Social Representations of Physical Disability in Professional Environments. The Example of Disabled Employees High-Performance Athletes in a Service Company

Abstract

For many authors (Barel & Fremeaux, 2012; Blanc, 2006; Gardou, 1991; Le Dantec, 2004; Kerroumi, 2007), the integration of disabled people, particularly those with physical disabilities, in the workplace continues to be insufficient in our society. Although various studies (Handicaps-Invalidités-Dépendances (HID) 1999, DARES 2007, INSEE 2010) indicate that there has been noticeable progress, the 2014 study by AGEFIPH and FIPHFP highlights that only two-thirds of physically disabled persons who are capable of working are currently in employment. The Le Houerou parliamentary report (2014, p. 9) states that the rate of unemployment among disabled people is 22%, which is double the national average. In spite of the 1987 and 2005 laws that impose a financial penalty on employers with at least 20 employees that do not achieve the 6% quota of disabled workers, the share of disabled people in public and private companies is still low. Of the 100 100 private-sector establishments affected by this employment obligation in 2011 (2014 key figures from AGEFIPH and FIPHFP, p. 2 and 3), only 41% of them meet or exceed the required threshold. Other establishments either have agreements with service providers regarding indirect employment (11%; +2 points compared with the previous year) or prefer to pay their contributions to AGEFIPH (47%; −2 points). The report fares little better in the public sector. Of the 10 596 establishments listed, only 51% meet or exceed the required 6%. Furthermore, on a national level, AGEFIPH and FIPHFP (Ibid., p. 4 and 5) report that in 2013, the percentage of disabled people recruited into direct employment increased to 3.1% in the private sector and to 4.64% in the public sector (3.56% in government civil service, 5.20% in hospital public service and 5.66% in regional civil service). However, despite clear legislation, it appears that many companies still prefer to pay the fine rather than employ disabled people. Although figures are certainly improving, there is still a persistent gap.

Appendices

Annex I. List of People Surveyed in the Pre-Survey (22)

Role	Company
National head of the disability mission	Mutualité sociale agricole (MSA)
Head of the disability and integration project	Disney
Department of Major accounts	AGEFIPH
Physiotherapist (disabled employee)	Centre de rééducation Martel
Head of the disability mission (disabled employee)	Clarins
Physiotherapist (disabled employee)	Fondation Saint Marie
Head of socio-professional supervision for elite athletes	Fédération Française handisport (French federation for disability sports)
HR and disability mission	Havas
Head of the national disability mission	GDF SUEZ Cofely Ineo
Quality technician (disabled employee)	Elissor
Sports consultant (disabled employee)	Handiamo!
PhD in economics and management	Paris town hall
Head of the disability mission	Assystem France and E&OS
Vice president for social action, health and social education, health and disability	Région Île-de-France
Head of disability mission	BUT
University lecturer, PhD in management science	École de management de Nantes
Head of training	TH Conseil
Inter-regional head of the Île-de-France disability mission	FIPHFP
Head of the disability mission	RATP
Office of career support	Social ministries
Deputy director	Diversidées
Co-founder CEO	Handiamo!

Annex II. Liste des travailleurs handicapés et sportifs de haut niveau (7)

First name	Handicap	Company position	Practised sport
Bastien	Little’s disease	Quality technician	Disabled table tennis player
Olivier	Visually impaired	Physiotherapist	Cyclist
Lionel	Ankylosing spondylitis disability	Mission manager	Disabled rally driver
Michael	Paraplegic	Consultant	Tennisman
Thomas	Visually impaired	Physiotherapist	Nordic skier and bi-athlete
Manon	Functional dystonia	Engineer	Paratriathlete
Charles	Head trauma	Consultant	Swimmer

Annex III. Sex and Roles of People Surveyed in Line with the Free Association Method (30)

Sex	Role
Group A: People with indirect and irregular contact with a disabled colleague (20 employees)
M	Design office technician
M	Business manager
M	Cryptographer (pricing study)
M	Construction site manager
M	Deputy head of maintenance and service
F	Office assistant
M	Deputy branch manager
F	Payroll administrator
F	Office assistant
M	Deputy branch manager
F	HR assistant
M	Head of shop security
M	Maintenance technician
F	Head of maintenance contract
F	Project assistant technician
F	Reception assistant
F	Office manager
M	HR manager
F	Design office manager
M	Business manager
Group B: People with direct and regular contact with a disabled colleague (10 employees)
M	Research technician
M	Research technician
M	Research technician
M	Trade unionist
M	Research technician
F	Research technician
F	Project manager
M	Office manager
M	Office manager
M	Project manager

Annex IV: Correlation Between the Level of Importance and the Frequency of Appearance Using the Free Association Method

Group A: People with indirect and irregular contact with a colleague with a disability (20 respondents)

Group B: People with direct and regular contact with a colleague with a disability (10 respondents)

^aR = Rang moyen d’importance; F = Fréquence; M+/− Moyenne de la connotation; NC = Noyau central des représentation