A Mirror to ‘Normal’ Work – Ableism and the Construction of Flexjobs

Data analysis

The data analysis aimed to explore how language, discourse, and social practices surrounding flexjobs reflect and reproduce (ableist) norms, assumptions, and expectations. To investigate this, we employed Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) (Fairclough 2013). This method has previously been used to examine ableism in relation to disability and the labor market (e.g., Jammaers, Zanoni and Hardonk 2016; Kwon 2021; Van Aswegen and Shevlin 2019). CDA is not a rigid methodological protocol, but a conceptual and theoretical framework that provides flexible analytical tools for examining how discourse is both shaped by and contributes to shaping power relations, ideologies, and broader social structures (Fairclough 2001).

CDA examines how language shapes and reflects social realities by applying a critical lens to the study of discourses. Discourses are patterned ways of speaking about something that shape how it is understood, valued, and acted on in society. CDA endorses combining openness to data (induction) (e.g., Braun and Clarke 2006) while also being theoretically and critically driven (deduction) (Fairclough 2013). Accordingly, thematic coding was used as an initial step to surface recurring language patterns, which were then interpreted through a CDA lens to examine their ideological implications. The process began with a close, iterative reading of interview transcripts and policy documents, during which we worked with the data to identify salient themes and recurring discursive patterns. This inductive phase involved coding meaningful words, phrases, and textual fragments related to the overarching research topic. Codes were then grouped into preliminary categories that reflected patterns and tensions surrounding flexjobs, inclusion, and labor market dynamics. To preserve the specificity of each perspective, interviews were coded separately by the four respondent groups: 1) flex job employees and jobseekers, 2) employers/managers of flex job employees, 3) stakeholders, and 4) caseworkers. Additionally, the coding procedure was guided by our analytical focus on the three dimensions of: 1) the legislative framework of flex jobs, 2) the implementation of flexjobs, and 3) the implications for workplace inclusion and labor market opportunities for flex job employees.

After the coding process, we conducted a critical interpretation of the material, informed by our theoretical framework. Preliminary categories, themes, and topics were refined into broader discourses, such as (assumptions about) ‘employability,’ ‘(ab)normality,’ ‘productivity,’ and ‘work competencies.’ We then analyzed how these discourses were embedded in, and shaped by, wider sociopolitical and institutional structures, focusing on how certain discourses reflected and reinforced dominant ableist norms. We paid particular attention to how specific ways of talking about flexjob employees – through comparisons to ‘normal’ workers, references to effort or motivation, or assumptions about reduced capacity – worked to legitimize or challenge existing power relations, shaping who is seen as a valued worker and under what conditions. In this process, CDA allowed us to trace how power and ideology operate through everyday language, revealing the often-subtle ways that disability and difference are constructed – and contested – within the labor market.

Limitations

Given our approach and choice of analysis, some methodological limitations must be acknowledged. While the sample of a large number of interviewees with distinct stakeholders from various perspectives and inclusion of key policy documents enhance the breadth of the analysis, other relevant legal texts or stakeholder perspectives may have remained outside the scope of this study. Additionally, the emphasis on discourse may privilege certain types of data (such as narrative strategies or policy language) over other forms of evidence. Because ableism is embedded in societal and labor market norms, it can be difficult to ‘observe’ directly. The flexjob program, positioned as an alternative to the ‘ordinary’ labor market, offers a ‘mirror’ to examine how notions of ‘normal’ work and the ‘ideal’ worker are discursively constructed and sustained. CDA enables us to trace how these ableist assumptions are reproduced and naturalized through language and institutional discourse and their implications. However, CDA’s interpretive nature means that findings are shaped by the researchers’ analytical lens and theoretical commitments. We have sought to mitigate this through transparency in coding decisions, iterative reading, and reflexive engagement with the material.

