Australian Disability Network has created a fun video on employing people with disability. The messages are easy to take in especially with the humour – both presenters are stand-up comedians with disability. It’s all part of a campaign titled, “Choose Inclusion”.
The title of the fun six minute video is, It’s Not Hard to be Inclusive with the hashtag #RemoveBarriers. The film was created after consultation with people with disability.
Australian Disability Network will share case studies, articles, workplace tips, and fact sheets in the weeks leading up to December 3. The aim is for organisations to remove employment barriers for people with disability. Of course, the information is good for older employees too. The Choose Inclusion campaign resources are available to ADN members.
The presenters have fun with some of the common misconceptions about disability and then provide some interesting facts. So, a really good video to share with HR departments and managers responsible for recruiting.
Australians will be invited to share their own stories and tips to choose inclusion across social media, using the hashtags #ChooseInclusion #RemoveBarriers and #IDPwD2024. Australian Disability Network was previously known as Australian Network on Disability. They focus on engaging and educating employers.
From the US comes a disability inclusion toolkit that focuses on the inclusion of people with disability. It also includes people who are neurodivergent. It has resources, best practices and is informed by the perspectives of people living and working with disability.
This online resource is for both employers and employees written in an easy to read format including personal experiences. There are four main sections:
1. Assume you don’t know what disability looks like.
2. Embrace a customised approach to disability inclusion.
3. Disability inclusion needs to be a business priority.
4. Familiarise yourself with accessibility in education.
The Disability Inclusion Toolkit was produced by the Dallas Chamber of Commerce. The data, resources, and best practices are informed by the perspective of experts and people living and working with disability.
Diversity and inclusion: Can we co-design our work?
Employers are experimenting with managing the changing face of work and employee feedback is of course essential. So, will universal design principles and the practice of co-design come to the fore in designing work? Perhaps.
Most employees currently working in a hybrid model want it retained. Areport by McKinsey found this was the case across the board. They also found that marginalised groups wanted it more than others:
Employees with disabilities were 11 percent more likely to prefer a hybrid work model than employees without disabilities.
More than 70 percent of male and female respondents expressed strong preferences for hybrid work, but nonbinary employees were 14 percent more likely to prefer it.
LGBQ+ employees were 13 percent more likely to prefer hybrid work than their heterosexual peers.
However, the McKinsey report highlighted potential pitfalls:
Hybrid work has the potential to create an unequal playing field if not done correctly.
Companies need to prioritize the most critical inclusion practices: work-life support, team building, and mutual respect.
Marginalized groups are more likely to prefer a hybrid work model and would be more likely to leave if it was not available.
Hybrid good for inclusion
In their survey, 75 percent of all respondents said that they prefer a hybrid working model. Only 25 percent said they prefer to be full time on-site. An employee who might be hiding a disability, gender identity or sexual orientation can avoid declaring it. Concealing this information takes a toll on employee wellbeing and performance. Until workplaces are truly more inclusive hybrid works well for many groups.
Diversity, equity and inclusion are the current buzz words in the workplace, and it all starts with recruiting. So, how inclusive are job descriptions? Using gender inclusive language, meaning cisgender inclusive, now seems normal. Now we need to think about language for all marginalised groups. Grand Valley State University Libraries has an Inclusive Job Descriptions Toolkit to help.
The toolkit is focused on university recruitment, but the information can be used in other contexts. They use the acronym IDEA – Inclusion, Diversity, Equity and Access.
The first part of the toolkit outlines best practices and the second part provides an equity lens for reviewing the job descriptions. The appendices include additional language and job description templates.
The toolkit lists the components of a job description some of which are specific to the university context. However, all job descriptions should give an employee a clear guide to the role and what is expected of them. A job description answers the question “What does this role do?” The next section gives guidance on writing inclusive job descriptions.
Writing an inclusive job description
Inclusive language reduces the likelihood of applicants from self-selecting out. Biased language can occur unintentionally and can have a negative impact on recruitment efforts. For example, a job being suited to a recent graduate may signal a desire to avoid older workers.
The section on tips for writing job descriptions has many of the usual points for clear communication. For example: conciseness, simple gender inclusive language, and avoiding acronyms. Other tips are on phrasing such as moving from “excellent communication skills” to “ability to communicate clearly and effectively”.
