doi: 10.62486/agsalud202443

ORIGINAL

Quality of work life in workers with disabilities in manufacturing and service companies

Calidad de vida laboral en trabajadores con discapacidad de empresas manufactureras y de servicios

Valentina Trovat¹ *, Mónica Ochoa¹ *, Estela Hernández-Runque¹ *, Rosalinda Gómez¹ *, Marco Jiménez¹ *, Patricia Correia¹ *

¹Universidad de Carabobo. La Morita, Venezuela.

Cite as: Trovat V, Ochoa M, Hernández-Runque E, Gómez R, Jiménez M, Correia P. Quality of work life in workers with disabilities in manufacturing and service companies. AG Salud.2024;2:43. https://doi.org/10.62486/agsalud202443

Submitted: 06-11-2023                   Revised: 31-01-2024                   Accepted: 17-03-2024                 Published: 18-03-2024

Editor: Prof. Dr. Javier González Argote

ABSTRACT

The present research aimed to analyze quality of work life in workers with disabilities in manufacturing and service companies. Among its main purposes was the assessment of workers with disabilities with respect to their working condition. Likewise, the elements that make up occupational well-being for these workers were characterized and the quality of work life and engagement with employment in general of workers with disabilities in manufacturing and service companies was analyzed. The contextualization and classification of the information used started from a method governed by the positivist paradigm with a quantitative approach, framed in research whose level of knowledge and depth was descriptive, under evaluative field research criteria, within a horizon of reflection on a reality that closely impacts the professional experiences of people with disabilities. Using instruments to collect sociodemographic and labor data, as well as the Working Conditions Questionnaire, the General Work Wellbeing Questionnaire and the Satisfaction of Work Questionnaire. Among the most important results and conclusions is that the people surveyed identify significantly with the organization where they work and presented low collateral effects, responding to optimally valued work well-being along with a high commitment to their work, showing that they feel who have a good quality of work life.

Keywords: People with Disabilities; Work; Quality of Work Life.

RESUMEN        

La presente investigación pretendió analizar calidad de vida laboral en trabajadores con discapacidad de empresas manufactureras y de servicios. Entre sus principales propósitos estuvo la valoración de trabajadores con discapacidad con respecto a su condición de trabajo. Así mismo, se caracterizaron los elementos que configuran el bienestar laboral para estos trabajadores, la calidad de vida laboral y la satisfacción con el empleo en general de trabajadores con discapacidad de empresas manufactureras y de servicios. La contextualización y clasificación de la información empleada partió de una metódica regida por el paradigma positivista con enfoque cuantitativo, enmarcándose en una investigación cuyo nivel de conocimiento y profundidad fue de tipo descriptivo, bajo criterios de investigación de campo de tipo evaluativo, en un horizonte de reflexión en torno a una realidad que impacta de cerca las vivencias profesionales de las personas con discapacidad. Empleando instrumentos para la recolección de los datos sociodemográficos y laborales, así como también el Cuestionario de Condiciones de Trabajo, el Cuestionario de Bienestar Laboral General y Cuestionario de Satisfacción del Trabajo. Entre los resultados y conclusión más importantes se encuentra que las personas encuestadas se identifican de manera significativa con la organización en donde laboran y presentaron efectos colaterales bajos respondiendo a un bienestar laboral de valoración óptima junto con un alto compromiso hacia su trabajo evidenciando que las mismas sienten que tienen una calidad de vida laboral buena.

Palabras Clave: Personas con Discapacidad; Trabajo; Calidad de Vida Laboral.

INTRODUCTION

Since ancient times, people with disabilities have suffered oppression and discrimination against those considered “different” according to the dominant paradigm of “normality”.⁽¹⁾ Over time, there has been a variation in different societies, but always maintaining this relationship of oppression.⁽²⁾ There is a reality that cannot be ignored, and that is that diversity has always existed worldwide. However, it is time to support acceptance and inclusion. In Latin America and the Caribbean alone, hundreds of cultures, languages, and religions coexist, although true diversity goes beyond this, as it also has to do with different abilities. Considering that around fifteen percent of the world's population suffers from some form of disability,⁽³⁾ it would be natural for the labor market to embrace and celebrate these differences.⁽⁴⁾

However, the dynamics associated with people with disabilities is a topic of global importance due to the number of factors involved and the socio-political discussions surrounding this phenomenon.⁽⁵⁾ However, this paper intends to contribute information and be part of the research conducted on this topic.