The legislative framework of flexjobs

In the following, we examine the assumptions and standards that underlie the main legislation and instructions in the construction of flexjobs. To be eligible for a flexjob, all other relevant active employment measures to retain the individual in ‘ordinary’ employment must be exhausted. The Law on Active Labor Market Policies reads:

Flexjobs is a scheme for individuals that cannot obtain or retain employment on normal conditions in the labor market. The target group is unemployed individuals of working age that have permanent and major limitations in their work ability (Act 280, Law on active employment services, chapter 20, §116, 01/03/2024).

Ableist assumptions are reflected in this opening paragraph of the flexjob legislation. By emphasizing ‘normal conditions’, the legislation establishes a normative benchmark for employment based on the capabilities of typically abled individuals. This framing implies that there is a standard way of working considered ‘normal’, and those who cannot meet this standard are categorized separately, qualifying them for a flexjob. By defining flexjobs as positions for those unable to work under ‘normal conditions’, the legislation effectively segregates these workers from the mainstream labor market. The target group is unemployed individuals who are ‘unable’ to work in ‘ordinary’ jobs due to permanent and major limitations in their work ability, reflecting a medicalized understanding of disability as an individual deficiency. Implicit in the legislation is the concept of the ‘ideal worker’ – someone who can work full-time without accommodations in standard employment relationships.

The local public employment services (job centers) are responsible for administrating the flexjob program. That includes assessing individuals for eligibility and establishing flexjobs at workplaces. During the assessment, the process of determining the individual’s work capacity is at the discretion of the job centers and individual caseworkers, who must evaluate whether the work capacity of the individual is ‘significantly and permanently reduced’. The assessment of work capacity is defined by the National Appeals Board through case practice (Instructions of flexjobs; 24/08/2023; Act 9635). The instructions on determining ‘work intensity’ are vague and reads that:

Work intensity means that the individual for instance needs breaks in work or due to major physical or mental impairments cannot work with the same productivity as normally expected, so that the person can be said to work at a reduced capacity (Instructions of flexjobs; 24/08/2023; Act 9635).

The instruction defines ‘work intensity’ by comparing individuals who need breaks or cannot maintain the ‘productivity as normally expected’ due to physical or mental impairments to a standard of normalcy. This implies that the default or ‘normal’ level of productivity is based on an ideal worker who can work continuously without accommodation. By labeling those who deviate from this norm as working at a ‘reduced capacity,’ the language focuses on the individual’s limitations compared to this standard.

There are no specific guidelines or definitions of ‘normal’ work capacity or the ‘ordinary’ labor market to guide the assessment. This leaves considerable discretion to caseworkers and underlines that the productivity of a flexjob worker must be compared to the productivity of a ‘normal worker’. As a result, municipalities rely on procedural standards. This procedure often includes ‘work trials,’ through which the work capacity of the individual is assessed against a hypothetical ‘normal’ worker. The instructions read:

The job centres should in cooperation with the individual focus on the current and future possibilities of the individual to be able to work. The critical point is what the individual can or would be able to do after an active measure in relation to any form of work in the ordinary labor market (Instructions of flexjobs; 24/08/2023; Act 9635).

This section underlines the normativity of working on ‘normal’ terms; flexjobs are portrayed as an adjustment aimed at ‘able-ising’ the individual by enabling them to be productive within the framework of the ordinary labor market.

Ableist conceptions and expectations regarding ‘ideal workers’ and ‘normal’ work pervade the legislation of flexjobs. Working on ‘normal’ terms in the ‘ordinary’ labor market is thus not merely the typical way of working but framed as the ‘ideal’ way to work. The flexjob legislation underscores this by presenting ‘normal’ employment conditions as the benchmark or standard against which workers are measured, based on their capacity to conform.

The implementation of flexjobs

When an individual has been assessed to be eligible to a flexjob, it is formally the responsibility of the municipality (i.e. the local job center) to find a flexjob in cooperation with the individual and negotiate the terms of the job contract with a potential employer.

