Most employers are conscious of their social responsibility to give disabled people a chance to be work productively. Similarly, one would assume that a government agency that is responsible to ensure that such individuals are given a fair chance to find suitable employment is acting in good faith and in the best interest of its clients.

So when the Malta Employers Association felt it necessary to file a judicial protest in court claiming that legislation aimed to promote the employment of disabled people “was more aimed at generating revenue” by the Employment and Training Corporation, one is more than justified in being concerned.

According to law, every employer has an obligation of employing at least two per cent of the workforce from the list of disabled people that is held by the ETC. If they fail to do so, employers risk having to pay a fine.

Employers argue that they do not “have access to the ETC register of people with a disability”.

It appears that the ETC is insisting that, under the Data Protection Act, it is not in a position to divulge the names of people registered as suffering from some form of disability. In the circumstances, the MEA notes, employers could never officially know who of their workers have a disability and who of them actually featured on the ETC register.

So red tape is once again discouraging employers from being effective stakeholders in the effort to promote social inclusion. The government that has committed itself to tackle bureaucracy may be missing the woods for the trees by insisting that only those disabled people who feature on the ETC register should be considered as disabled.

Those who are near the real world of business know of various cases where employers help staff members who may be suffering from long-term disabilities without necessarily being listed on the ETC register. The cases of mental illnesses, like depression and personality disorders, substance dependence, debilitating chronic physical diseases, and other cases of morbidity that afflict some employees are increasing. However, many employers continue to support these unofficially-disabled workers even if government records fail to capture such disability cases.

The MEA is right in appealing for more social dialogue on this delicate issue rather than the imposition of unfair officialdom measures that discourage employers from carrying out their social obligations willingly.

The legalistic approach taken by the ETC is unfortunate.

Only through a genuine dialogue with employers to define disability in a pragmatic way, which reflects the realities that exist in the workplace, can employers be encouraged to take on more disabled persons in their workforce.

Quoting data protection and other legislation to avoid a sensible dialogue with employers on the sensitive subject of providing disabled people, whether registered as such or not, with the opportunity to work productively is not going to make the life of such individuals any easier.

The interest of disabled individuals that the ETC is obliged to put at the very top of their priorities is what really matters. Following the letter of the law risks frustrating the very scope for which the law was enacted.

To tell an ‘unregistered’ person that is afflicted by some serious disability that, in reality, s/he is not disabled in the eyes of law borders on the insulting.

The ETC and the MEA should sit round a table and see how they can really promote the social inclusion of all disabled people. Snipping red tape would be a good beginning.