This study seeks to highlight the importance of transferring the diversity of each person's environment to the work environment, generating opportunities for people with disabilities without exclusion and with equal opportunities.⁽⁶⁾

In Venezuela, since 2007, with the Law for Persons with Disabilities,⁽⁷⁾ the aim is to guarantee inclusion in the work environment both in private and public companies, from a qualitative and quantitative point of view, seeking not only their inclusion in companies but also to support the work environment according to their needs, establishing the obligation to design and remodel buildings, as well as urban and rural environments in order to ensure that people with disabilities are included in the work environment, It also establishes the obligation to design and remodel buildings, as well as urban and rural environments to guarantee access and transit for people with disabilities, including, for example, the allocation of parking spaces located at the entrance of the buildings, which allows inferring that this law is also concerned about the quality of life of workers and people in general with disabilities in the national territory.

In this way, quality of life is linked as a determining factor of people and their relationship with the respective work environment;^(8,9) it is important to increase awareness at all levels while training human talent to make management in organizations more effective, so it is vital to consider the quality of work life in workers with disabilities and their occupational development. In this sense, the objective of the study was to analyze the quality of work life in workers with disabilities in manufacturing and service companies.

METHODS

The study was approached from the positivist paradigm with a quantitative approach. A descriptive field research guided it. A group of workers with disabilities from manufacturing and service companies was selected as the population. Applying a purposive sampling where some inclusion criteria were taken into consideration: working for a public or private organization, that the organization complied with the legal obligation to employ at least 5 % of the workforce with workers with disabilities (any disability), that the workers with disabilities employed had at least one year of seniority, and signed informed consent, consolidating a sample of 5 workers who met all the criteria.

The survey was used as a data collection technique, and the following instruments were used: an information collection form and three standardized questionnaires. 

· Information collection form on sociodemographic and labor data. 

· Working Conditions Questionnaire,10 evaluated on the basis of the average score obtained (C-CT). The questionnaire is composed of three factors, each of which is made up of two scales. 

· The General Work Well-Being Questionnaire⁽¹¹⁾ will be assessed on the basis of the mean score obtained (C-BLG). The variables associated with general well-being at work correspond to two factors and six scales and will be assessed on the basis of the mean score obtained in each factor and each scale.

· Job Satisfaction Questionnaire,⁽¹²⁾ The variables associated with engagement are Vigor: The vigor scale consists of 6 items, ranging from 0 to 36 points. Dedication, which consists of 5 items ranging from 0 to 30 points, and Absorption, which consists of 6 items, with a total score between 0 and 36 points.

The quantitative analysis was carried out through descriptive statistics, which allowed us to assess the working conditions, as well as to characterize the general well-being at work and engagement as determining components of the quality of work life in workers with disabilities in the companies studied. For the particular case of the instruments, working condition questionnaire (C-CT) and general well-being at work questionnaire (C-BLG), the mean of the items, scales, and factors was calculated, and four levels were established for working condition (CT), general well-being at work (BLG) and collateral effects, which are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Scales for work condition (TC), general work well-being (BLG) and side effects
Working Condition (TC)
Very poor: from 0 to 2,5	Bad: greater than 2,5 up to 5	Good: greater than 5 up to 7,5	Optimal: greater than 7,5 to 10
General well-being at work (BLG)
Poor: from 1 to 2,5	Bad: greater than 2,5 to 4	Good: greater than 4 up to 5,5	Optimum: greater than 5,5 up to 7
Side effects
Optimal: from 0 to 1,5	Good: greater than 1,5 up to 3	Bad: greater than 3 up to 4,5	Poor: greater than 4,5 up to 6

In the case of the Job Satisfaction Questionnaire, the mean of the items and the sum of the mean scores obtained for each dimension were calculated. In this case, the sum of the mean scores obtained was used as the starting point and, depending on the analysis methodology, five categories were formed, corresponding to very low (0 to 1,2), low (> 1,2 to 2,4), moderate (> 2,4 to 3,6), high (>3,6 to 4,8) and very high (> 4,8 to 6). In the scales, as the scores were the result of the sum of the items and the different ranges, the same categories were established with different parameters according to Table 2.

