthatforsometheavoiding legalactionisastrongmotivatorcanhelpsocialworkers and other rehabilitation workers in gaining accommodations for people with disabilities. Examples in this category included; “no union grievances will be filed”,
“avoid future litigations, also to relieve employee discontent”, and “haven’t thought about it in these terms – just wanted to make sure company was doing what it needed to do legally (as far as being liable)”. Otheremployersstatedthatthemotivationwasbased on following the law. These notes reflect the benefit for the company in being in compliance with ADA andotheremploymentequalopportunityrequirements. Examples include; “We know that we are doing what we are required to do by law. We are being proactive instead of reactive, and we are not violating anyone’s Civil Rights” and “with change in law and needing to keep records – we did it because it was the law”.
4. Discussion
The data presented here should be interpreted with caution.Theemployerswhorespondedrepresentthose whoagreedtoparticipateandthosewhowereabletobe contactedviatelephone.Thisstudypredominantlyrepresents the responses from employers who were interestedinretainingemployees,asopposedtothosehiring employees with disabilities. Although beyond the scope of the data collected here, this willingness to accommodate may indicate that the nature of the disabilities experienced by these employees are either shortterm,orthattheyoccurredlaterintheemployee’s tenureatthecompany.Astheevaluationinstrument,the survey does not generate data on the particulars of the specifictypesofdisabilitiesexperiencedbyemployees, and the nature of the company providing the accommodation. Therefore, there may be unknown factors affecting the likelihood that companies will provide effectiveaccommodations.However,theresultsremain promising for employers, rehabilitation professionals, and others interested in increasing rates of accommodation in the workplace for people with disabilities. The benefits of providing work place accommodations reported by employers are numerous. Reported satisfaction with the accommodation outcome is high. Despite the general perception that accommodations require major expenditure on the part of employers, costs reported are minimal, and most accommodations areofnocost.Otherbenefitspointtothepositivefinancial outcomes relating to the ‘bottom line’ of doing business: Increased productivity, and the avoidance of the investment of time and money recruiting, hiring, and training new employees appears to factor heavily into decisions to accommodate. The expressed consideration of public image may also indirectly relate to
H.P. Hartnett et al. / Employers’ perceptions of the benefits of workplace accommodations 23
concerns about company profitability. However, concerns over company public image may also speak to employers’desiretobeviewedasethical,equalopportunity employers. Further, many of those surveyed reported that accommodating workers allows them to keephardworking,loyalemployees.Hence,employers are gaining in many ways by retaining employees who are capable and valued. Employer desire to comply with ADA regulations may be framed as concern for the financial bottom line and an avoidance of costly litigation. However, this compliance can also reflect a desire to internally and externallydemonstratethelegalandmoralresponsibility assumed by the company, thus promoting a positive public image and fostering a supportive work environment.
5. Implications
The findings presented here have implications for individuals with disabilities, employers, professionals and policy makers alike. This paper contributes to a bodyofliteraturethatseekstomakethecaseforaccommodating, retaining, and advancing individuals with disabilitiesintheworkplace.Thefocusonretentionfills a gap in the literature, but more research is needed in this area. Though the discussion is framed around benefits for employers, it is evident that benefits extend to non-disabledemployeesandevenbeyondthewallsofa singlefacility.Ifanemployerisawareofthesebenefits, she or he may be more likely to foster more inclusive employment practices. Accommodating and retaining individuals with disabilities in the workplace benefits employers regardless of whether a business owner or publicmanagerisconcernedwithcompliance,increasing productivity, keeping a high-performing worker, maintaining a good public image, or avoiding extra training costs. Individuals with disabilities can use this informationtoadvocateforaccommodationstheyrequest.The insights presented will equip advocates with information to persuade large and small companies to retain
individuals with disabilities. Social work professionals can advocate more effectively on behalf of clients if they know, for example, that most accommodations have little or no cost, or that workplace safety can be increasedasaresultofaccommodations.Associalwork professionals it is important to understand the ways that multiple motivations can be harnessed in order to promote social justice for any population. Lastly, policy makers can also gain valuable information by understanding the benefits of providing accommodations from the employers’ perspective. It is hoped that thisinformationcanbeusedtochangecompanypolicy and practice.
References
[1] W.G. Brueggemann, The Practice of Macro Social Work, Third Edition, Thomson Brooks/Cole, Belmont, CA, 2006. [2] S. Bruyère, Disability employment policies and practices in private and federal sector organizations, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, School of Industrial and Labor Relations Extension Division, Program on Employment and Disability, 2000. [3] C. Domzal, A. Houtenville and R. Sharma, Survey of Employer Perspectives on the Employment of People with Disabilities: Technical Report (Prepared under contract to the Office of Disability and Employment Policy, U.S. Department of Labor), CESSI, McLean, VA, 2008. [4] E. Emens, Integrating accommodation, University of Pennsylvania Law Review 4 (2008), 839–922. [5] R.Habeck,J.Kregel,C.HeadandS.Yasuda,Salientandsubtle aspects of demand side approaches for employment retention: Lessons for public policymakers, Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 26(1) (2007), 21–27. [6] H. Schartz, D.J. Hendricks and P. Blanck, Workplace accommodations: Evidence based outcomes, Work 27 (2006), 345–354. [7] M. Travis, Lashing out at the ADA backlash: How the AmericanswithdisabilitiesactbenefitsAmericanswithoutdisabilities, Tennessee Law Review 76 (2009), 311. [8] D.Unger,Employers’attitudestowardpersonswithdisabilities in the workforce: Myths or realities? Focus on Autism & Other Developmental Disabilities 17(1) (2002), 2–10. [9] D. Unger and J. Kregel, Employers’ view of workplace supports: Virginia Commonwealth University charter business roundtable’s national study of employers’ experiences with workerswithdisabilities.“Employers’KnowledgeandUtilization of Accommodations”. Center for Workforce Preparation. U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Washington, DC, 2000.
Copyright of Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation is the property of IOS Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individu