The toolkit lists gender, race, and ableist coded words that most people wouldn’t consider as non-inclusive:
Racially Coded Words: Excellent English-language skills, clear-spoken, native English speaker, cultural fit, nice, polite, Latino/Latina, professionalism
Ableist-Coded Words: Energetic, athletic, able-bodied individual, talking with students, walking through the building
The section that follows gives examples of how to make changes to phrasing. The section on ableist phrasing could do with some improvements, but it gives the idea.
Equity lens for diversity and inclusion
Applying an equity lens is a reminder that an organisation cannot embody IDEA without reviewing and updating their job descriptions and recruitment practices.
“It is explicit in drawing attention to the inclusion of marginalized populations, typically communities of color, and can be adapted to focus on other communities. … An equity lens will not tell you what action to take. Rather, the lens helps you discuss and reflect on the equitableness of the action and decision-making process.”
The document can also be found on the Library Reports and Communication webpage. Grand Scholar Works is a service of the Grand Valley State University Libraries. Michigan USA.
The Future of the Office in Australia
Sourceable reports on the changing face of the office – the place where hybrid work is possible. The article has a real-estate focus but includes a nod to access and inclusion:
“… employers are facing rising pressure to address environmental, social, and governance issues in their offices and policies. Buildings that are inclusive and accessible for all workers have become more prominent in the industry, with popular features of new office buildings including prayer rooms and gender-neutral facilities.”
“The universal design approach aspires to create spaces that are not just accessible or usable, but inclusive for everyone.” This is the opening line of a chapter on universal designand workplaces in the Handbook of High-Performance Workplaces.
Authors Imogen Howe and Andrew Martel remind us that disability can be temporary or permanent and at any stage of life. Complying with codes in workplace design is not that same as quality design or even adequate design. That means some people will experience barriers that prevent participation and make them feel unwelcome and second class.
Seven principles expanded
Howe and Martel turn to the seven principles of universal design and take them one step further. They should be applied to assistive technology, tools, organisational or operational decisions, as well as the physical space of the workplace. Integrating these elements into a universal design approach benefits all workers.
The authors explain how the principles of universal design have moved from the 1997 interpretation to a more contemporary one. The principles were formed primarily with the built environment in mind. Universal design thinking has evolved to embrace a broader concept of inclusion in all aspects of life.
Universal design should remain agile and flexible to respond to socio-cultural advancements. It was never meant to be one-size-fits-all as this is impossible. An inclusive society needs both mainstream and targeted individual solutions as well.
A checklist is included at the end of the chapter where each of the principles is applied to workplace situations. This is one of the difficulties of explaining universal design. On one hand it isn’t about a checklist – it’s a thinking process. But designers need something to guide them. In co-design processes with end users, checklists often become redundant. However, checklists are a good place to start for people new to the concept of designing inclusively.
From the conclusion
Since the pandemic many businesses have introduced flexible work arrangements which have proven to be efficient and productive. Urban-based office buildings are just one place to work. Working from home is one strategy that suits people who struggle with transport or have caring duties.
A universal design approach is a way employers can attract people with diverse needs when seeking work. The principles of universal design can assist designers to implement inclusive thinking in their designs. Implementing these principles early in the design process is inexpensive and can result in more flexible, sustainable buildings that benefit all users.
Being forced to work from home during a pandemic is very different to choosing this mode of work. The pandemic showed us that we could work from home successfully and employees want it to continue. This is the outcome of some recent research shows many people are happier working from home. And for some, working from home is the only real option.
“While some of the health evidence about working from home is mixed, overall it shows giving workers the flexibility to choose to work from home can be good for their physical and mental health.”
An article in The Conversation explains the subtle but important differences working from home makes to peoples lives. Time saved in the commute means more time for short active trips. Researchers found that snacking increased, but the quality of the snacks improved. Mental health improved when employees were supported by colleagues and the organisation. Concerns over team work, connection and attachment mean that a hybrid model works well.
Good for some, necessary for others
Workers with disability favour working from home for obvious reasons. Not having to worry about access to transport, the built environment, and workplace design. When you factor in the fatigue and pain experienced during a commute the benefits are compounded. But it’s not just people with physical disabilities that benefit. People who are neurodiverse are better able to manage their health conditions as well.
Women, especially mothers and caregivers, reported improved wellbeing. The added flexibility enabled them to balance paid employment with unpaid caregiving.
Giving employees the choice to work from home at least some of the time during the week is a step forward in the equity stakes. Flexibility gives people with disability of any age the opportunity to compete more equitably with others. And it’s not all one-sided – employers benefit too.
