The Accessibility
Standard for Customer Service Regulation obligates Ontario businesses and
their employees to communicate with persons with disabilities in a manner that
takes into account the person’s disability. Employers must train employees to
interact and communicate with people that have various types of disabilities.
Training should also cover appropriate terminology.
People
with disabilities are not alone in wanting terminology to convey their positive
abilities as human beings, rather than the negative language of their
conditions. How we use our words to perpetuate negative stereotypes is
important, and how we refer to another person is vital. But how can we
recognize simple terms that, when combined with other words, may convey the
wrong message? What do we do when words like “normal” or “average” are common
terms in science, statistics, government policy, education and medicine, and
have become socially functional words that may simultaneously be insulting?
It is
interesting to see that words like “crippled” and “lame” have been readily
accepted as negative terms. Yet because all of us are used to being graded in
relation to the average from infancy, we have difficulty letting go of some
words to refer to a person with a particular disability. When describing a
person with a specific disability, the words “disorder”, “disease”, “below
average” and “dysfunction” flow off the tongue and pages. Audiences absorb the
negative associations from repeated use of these words in reference to people
with disabilities.
Today,
our understanding and social treatment of people with disabilities attempts to
focus on a person’s “differing abilities” rather than his or her disabilities.
While many advocacy groups have accepted “disability” as a necessary label,
they want to focus on the “ability” portion of the word. For example, now it is
common to write “disAbility” to remind a reader persons with disabilities still
have abilities.
The
terminology associated with disability is fluid and a word that may have been
accepted last year may have changed this year; thus making the learning curve a
little difficult. Finding the right words can be a daunting experience, but if
you aim to stay within the lexicon of positive social words, you are going in
the right direction.
This
strategy also works when it comes to training. Unless specific employees need
to know medical terms, there is no reason to provide medical reasons for the
variety of disabilities they may encounter. For example, at no time does a
server have a right to ask about the nature of a customer’s disability.
Training should be based on alternative methods to communicate and interact
when the customer is not responsive to a specific method. Under the customer
service standard, every organization commits itself (explicitly in a mission or
policy statement) to the core principles of dignity, independence, integration
and equality.
How can you change the words you use to show
respect for people with disabilities?
If you are interested in learning more about Accessibility
for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) or how to make accessibility a
natural part of your business through the application of Corporate Social
Responsibility, please contact Sandra Broekhof @ 416-579-1035 or sandra_broekhof@sympatico.ca or visit www.accessibilitycompliance.ca
No comments:
Post a Comment