Table 2. Scale for vigor, dedication and absorption categories
Vigor scale
Very low: from 0 to 7,2	Low: greater than 7,2 up to 14,4	Moderate: greater than 14,4 up to 21,6	High: greater than 21,6 up to 28,8	Very high: higher than 28,8 up to 36
Scale of dedication
Very low: from 0 to 6	Low: greater than 6 up to 12	Moderate: greater than 12 to 18	High: greater than 18 up to 24	Very high: greater than 24 up to 30
Absorption scale
Very low: from 0 to 7,2	Low: greater than 7,2 up to 14,4	Moderate: greater than 14,4 up to 21,6	High: greater than 21,6 up to 28,8	Very high: greater than 28,8 up to 36

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

With respect to sociodemographic and labor characteristics, it is a mostly male population that coincides with Tovar,⁽¹³⁾ where people under 40 years old and over 45 years old predominate with an average of 42,6 years old. It also stands out that 60 % have a diversified secondary education level or completed high school, and 80 % have no family economic burden, which agrees with Colmenares et al.⁽¹⁴⁾ and is contrary to the study by Millán et al.⁽¹⁵⁾ Likewise, there is a predominance of 5 to 10 years of work seniority with an average of 4. 71 years of seniority, distributed mostly in analyst positions, in morning hours and contractual status of permanent employee, which shows a low turnover, and a positive trend to normalize the issue of labor inclusion agrees with the findings of Ambroggio.⁽¹⁶⁾

The data yielded by the working conditions questionnaire (C-CT), where the mean score was 7,69 with a standard deviation of 2,75 in a range from 0 (minimum value) to 10 (maximum value), provide the following information (table 3).

Table 3. Working Conditions
Working condition
Scale	Media
Factor Organization and method
Regulation	7,03
Development	6,43
F-OM	6,69
Factor Organization and environment
Organization and material environment	8,05
Organization and social environment	8,85
F-OE	8,45
Factor Organization and person
Organization-person fit	7,69
Person-organization fit	8,8
F-OP	8,05
CTG	7,69

The factor organization and method (F-OM) obtained an average score of 6,69. This value indicates that it is well-weighted by the respondents, where the aspects of organization and method are considered optimal. The Regulation Scale (E-R), which evaluates working time, general organization, financial remuneration, workload, quality of the contract, and the work-private/family life balance, yielded a mean of 7,03 and was placed in the parameter of good conditions and the development scale (E-DR) composed of decision making and participation in decisions, fair remuneration, training opportunities, job promotion, relations with managers, professional performance and support received resulted with a mean of 6.43 reflecting that these conditions are good.

The organization and environment factor (F-OE) obtained an average score of 8,45, which indicates that it is considerably well-valued. This factor is made up of the organization and material environment scale (E-OEM), which measures the physical environment, available resources, risk prevention, and auxiliary services, with an average score of 8,05, together with the second scale, organization and social environment (E-OES), which evaluates companionship, respect, recognition of colleagues and recognition of users, with an average score of 8,85, indicating that the social environment is very important.

The organization and person factor (F-OP) obtained an average score of 8,05, which shows that it is considerably well-valued. This factor is made up of scales: Organization-Person Adjustment (E-AOP) where items related to satisfaction, demands, needs, expectations, aspirations, values, merits, commitment, motivation, freedom, personal growth, competence, identity and usefulness are valued, reflecting an average of 7,69 and Person-Organization Adaptation (e-APO) which measures the adaptation to the organization's policies, acceptance of instructions, rules, changes, work rhythm; this scale resulted with an average of 8,8. This confirms that these last aspects are important for workers with disabilities.

With respect to well-being at work (see table 4), related to psychosocial well-being (f-BPS) and is made up of 3 elements: affect (e-A), which measures dissatisfaction, insecurity, uneasiness, helplessness, discomfort, distrust, uncertainty, confusion, hopelessness and difficulty; Competence (e-C) which evaluates insensitivity, irrationality, incompetence, immorality, meanness, failure, inability, pessimism, ineffectiveness and worthlessness and Expectations (e-E) which details quality of work life, motivation, identification with the organization, performance, managerial ability, working conditions, self-esteem, confidence, mood, security, accomplishment, effectiveness. It obtained a mean score of 5,51, which is considered good and coincides with Castro et al.⁽¹⁷⁾

Table 4. General Workplace Well-Being Scale
Occupational well-being
Scale	Media
Psychosocial well-being
Affect	5,52
Competence	5,86
Expectations	5,35
BS	5,51
Side effects
Somatization	1,96
Attrition	1,96
Alignment	2,15
EC	2
BLG	4,69

The collateral effects factor (F-EC), with an average of 2, is positive since the maximum value of negative collateral effects is 6. This allows us to conclude that people with disabilities value their work positively and that there is no high incidence of collateral effects on their work performance. Regarding job satisfaction based on table 5, which shows a mean of 4,68, ratifies a positive valuation comparable with the results of Flores et al.⁽¹⁸⁾, Durá et al.⁽¹⁹⁾, Salazar⁽²⁰⁾ where the scores in each of the dimensions were also satisfactory.

Table 5. Significance of Work
Engagement
Factor	Media
Vigor	4,8
Dedication	4,8
Absorption	4,43
EG	4,68

Ratified by the results of all the factors involved: vigor, whose average score obtained was 4,8; dedication, with an average of 4,8, which constitutes high job satisfaction and absorption, with an average of 4,43, being consistent with the general result of this category.

CONCLUSIONS

In the working conditions of people with disabilities, the social and material environment were the most highly rated aspects, while regulation and development were the worst, which confirms a need for improvement in organizations. Respondents perceived that their adaptation to the organization was superior to the organization's adaptation to them. In addition, aspects such as participation, opportunities, or job security are not tangible, but despite this, they identify positively with the organization.

Regarding the psychosocial well-being of people with disabilities, it reflects an optimal state with respect to job performance; this response to satisfaction and how identified they manage to feel with respect to the organization and the work they perform in it. The respondents presented low collateral effects associated with overload, physical exhaustion, mental saturation, and emotional exhaustion. The presence of back pain and muscle tension was also low. In relation to the scale of general well-being at work, it is located within the good rating category.

The valuation of job satisfaction was high, indicating that the respondents almost always feel full, encouraged, committed, and persistent in their work, composing this positive valuation with respect to the elements that could affect these subjects in the work environment. In general, people with disabilities perceived that their quality of work life remains optimal, with working conditions remaining favorable and reporting high job satisfaction.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES

1. Palacios, V. (2021). La estabilidad laboral absoluta para personas con discapacidad Un mecanismo efectivo para el desarrollo integral de sus derechos. Trabajo Especial de Grado no Publicado. Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar.

2. Palacios, A. (2008). El modelo social de discapacidad: Orígenes, caracterización y plasmación en la Convención Internacional sobre los derechos de las personas con Discapacidad. Madrid: Grupo editorial Cinca.

3. Trovat Ascanio, V. A.. (2018). Discapacidad y salud laboral: alcances y desafíos inclusivos. Salud de los Trabajadores, 26(1), 3-5.

4. Berthoud, R. (2008). Disability employment penalties in Britain Work, employment and society, BSA, 2008 Vol 22 nº 1, p 129-148.

5. Victoria, Jorge. (2013). El modelo social de la discapacidad: una cuestión de derechos humanos. Boletín mexicano de derecho comparado, 46(138), 1093-1109.

6. CEPAL. (2021). Personas con discapacidad y sus derechos frente a la pandemia de COVID-19: que nadie se quede atrás, Informes COVID-19, enero. Santiago, Publicación de las Naciones Unidas. https://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/46600/S2000791_es.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

7. Ley para las Personas con Discapacidad. (2007). Gaceta Oficial Número 38.598. Caracas, viernes 5 de enero de 2007.

8. Pérez, A. (2022). La calidad de vida en el trabajo y el importante papel de los recursos humanos. Trabajo Especial de Grado no Publicado. Universidad de Valladolid. España.