The problem with trying to apply the classic seven principles of universal design everywhere is that they don’t apply universally. This becomes apparent in an article about ethics and the workplace where some of the principles cannot apply. The seven principles are to help people think about inclusion, not use them as a checklist.
Equitable Use
Flexibility in Use
Simple and Intuitive to Use
Perceptible Information
Tolerance for Error
Low Physical Effort
Size and Space for Approach and Use
A paper published in Journal of Business Ethics explores the seven principles in relation to workplaces and people with disability. It soon becomes clear that it isn’t that useful especially if trying to apply all seven. Consequently, businesses will struggle to apply the seven principles and likely discouraged from taking action.
No matter how much universal design thinking goes into making workplaces inclusive, there will always be jobs that some people cannot do. The aim is to find or create jobs that suit people with different disabilities. That’s where ethics come into play.
In the article, the authors argue that inclusive and ethical workplaces involve both organisational and spatial choices. The key is cross-fertilization between organisation studies and universal design. This will improve understanding of the ethical issues when thinking about including people with disability in the workplace.
Cross-fertilising organisational and spatial studies with a universal design approach allows for more ethically sound and inclusive workplaces. This is useful for discovering what is possible and what is not. This also requires abandoning any notion of a perfect productive body. We are all collectively vulnerable and interdependent within workplaces.
Abandoning the Notion of a Perfect and Productive Body
Universal design invites organizations to rethink inclusion in the workplace, neither as a special accommodation nor as a recognition of the specialness of impairment. Disability is a natural and ubiquitous condition of being human.
Rethinking inclusion at work
Universal design also prompts a paradigm shift from deficit to diversity. The focus shifts to embracing the needs and abilities of all workers and ensuring equal opportunities for participation. The scope of universal design also encompasses all facets of organisational structure and power dynamics.
This paper examines the ethical issues of the inclusion of workers with disabilities in the workplace. It takes a cross-fertilization approach between organization studies, the ethics of care, and universal design.
It explores how organizations can use universal design to develop more inclusive workplaces. First by applying universal design principles to workspaces. Second by showing how universal design takes understanding of inclusion from the workspace to the workplace.
The paper discusses the ethical challenges and complexities of applying universal design across diverse organisation and industries. Finally, inclusion requires abandoning any notion of a perfect, productive body. Therefore, we share vulnerability and interdependence in the workplace.
How do you measure diversity and inclusion in the workplace if people don’t identify as being in a defined or separate category? And why should they? Diverse from what or whom? What is the baseline measure and who is doing the measuring? And is disability or ageing considered part of the diverse workforce population? A research team in Italy had a look at workplace diversity, design and strategy to assess the state of play.
“The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted how much the physical environment can affect people’s well-being, mental health, social relationships, customs and habits.”
In their paper, the researchers discuss examples of workplaces that claim to promote a culture of diversity and reduced discrimination. Many have created positions for “Diversity and Inclusion Managers” to asses the mismatch between company and employee perceptions of inclusion. Details of the research methodology include diversity types, design features, workplace policies and strategies.
Disability, race, gender
Company reports embrace and list diversity features. The most cited diversity feature is disability, followed by ethnicity/race, gender, sexual orientation and age. However, ignoring this listing and focusing on inclusion and accessibility provides other measures of success.
Inclusion is when “an employee feels a sense of community and belonging in a work system, being accepted by others for their unique characteristics and treated as an insider.”
Companies focus on HR policies for inclusion but don’t address aspects such as workspace design. This separation neglects the role of architectural and interior design. However, there is research on the physical elements of workplace design. Floor plans, acoustic comfort, choice of materials and green building certifications all have a role to play.
Diversity and inclusion is more than a policy or strategy. Organisations need to join the dots between employment practices and the design of the workplace. For people with disability in particular both are essential. An inclusive corporate culture together with an appropriately designed physical environment is what’s required. That’s universal design in action.
While organisations of all types claim to be implementing diversity strategies in the workplace, it isn’t easy to measure their validity. The video from the UK is a parody on employers who say their organisations are diverse.
From the abstract
This paper explores how scientific literature and company reports address inclusive workplace design and strategies. It asks the following question: To what extent is inclusion present in workplace design and related strategies?
We analysed 27 scientific papers and 25 corporate social responsibility reports of the highest-ranked companies in the Great Place to Work global ranking. We disentangled the main aspects related to workplace design and strategies for promoting inclusion.
This paper reports on four macro-categories of diversity that support the development of inclusive workplace design. These are psychophysical; cultural; socio-economic conditions; and ability, experience and strengths.
Although diversity, equity and inclusion (DE&I) is key in many organizations, it remains unclear how DE&I principles are applied in workspace design and strategies. This scoping review integrates scientific knowledge and practice-based approaches which address this matter independently.
School to work transition
The transitioning from school to work report indicates that outcomes can be improved for young people with disability. But only when mechanisms are in place to enhance what is usually available within schools, post school education and in the disability employment ecosystem.
Despite a policy context in Australia that professes to policy goals of increased employment for people with disability and successful school to work transition, people with disability remain less likely to complete year 12, attend university, or gain work experience and employment than their peers.
In 2012, Ticket to Work commenced as an initiative to change these outcomes and bring evidence-based transition practice to Australia. It’s an innovative approach aimed at improving transition to work from school for young people with disability.
This report:
Brings together the international research evidence about elements that result in successful transition from school to work for young people with disability
Provides an analysis of the ecosystem in which young people with disability experience transition from school in Australia, and
Gives a description of the Australian transition initiative, Ticket to Work and its impact on transition for this group
Business and academic research on inclusive workplace cultures typically focus on race and/or gender. Disability and neurodiversity are often overlooked or excluded from this research and resulting policies and practices. A universal design approach is the way to take a holistic look at the issues and solutions for neurodiversity in the workplace. Indeed, these are good workplace practices for everyone. That’s what universal design is about.
Workplace employee groups can help marginalised groups feel heard, but they can also place an additional burden on individuals to seek workplace improvements.
A short paper by Preziosa and Hill uses the 7 principles of universal design as a framework for implementing inclusive practices. The authors present the 7 principles in a matrix, and used four principles, briefly outlined below, as an example:
Equitable Use: Avoid the need for people with disability to have separate service or experiences. Eliminate label-based inclusion, such as targeted hiring programs for autistic people. This segregates employees into specific fields and requires them to self-identify any “special” condition they have.
Flexibility in Use: Build in preferences outside the norm such as playback speed options for training videos. Offer to be flexible and acknowledge that individual differences are expected and welcome.
Simple and Intuitive to Use: Avoid unnecessary complexity and repetition of processes, tools, and webpages.
Tolerance for Error: Allow room for mistakes and edits. Ensure digital form, tools and software allow for review and correction.
The authors claim that neurodiverse employees who receive support services show higher retention rates, and most required less than 4 support hours a month. In addition, many benefitted from support with problem solving and organising their work.
Universal design and employment scenarios
The authors matrix consists of 7 universal design principles and 6 workplace elements. They are: Designing, Hiring, Contracting, Training, Performance Review and Wellbeing. The information is also good for managing groups and teams outside the workplace environment.
People with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism, anxiety or depression can feel stressed and uncomfortable. Consequently they are less productive. Employers could be missing out by not considering neurodiversity in the workplace.
As many as one in eight people are neurodiverse according to an article in The Fifth Estate. COVID led to sterile environments. Offices removed their fabric coverings and other soft elements to make cleaning easier. But it makes spaces noisy, clinical and uninviting.
Even working from home isn’t the answer for everyone. Just because you can work from home doesn’t mean you should. Long hours in a hard chair at the kitchen table isn’t optimum.
The article discusses colour, signage, the size and shape of spaces, textiles and plants. Even games such as Foosball tables have a place.
The solutions are in design of the office, the office culture and inclusive policies. When it comes to neurodiversity we have to ask, what is neurotypical anyway? Workplace designs that consider diversity are good for everyone.
“This groundbreaking book combines the lived experience with academic rigor, innovative thought leadership, and lively, accessible writing. To support different types of readers, academic, applied, and lived experience content is clearly identified, helping readers choose their own adventure.”
Promoting the concepts of diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging often falls to members of minority groups – people who are not included. But it’s actually up to members of the majority to step up for inclusion and get involved in DEIB.
Cody J Smith’s articlelists 10 actions people in the majority can do to improve DEIB. He writes in the context of the sciences, but these actions apply anywhere. His ten actions are briefly listed below. It’s interesting that Smith has added “belonging” to today’s standard “DEI”. Belonging is how you feel when DEI is happening.
