Coercion into Employment for Disabled and Self-Employed

Updated on 2 Comments on Coercion into Employment for Disabled and Self-Employed
Image Description: Brown & Cream Coloured Image Depicting a Typewriter With Wording "Human Rights Act 1998" Typed On Paper. Image Credit: PhotoFunia.com Category: Vintage Typewriter.
Image Description: Brown & Cream Coloured Image Depicting a Typewriter With Wording “Human Rights Act 1998” Typed On Paper. Image Credit: PhotoFunia.com Category: Vintage Typewriter.

Government Coercion into Employment for Disabled and Self-Employed Individuals: Legal Concerns and Breached Rights

Governments sometimes employ coercive measures to ensure that citizens are actively seeking work, increasing their working hours, or attending mandatory appointments—sometimes without considering an individual’s personal circumstances, including disability, studying or self-employment. Such coercion can often infringe on a number of human rights and statutory protections.

1. Coercion to Seek or Increase Work: Legal Breaches

The push for disabled or self-employed individuals to find work or increase their working hours, often under threat of financial penalties, runs counter to various legal protections.

A. Equality Act 2010 (UK)
The Equality Act 2010 establishes the right to freedom from discrimination based on disability. Coercing individuals with disabilities to seek additional work, increase working hours, or attend appointments regardless of their health circumstances could be seen as a form of discrimination. Section 20 of the Act mandates “reasonable adjustments” for disabled people, which should include flexibility in employment requirements. Forcing someone to work or comply with employment standards without accommodations for their disability might infringe on their right to equality. Equality Act 2010 – Explanatory Notes

B. Human Rights Act 1998 (UK)
The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law. Under Article 8, everyone has the right to respect for private and family life, which includes the right to make personal decisions about work-life balance. Government mandates forcing individuals to work or attend appointments without regard to personal circumstances may breach this right by imposing undue influence on personal decisions. Article 8: Respect for your private and family life | EHRC

C. UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD)
The UNCRPD, which the UK has ratified, emphasizes the right of persons with disabilities to work on an equal basis with others. Article 27 states that countries must promote and protect the rights of people with disabilities to freely choose or accept employment. Coercive measures that do not accommodate a person’s disability undermine this right, particularly if they enforce work hours or attendance without sufficient support. Article 27 – Work and employment | United Nations Enable

2. Coercion to Attend Appointments: Impact on Personal Rights and Health

Mandatory attendance requirements, including interviews, medical assessments, or job center appointments, can have serious repercussions for disabled individuals, particularly when appointments are scheduled without flexibility. Self-employed individuals often face similar requirements, which can disrupt their work obligations and income generation.

A. Disability Discrimination
Under the Equality Act 2010, individuals with disabilities should not face discrimination when accessing public services, including government-mandated appointments. Government bodies are required to ensure accessible services and reasonable accommodations for disabled people, and failing to adjust appointment times or locations to suit individuals’ needs may constitute indirect discrimination. Direct and indirect discrimination | EHRC. Direct and indirect discrimination | EHRC

B. Article 1 of the First Protocol: Protection of property | EHRC
Forcing disabled individuals to attend multiple appointments, often far from home, under threat of penalty can sometimes constitute a violation of Article 1 of the Human Rights Act, particularly where such attendance could result in distress or deterioration in health. This can be exacerbated if individuals are denied the option to complete these appointments remotely or are provided with insufficient notice. Article 1 of the First Protocol: Protection of property | EHRC

3. Economic Coercion: Breach of Right to Self-Employment and Autonomy

For those who are self-employed, government coercion to seek other employment, increase hours, or fulfill appointment requirements can effectively undermine their autonomy and right to choose their livelihood.

A. Contractual Freedom and Self-Employment Rights
Forcing self-employed individuals to take up additional employment or face penalties runs contrary to the principle of contractual freedom. Governments have an obligation to respect the rights of individuals to choose self-employment, as enshrined in Article 23 of the ECHR (right to work). Any undue pressure to change employment or work circumstances, especially under penalty, could constitute an interference with this right. https://www.ohchr.org/

B. The Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions (ECHR, Protocol 1, Article 1)
Self-employed persons often view their business or trade as a possession, as it is a means to earn income. Government mandates that threaten this livelihood—whether through demands to find other work, shift focus from their business, or risk penalties—could be seen as a violation of Protocol 1, Article 1. This provision establishes the right to peacefully enjoy one’s possessions, including one’s profession or trade. Article 1 of the First Protocol: Protection of property | EHRC

4. Financial Penalties as Coercion: Legal Issues

Imposing financial penalties or reducing benefits for those who do not comply with work-related requirements constitutes a form of economic coercion that may, in certain situations, be legally questionable.

A. Breach of Due Process and Right to a Fair Hearing (Human Rights Act 1998, Article 6)
When financial penalties are imposed without giving individuals sufficient opportunity to explain their situation, this may breach Article 6 of the Human Rights Act, which guarantees the right to a fair hearing. This is especially relevant if penalties are enforced in situations where individuals have a legitimate reason, such as a disability or self-employment commitments, that prevents them from complying. Article 6: Right to a fair trial | EHRC

B. Potential Unlawful Indirect Discrimination
Imposing a uniform requirement on all individuals, regardless of disability, that could result in penalties may constitute indirect discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. This is particularly true when the standard does not take into account the varying abilities and circumstances of those impacted.

5. Breach of Article 4 – Prohibition of Forced Labour (Human Rights Act 1998)
Article 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 prohibits forced or compulsory labor, safeguarding individuals from being coerced into work against their will. By mandating that individuals seek employment, increase working hours, or attend appointments under threat of financial penalties, the government may be contravening this right. Forcing people to work or attend requirements that disregard their personal or health circumstances can be seen as a form of coercion. This undue pressure, especially when it leads to financial hardship or limits an individual’s autonomy, conflicts with the fundamental protections set out in Article 4. Article 4: Freedom from slavery and forced labour | EHRC

Conclusion

The laws cited above collectively establish a strong legal framework that protects disabled and self-employed individuals from coercive measures that disregard their unique circumstances. Government practices that do not account for these factors risk breaching multiple legal protections, potentially leading to widespread discrimination and undue hardship. For those who experience coercion, understanding these laws can help them advocate for their rights and, where necessary, seek legal recourse to challenge unfair practices.

Forcing individuals—especially those who are disabled or self-employed—to work, increase hours, or attend mandatory appointments, and penalizing them financially if they do not comply, is a clear breach of the law. Such practices infringe on fundamental rights established by the Equality Act 2010, the Human Rights Act 1998, and international agreements like the UNCRPD. Forcing people to work or comply with rigid employment requirements without considering personal circumstances not only disregards their right to autonomy but also imposes unfair financial hardship. Governments are obligated to ensure that welfare and employment policies are fair, accessible, and accommodating, upholding each individual’s right to freely choose their work circumstances without fear of economic penalties.

As society works toward a more inclusive approach to employment and welfare, it is crucial for governments to develop flexible policies that respect individual rights, promote dignity, and foster genuine opportunity for all.

Further Reading:

Disabled Entrepreneur UK Empowering Lives Logo

Andrew Jones Journalist
Andrew Jones
+ posts

Andrew Jones is a seasoned journalist renowned for his expertise in current affairs, politics, economics and health reporting. With a career spanning over two decades, he has established himself as a trusted voice in the field, providing insightful analysis and thought-provoking commentary on some of the most pressing issues of our time.

Spread the love

Related Post