245 General discussion difficulties to remain sustainably employed, and may have a higher risk of early drop out of the labor market. Both groups also more often experience problems on multiple life domains and may face more difficulties to deal with these problems (1). Moreover, a large part of workers with a work disability may also have a lower SEP, and vice versa. While these two groups have many similarities regarding risk factors for sustainable employment, there are also differences between these groups. In terms of employment, workers with a lower SEP in this thesis either had temporary or fixed contracts, in which they were covered by the Working conditions Act and had the legal opportunity to receive guidance and support from OHPs. In contrast, workers with a work disability often did not have a regular contract and were covered by the Participation Act in which they can receive additional guidance and support from municipalities. Moreover, lower SEP workers are in general not defined by their SEP in their job, while for workers with a work disability their disability is used to define them as a certain group with specific needs for sustainable employment. Hence, these two groups are different in terms of employment and support at work that is offered to them, meaning that interventions to improve their sustainable employability need to be aligned to the characteristics and the legal context of a specific group. To define and align interventions to a specific group of workers, may not always be desirable, as there may also exist large differences within these two groups. For instance, workers who participated in the ‘Grip on Health’ intervention faced a diversity of (health) problems, and workers with a work disability had very different type of disabilities meaning they have other needs in relation to their sustainable employability. This calls for a more person-centered approach to improve their sustainable employability. Moreover, defining workers according to their SEP or work disability, as we did in this thesis, may also have negative consequences for these two groups. For instance, there is much debate about the use of terms ‘low SEP’ and ‘work disability’. The term ‘low SEP’ may indicate that people have a lower position in society and are undervalued. Whereas people with a more practical education and/or occupation are really valuable for society. Especially nowadays, as there are various sectors with more practical occupations that are facing severe staff shortages. Moreover, the term ‘low SEP’ may result in biased views, as people who have been labelled as having a low SEP have been deprived of the ability to show ‘healthy’ behaviors or characteristics (2). The same may account for the term ‘work disability’. Literature shows that both regular workers and employers have a biased view and may underestimate the performances of workers with a disability (3). As a result, employers may be hesitant to hire workers with a work disability and regular workers may not want to work together with workers with a work disability. In the end, this may impede the integration of workers with a work disability in the regular labor market and thereby their sustainable employability. Thus, putting workers in certain boxes is also a risk 8
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw