Social cooperatives are a form of multi-stakeholders cooperatives well established in Italy where they are legally defined and regulated (L. 381 of 1981). Social cooperatives are established to provide social services either through the social integration of disadvantaged groups through work (type B) or through the provision of social services such as care centres (type A). Our work focuses on social cooperative of type B which target specific categories of disadvantage such as physical and mental disability, drug and alcohol addiction, developmental disorders and problems with the law. A fewer number of cooperatives are specifically targeted at the work integration of women or single mothers but generally they do not include the integration of people on the base of race or sexual orientation. The lack of policies and state interventions supporting the integration of LGBT into the workplace in Italy supports a general view that one’s sexual orientation is a private matter and that heterosexuality is taken for granted (heteronormativity) and often completely overlooked in everyday interactions in the workplaces. This is corroborated by the limited research on diversity and inclusion issues of LGBT in the workplace. According to Reingardė (2010) the fear of open discrimination, ridicule and violence leads to the silencing of minority sexual identities at work. Gay and lesbian workers often prefer to stay in the closet, with a significant number of them undermining the importance of sexuality at work, thinking of coming out as a very private affair irrelevant to their working life. It is not heterosexuality but rather homosexuality that is seen as problematic in the workplaces. As shown by Smith (2005) discrimination against LGBT people can still perpetrates within those not-for-profit organizations that have the social objective of promoting the rights of minority groups. Issues of diversity are rarely taken into account in the conceptualization, definition and role of the voluntary sector and were only very awkwardly recognized in the policy-making process at both sector and government levels in Canada. Similarly, inequality for LGB employees may still persist in gay-friendly work organization, defined as either gay-owned and dedicated to serving the needs of a predominately gay and lesbian clientele, or simply organisations that have an inclusive culture supporting LGB workers (Giuffre’, Dellinger and Williams, 2008). While gay-friendly workplaces are found as largely free from the overt, hostile comments still experienced by many LGB workers, the inequalities faced consist of stereotyping (e.g. questions about their sexuality and sexual practices), sexual harassment (e.g. ‘jokes’ about converting to heterosexuality; feeling of expectation to engage in sexual interactions with LGB customers) and gender discrimination (as involving the devaluation of femininity) (Giuffre’, Dellinger, Williams, 2008). Bell et al. (2011) suggested that the main issue for LGB people within the workplace is “silence”, experienced in two ways: as the need to keep one’s sexual orientation private from colleagues and managers; and as the lack of a voice for those who are out (LGBT issues are underestimated by management who do not provide them with a “voice”). In acknowledging the variety of experiences concerning equality policies in the public sector in the UK, Colgan and Wright (2011) report that most of the LGB participants in their study experienced an increased confidence at work as a result of sexual orientation regulations and other equality legislation, including the Civil Partnership Act. They would also be more willing to take up a grievance where they felt they had experienced discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. Issues of LGBT discrimination are considered the less important among the diversity categories in Italy and are still neglected in policies and legislation. Furthermore we consider social cooperatives particularly interesting organisations in that they have as their mission and, thus the reason to exist, the social integration of minority groups through work. In light of this our research investigates whether social cooperatives do and can play an important role within the labour market in relation to diversity and inclusion practices benefiting all minority groups in general and in particular LGBT people. The paper will present findings emerged from interviews and focus groups with managers and workers within six organisations, part of the largest consortium of social cooperatives in Italy. In addition company documents will also be analysed.
Inclusion and Diversity in Social Cooperatives in Italy: Where are Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual (LGB) Workers?
DE SIMONE, SILVIA;LASIO, DIEGO;SERRI, FRANCESCO
2012-01-01
Abstract
Social cooperatives are a form of multi-stakeholders cooperatives well established in Italy where they are legally defined and regulated (L. 381 of 1981). Social cooperatives are established to provide social services either through the social integration of disadvantaged groups through work (type B) or through the provision of social services such as care centres (type A). Our work focuses on social cooperative of type B which target specific categories of disadvantage such as physical and mental disability, drug and alcohol addiction, developmental disorders and problems with the law. A fewer number of cooperatives are specifically targeted at the work integration of women or single mothers but generally they do not include the integration of people on the base of race or sexual orientation. The lack of policies and state interventions supporting the integration of LGBT into the workplace in Italy supports a general view that one’s sexual orientation is a private matter and that heterosexuality is taken for granted (heteronormativity) and often completely overlooked in everyday interactions in the workplaces. This is corroborated by the limited research on diversity and inclusion issues of LGBT in the workplace. According to Reingardė (2010) the fear of open discrimination, ridicule and violence leads to the silencing of minority sexual identities at work. Gay and lesbian workers often prefer to stay in the closet, with a significant number of them undermining the importance of sexuality at work, thinking of coming out as a very private affair irrelevant to their working life. It is not heterosexuality but rather homosexuality that is seen as problematic in the workplaces. As shown by Smith (2005) discrimination against LGBT people can still perpetrates within those not-for-profit organizations that have the social objective of promoting the rights of minority groups. Issues of diversity are rarely taken into account in the conceptualization, definition and role of the voluntary sector and were only very awkwardly recognized in the policy-making process at both sector and government levels in Canada. Similarly, inequality for LGB employees may still persist in gay-friendly work organization, defined as either gay-owned and dedicated to serving the needs of a predominately gay and lesbian clientele, or simply organisations that have an inclusive culture supporting LGB workers (Giuffre’, Dellinger and Williams, 2008). While gay-friendly workplaces are found as largely free from the overt, hostile comments still experienced by many LGB workers, the inequalities faced consist of stereotyping (e.g. questions about their sexuality and sexual practices), sexual harassment (e.g. ‘jokes’ about converting to heterosexuality; feeling of expectation to engage in sexual interactions with LGB customers) and gender discrimination (as involving the devaluation of femininity) (Giuffre’, Dellinger, Williams, 2008). Bell et al. (2011) suggested that the main issue for LGB people within the workplace is “silence”, experienced in two ways: as the need to keep one’s sexual orientation private from colleagues and managers; and as the lack of a voice for those who are out (LGBT issues are underestimated by management who do not provide them with a “voice”). In acknowledging the variety of experiences concerning equality policies in the public sector in the UK, Colgan and Wright (2011) report that most of the LGB participants in their study experienced an increased confidence at work as a result of sexual orientation regulations and other equality legislation, including the Civil Partnership Act. They would also be more willing to take up a grievance where they felt they had experienced discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. Issues of LGBT discrimination are considered the less important among the diversity categories in Italy and are still neglected in policies and legislation. Furthermore we consider social cooperatives particularly interesting organisations in that they have as their mission and, thus the reason to exist, the social integration of minority groups through work. In light of this our research investigates whether social cooperatives do and can play an important role within the labour market in relation to diversity and inclusion practices benefiting all minority groups in general and in particular LGBT people. The paper will present findings emerged from interviews and focus groups with managers and workers within six organisations, part of the largest consortium of social cooperatives in Italy. In addition company documents will also be analysed.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