9. Trovat Ascanio V, Ron M, Hernández-Runque E, Sánchez-Tovar L, Hernández J, Jiménez M. (2022). Trabajadores con discapacidad y significación del proceso Salud-Trabajo. Visibilizando claves para la prevención. Salud Cienc. Tecnol. 2022; 2(S1):224. https://doi.org/10.56294/saludcyt2022224

10. Blanch, J. M., Sahagún, M., & Cervantes, G. (2010). Estructura factorial del cuestionario de condiciones de trabajo. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 26(3), 175-189. doi: 10.5093/ tr2010v26n3a2

11. Blanch, J.M., Sahagún, M., Cantera, L. y Cervantes, G. (2010). Cuestionario de Bienestar Laboral General: Estructura y Propiedades Psicométricas. Questionnaire of General Labor Well-Being: Structure and Psychometric Properties, Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y las Organizaciones. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26, 157-170.

12. Salanova, M., Schaufeli, W. B., Llorens, S., Peiró, J. M., y Grau, R. (2000). Desde el “burnout” al “engagement”: ¿Una nueva perspectiva? Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 16,117-134

13. Tovar, I. (2015). Las personas con discapacidad y su calidad de vida laboral. Trabajo Especial de Grado no Publicado. Universidad de Carabobo. Bárbula.

14. Colmenares, H. & Martínez, G (2015). Discapacidad y trabajo en una empresa comercializadora ubicada en valencia, estado Carabobo. Trabajo Especial de Grado no Publicado Universidad de Carabobo. Bárbula.

15. Millán, A; Calvanese, N; D Aubeterre, M- (2013). Propiedades psicométricas del Cuestionario de Condiciones de Trabajo (qCT) en una muestra multiocupacional venezolana CES Psicología, vol. 6, núm. 2, julio-diciembre, 2013, pp. 28-52 Universidad CES Medellín, Colombia.

16. Ambroggio, S. (2017). La inserción laboral de las personas con discapacidad: un estudio exploratorio en empresas cordobesas. (tesis de pregrado) Universidad empresarial Siglo 21. Córdoba, Argentina.

17. Castro, L., Cerda, G., Vallejos, V., Zúñiga, D. & Cano, R. (2016). Calidad de vida de personas con discapacidad intelectual en centros de formación laboral. Avances en Psicología Latinoamericana, 34(1), 175-186.

18. Flores, N., Jenaro, C., González-Gil, F y Garcia-Calvo, P. (2010). Análisis de la calidad de vida laboral en trabajadores con discapacidad. Zerbitzuan, 47(1), 95-107.

19. Durá, A y Salaberria, K. (2011). Satisfacción laboral de los trabajadores con discapacidad. Zerbitzuan, 49(1), 127-135.

20. Salazar, A (2018). Desgaste profesional, engagement y motivaciones para la investigación en docentes de una universidad privada de Chiclayo. Universidad Señor de Sipan.

FINANCING

There is no funding for this work.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

AUTHORSHIP CONTRIBUTION

Conceptualization: Valentina Trovat, Mónica Ochoa, Estela Hernández-Runque, Rosalinda Gómez, Marco Jiménez, Patricia Correia.

Research: Valentina Trovat, Monica Ochoa, Estela Hernandez-Runque, Rosalinda Gomez, Marco Jimenez, Patricia Correia.

Methodology: Valentina Trovat, Mónica Ochoa, Estela Hernández-Runque, Rosalinda Gómez, Marco Jiménez, Patricia Correia.

Project management: Valentina Trovat, Monica Ochoa, Estela Hernandez-Runque, Rosalinda Gomez, Marco Jimenez, Patricia Correia.

Original drafting: Valentina Trovat, Mónica Ochoa, Estela Hernández-Runque, Rosalinda Gómez, Marco Jiménez, Patricia Correia.

Writing-revision and editing: Valentina Trovat, Mónica Ochoa, Estela Hernández-Runque, Rosalinda Gómez, Marco Jiménez, Patricia Correia.