Is the federal government failing public servants with disabilities?
Article content
These are not rhetorical questions — they are calls to action, and they deserve to be addressed with transparency and urgency.
Article content
You are not alone in seeing how some human resources systems, rather than supporting accommodation and equity, have too often become vehicles of exclusion, indifference or gatekeeping. When the very structures that are meant to uphold fairness become the source of harm, trust erodes and employees — particularly those with disabilities — are left to navigate an already unequal terrain with fewer and fewer supports.
Article content
Ableism — whether unconscious or overt — is still deeply embedded in many workplace cultures. It shows up in assumptions about productivity, in resistance to flexible work arrangements, and in the way accommodations are treated as burdens rather than rights. It shows up when requests are scrutinized, disbelieved or delayed to the point of despair. And it shows up, as you so clearly describe, in the erosion of human dignity.
Article content
Article content
The federal public service has made commitments — both legislative and moral — to create barrier-free workplaces. Frameworks such as the Accessible Canada Act, the Duty to Accommodate Directive and departmental diversity and inclusion strategies are meant to guide and support these efforts. But implementation is everything. Policies without accountability are just words on paper.
Article content
As you know, the duty to accommodate requires that adjustments be made up to the point of undue hardship, taking into account cost, health and safety.
Article content
However, the threshold for undue hardship is high, and should never be invoked lightly. It is not enough to state a policy exists or corporate liability is too high — departments must live up to the spirit and intent of that policy through transparent, compassionate and evidence-based action.
Article content
Employees with disabilities must not be expected to carry the burden of culture change alone. While your leadership has undoubtedly created ripples of hope and justice, systemic transformation cannot rest on the shoulders of volunteers.
Article content
Article content
Departments must invest in structural change, including:
Article content
Mandatory disability bias training for HR professionals and managers
Transparent tracking of accommodation timelines and outcomes
Clear consequences when legal obligations or ethical duties are ignored
Independent oversight mechanisms, including disability-informed ombudspersons and review panels
Mental health supports and peer networks for employee advocates experiencing burnout or moral injury
Article content
It is also essential that federal leaders — from senior executives to front-line managers — actively listen to voices like yours, not defensively, but with humility and a willingness to be accountable. That includes following through on reports of systemic failure, taking allegations of discrimination seriously, and creating mechanisms for redress that do not re-traumatize those who come forward.
Article content
Finally, I want to say this: you are right to feel the way you do. You are not 'too sensitive.' You are not overreacting. You are responding with the moral clarity of someone who sees injustice and refuses to look away. Your anger is not only valid — it is necessary. It is the fire that calls others to awaken.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Toronto Star
22 minutes ago
- Toronto Star
‘Gas station heroin' is technically illegal and widely available. Here are the facts
WASHINGTON (AP) — Health officials want you to think twice before buying one of those brightly colored little bottles often sold at gas stations, convenience stores and smoke shops. Sometimes called 'gas station heroin,' the products are usually marketed as energy shots or cognitive supplements but actually contain tianeptine, an unapproved drug that can be addictive and carries risks of serious side effects.
Los Angeles Times
22 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
What will happen to food assistance under Trump's tax cut plan? A look at the numbers
President Trump's plan to cut taxes by trillions of dollars could also trim billions in spending from social safety net programs, including food assistance for lower-income people. The proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program would make states pick up more of the costs, require several million more recipients to work or lose their benefits, and potentially reduce the amount of food aid people receive in the future. The legislation, which narrowly passed the U.S. House, could undergo further changes in the Senate, where it's currently being debated. Trump wants lawmakers to send the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' to his desk by July 4, when the nation marks the 249th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Here's a look at the food assistance program, by the numbers: The federal aid program formerly known as food stamps was renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, on Oct. 1, 2008. The program provides monthly payments for food purchases to low-income residents generally earning less than $1,632 monthly for individuals, or $3,380 monthly for a household of four. The nation's first experiment with food stamps began in 1939. But the modern version of the program dates to 1979, when a change in federal law eliminated a requirement that participants purchase food stamps. There currently is no cost to people participating in the program. A little over 42 million people nationwide received SNAP benefits in February, the latest month for which figures are available. That's roughly one out of every eight people in the country. Participation is down from a peak average of 47.6 million people during the 2013 federal fiscal year. Often, more than one person in a household is eligible for food aid. As of February, nearly 22.5 million households were enrolled in SNAP, receiving an average monthly household benefit of $353. The money can be spent on most groceries, but the Trump administration recently approved requests by six states — Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska and Utah — to exclude certain items, such as soda or candy. Legislation passed by the House is projected to cut about $295 billion in federal spending from SNAP over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. A little more than half of those federal savings would come from shifting costs to states, which administer SNAP. Nearly one-third of those savings would come from expanding a work requirement for some SNAP participants, which the CBO assumes would force some people off the rolls. Additional money would be saved by eliminating SNAP benefits for between 120,000 and 250,000 immigrants legally in the U.S. who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. Another provision in the legislation would cap the annual inflationary growth in food benefits. As a result, the CBO estimates that the average monthly food benefit would be about $15 lower than it otherwise would have been by 2034. To receive SNAP benefits, current law says adults ages 18 through 54 who are physically and mentally able and don't have dependents need to work, volunteer or participate in training programs for at least 80 hours a month. Those who don't do so are limited to just three months of benefits in a three-year period. The legislation that passed the House would expand work requirements to those ages 55 through 64. It also would extend work requirements to some parents without children younger than age 7. And it would limit the ability of states to waive work requirements in areas that lack sufficient jobs. The combined effect of those changes is projected by the CBO to reduce SNAP participation by a monthly average of 3.2 million people. The federal government currently splits the administrative costs of SNAP with states but covers the full cost of food benefits. Under the legislation, states would have to cover three-fourths of the administrative costs. States also would have to pay a portion of the food benefits starting with the 2028 fiscal year. All states would be required to pay at least 5% of the food aid benefits, and could pay more depending on how often they make mistakes with people's payments. States that had payment error rates between 6-8% in the most recent federal fiscal year for which data is available would have to cover 15% of the food costs. States with error rates between 8-10% would have to cover 20% of the food benefits, and those with error rates greater than 10% would have to cover 25% of the food costs. Many states could get hit with higher costs. The national error rate stood at 11.7% in the 2023 fiscal year, and just three states — Idaho, South Dakota and Vermont — had error rates below 5%. But the 2023 figures are unlikely to serve as the base year, so the exact costs to states remains unclear. As a result of the cost shift, the CBO assumes that some states would reduce or eliminate benefits for people. The House resolution containing the SNAP changes and tax cuts passed last month by a margin of just one vote — 215-214. A vote also could be close in the Senate, where Republicans hold 53 of the 100 seats. Democrats did not support the bill in the House and are unlikely to do so in the Senate. Some Republican senators have expressed reservations about proposed cuts to food assistance and Medicaid and the potential impact of the bill on the federal deficit. GOP Senate leaders may have to make some changes to the bill to ensure enough support to pass it. Lieb writes for the Associated Press.
Daily Mail
22 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Why Tasmania will always be Australia's biggest loser - and it's not just because of THAT doomed footy stadium. Plus, Q+A is dead... but there will be more TV funerals to come: PVO
RIP Q+A - but there will be more funerals to come The death of Q&A - once a marquee program on the ABC capable of attracting audiences in excess of one million - tells you everything you need to know about the slow and steady decline of free-to-air television.