10 actions for inclusion
1. Listen to people’s experiences. Read the growing literature by people from underrepresented groups. If you are in the majority, what can you do to improve matters. 2. Check your implicit biases. Implicit bias is rampant in awards, publications, promotions and speaker selection. 3. Stop interrupting. Take time to watch the dynamics of meeting. If you identify someone overly interrupting, invite the person who was speaking to finish their point. 4. As you take a lead to impact DEIB, you will make mistakes. As in science, learn from them and adapt until you find a solution. 5. People from minority groups are often asked to take on additional responsibilities to represent their minority group. This extra work should be compensated rather than asking them to sign up for “the greater good”. 6. Those in the majority can wait for change, but that is not the case for those in the minority. Start working on solutions for immediate change. 7. Get in the room. Make an effort to attend DEIB events and encourage others in the majority to attend. Be careful to schedule non DEIB events so they don’t conflict with DEIB events. 8. Train others to advocate – start discussions and share literature. 9. Include DEIB in the classroom/staff meetings – is your work inclusive? 10. Find a DEIB champion. Smith explains the impact of Ben Barres who was the first openly transgender member of the National Academy of Sciences. Barres shares experiences of being both a woman and a man, and the impact of sexual harassment.
Learn from discomfort
The ten points are in the context of a science lecturer and researcher but the points are clear. Smith encourages people to “lean into any discomfort” you might experience – it will be how you learn – if you listen. For more detail see Smith’s article.
The main point though is that without the majority taking a lead, the minority cannot do it alone. After all, it is the majority who decide whether “others” will be included, feel validated and like they belong.
Autism awareness campaigns have highlighted the socio-economic inequalities experienced by autistic people. A new stereotype has emerged from autism workplace campaigns such as autistic ‘talent’ and autism ‘advantage’. The aim of these labels is meant to encourage employers to hire autistic workers. But what we really need is a universal design approach. A briefing paper from Queensland University of Technology examines this new phenomena.
Awareness campaigns are based on the desire to do the right thing to improve socio-political conditions and opportunities for employment. However, they can lead to focusing on specific traits as if they are special. It adds up to stereotyping.
Marketing autistic people with ‘autistic traits’ will not guarantee inclusion even if it results in employment. Indeed, such marketing can result in thinking that all autistic people are the same. Nevertheless, highlighting the strengths and skills of autistic people could change negative perceptions and open up employment opportunities.
But these kinds of awareness-raising initiatives rely on ableist assumptions and a hierarchy of difference. That is, society still regards non-disabled people as the norm so people with disability remain outside this categorisation. Then thoughts turn to specialised accommodations.
Universal design as an alternative
The authors invite readers to focus on re-organising work so that the most number of people benefit without having to be excluded before they are included. They propose a universal design paradigm for inclusivity.
Contrary to traditional diversity and inclusion approaches that define or limit what diversity and inclusion mean, who is diverse and how they might be identified, Universal Design creates the conditions for diversity and inclusion to occur naturally.
Calista Castles, & Deanna Grant-Smith
Many of the diversity and inclusion measures that segregate socio-political groups, could benefit us all. A universal design approach negates the need for raising awareness of differences and can transition society towards acceptance of human difference.
If social, work and learning environments were universally designed we wouldn’t need special initiatives. These initiatives only serve to reinforce the marginalisation and stereotypes by reminding people of human difference. Or that special accommodations need to be made.
If there is a supportive environment, many autistic people could be employed. Indeed, they could flourish and be an asset to the workplace. Employers need to know what sort of adjustments are needed so they can reach their potential. Often they are really simple, particularly if thinking from a universal design perspective.
An interesting and informative article from London South Bank University covers the topic comprehensively. The open access article can be downloaded in Word from the university website. The title of the article is “Identifying and Addressing Barriers to Employment of Autistic Adults”. In the UK they have The Equality Act and The Autism Act which emphasise access to work. Good to see this topic being covered.
Aspect Capable website has more information on a Australian initiative and the video shows how autistic people can achieve in the workplace.
If we say older people make more loyal and reliable employees, what does that say about younger people? And anyway, are these stereotypes valid? Ironically, public policy uses age stereotypes to overcome stereotypes about older workers. However, the connection between age and workplace competence is not supported in the research.
One of the key issues here is that there is no clear definition of what an ‘older worker’ is. This makes it difficult to build relevant public policy. The range of ages is between 40 and 64 depending on who is doing the research.
The other issue is how to manage the intersection of age with other characteristics such as gender and work type. So, there is a need for an approach that acknowledges people of a given age are not all alike. The stereotypes are a social construct and have little to do with individuals. Hence, employment programs should be based on individual need rather than age. Indeed, older age based programs only serve to entrench the stereotypes.
Age discrimination is not related to one age group. Younger people face discrimination in the workplace too. The research indicates that the attributes canvased by advocates of older workers are not necessarily those that employers seek.
Emergency workers transfer knowledge to new contexts. Image by Jon Pauling.
Public policy that pushes for a longer working life also makes several assumptions. People who work in jobs that cannot be done in later life, are overlooked in this scenario. And ‘productive ageing’ might not mean paid work, or that retirement is unproductive.
Population ageing has brought calls to prolong working lives. This has the potential to be a good thing for individuals and the economy. However, not everyone has a job-type that will support the extension of their paid working life.
Public policy
Philip Taylor and Warwick Smith provide a thoughtful overview of the situation in their conference paper, Rethinking Advocacy on Ageing and Work. Policymaking should aim for measures that support all people in transition, for instance, in entry to work, job loss and re-entry to work, based on the assumption that the needs of young and old are not much different.
Advocates for older workers might be doing them a dis-service by perpetuating stereotypes. Younger and older workers are not in competition. Consequently both will benefit from efforts to promote their sustained employment.
Examples of stereotyping in reports
Front cover of report
Four years ago Per Capita published a report with the title, What’s age got to do with it? It challenged the stereotypical statements about older workers. Although these were meant to be positive statements, they were reinforcing stereotyping. Stereotypes gain currency in society and the result is discrimination.
The research focused on attitudes about age rather than behaviours. It involved an online survey of 2440 Australians and 11 focus groups. Ninety per cent of respondents agreed that ageism exists. However, some respondents weren’t clear what ageism is.
Making jokes about age was seen as more acceptable than making jokes about race or gender. Many thought the media played a significant role in producing stereotypical portrayals of all age groups. Stereotypes are strongly held by each group and accepted as fact. The report explores this.
Ageism impacts our human rights. We all have a right to health, education, housing and employment. We have the right to basic freedoms and to make choices. Consciously or subconsciously those in power can infringe these rights based on what they believe to be true .
The report was led by Kay Patterson, Commissioner for Ageing and consequently, the report is presented within this context. However the findings support the earlier work by Philip Taylor and Warwick Smith in the Per Capita report. Their work challenged the earlier report, Willing to Work, also published by the Human Rights Commission,
Age discrimination is illegal in Australia, but when it comes to employment things get tricky. And then there is the question of the government wanting people to work to a later age. However, what are the real facts on this issue? Philip Taylor lists eight myths in a summary of an article for the Diversity Council of Australia.
Debunking the myths:
Myth 1. Age discrimination towards older workers is endemic. Reality: Age discrimination is potentially faced by all workers.
Myth 2: Different generations have different orientations to work. Reality: It is employee life stage (e.g. school leaver, working parent, graduating to retirement) that makes a big difference – not generation.
Myth 3: Older people are an homogeneous group. Reality: Older and younger people have intersectional parts of their identity which impacts on how they experience inclusion at work.
Myth 4: Older workers outperform younger ones in terms of their reliability, loyalty, work ethic and life experience. Reality: Performance is not linked to age – except in very rare circumstances.
Myth 5: Older people have a lifetime of experience that managers should recognise. Reality: Relevant experience, is more valuable than experience, of itself.
Myth 6: Younger workers are more dynamic, entrepreneurial, and tech savvy than older workers. Reality: Older people have a lot to offer the modern workplace.
Myth 7: Younger workers feel entitled and won’t stick around. Reality: Younger workers are more likely to be in insecure employment and to experience unemployment.
Myth 8: Older people who stay on at work are taking jobs from younger people. Reality: Increasing the employment of older workers does not harm and may even benefit, younger people’s employment prospects.
The authors explain how the principles of universal design have moved from the 1997 interpretation to a more contemporary one. The principles were formed primarily with the built environment in mind. Universal design thinking has evolved to embrace a broader concept of inclusion in all aspects of life. 
If we say older people make more loyal and reliable employees, what does that say about younger people? And anyway, are these stereotypes valid? Ironically, public policy uses age stereotypes to overcome stereotypes about older workers. 
Age discrimination is illegal in Australia, but when it comes to employment things get tricky. And then there is the question of the government wanting people to work to a later age. However, what are the real facts on this issue? Philip Taylor