The flexjob market is different from the ‘ordinary’ job market. Employers typically seek full-time workers for pre-drafted positions, effectively excluding unemployed flexjob workers. Instead, flexjobs are predominantly created by contacting specific employers and persuading them to design a flexjob. The difficulties of finding a flexjob is associated with the high level of flexjob unemployment (around 15 percent in 2024, compared to 3 percent general unemployment), and the job mobility is low among people in flexjobs (Bredgaard and Holt, forthcoming).

If the job center and the unemployed flexjob worker manages to find an employer willing to hire the flexjob worker, they must negotiate the job contract. Flexjob negotiations differ from ‘ordinary’ job negotiations regarding wage and working conditions, as wages are determined by the ‘work intensity’ of the individual in the flexjob, and employers only pay for ‘effective’ work hours (intensity plus hours). Due to the lack of guidelines, the caseworkers we interviewed describe basing their work intensity assessments on beliefs about ‘what a normal employee can do.’ A case worker provides the following example:

If it takes a normal employee one hour to sweep the floor but the flexjob worker takes two hours, then the work intensity is 50 percent.

In most jobs, work intensity cannot be easily defined or measured, which makes the decision subjective and imprecise. Work intensity varies depending on the specific tasks and job requirements. One caseworker described how, before budget constraints made it unfeasible, they would observe flexjob employees alongside an ‘ordinary’ colleague at the workplace to evaluate their productivity compared to a ‘normal’ worker as the benchmark. This practice is almost a physical incarnation of ableism: it embodies the literal side-by-side comparison of flexjob workers against an ‘able’ normal worker. The act of measuring flexjob workers through direct comparison assesses their value according to how well they can mimic their normal peers. By setting ‘normal’ productivity as the normative baseline for evaluation, this approach reinforces the idea that flexjob worker is deficient or a ‘diminished’ versions of ‘normal’ workers (Campbell 2009).

The lack of guidelines and the high degree of professional discretion allotted to caseworkers result in subjective assessments and comparisons which further makes the legislation open to negotiation. The vagueness and uncertainty inherent in determining work intensity creates room for negotiations at the workplace level. In these negotiations, there are different and sometimes conflicting interests. These motives mean that the work efficiency assessment and thus wage does not always reflect the actual work conducted. This concern is also described by volunteers in the national association of flexjob employees:

We have experienced that the job centre tends to sell the flexjob worker at half the price. They bargain on work intensity. It also goes without saying that the employer has no incentive to offer more work hours as it only increases their salary costs.

Several flexjob employees describe feeling compelled to accept a lower intensity than what reflects their actual work ability as employers pressure them to accept a lower salary or risk unemployment. As one flexjob employee describes it, the scarcity of flexjobs creates a dynamic where the flexjob has no leverage if the job center does not contest the employer’s position:

If the employer suggests 50 percent, then they [caseworkers, ed.] must agree to it, putting the flexjob worker in a challenging situation where their salary is reduced. Furthermore, there isn’t much room for argument because once the employer sets it at 50 percent, the job center doesn’t object, you’re left with the understanding that, ‘Well, that’s just how it is.

The practice of assessing the productivity of employees in flexjobs by comparing them to ‘standard’ employees is a powerful ableist mechanism. This approach reduces the value of flexjob employees to how closely they can approximate the performance of ‘normal’ employees, perpetuating an ableist understanding of flexjob employees by framing them as a ‘diminished’ version of ‘normal’ workers, who should strive to work ‘normally’ (Campbell 2009). In this process of determining work intensity, the ableist framework of comparison against a ‘normal’ employee can be exploited to marginalize flexjob workers. By positioning their work capacity as a negotiable deficit, rather than an individualized measure of their actual contribution, both employers and job centers can justify offering lower wages. The power imbalance in this dynamic makes it difficult for flexjob employees to challenge these assessments forcing them to accept unfavorable terms or remain unemployed.

To qualify for benefits during unemployment, individuals must be ‘actively job-seeking,’ which typically means applying for at least two jobs per week. This goes for flexjob workers as well, despite the scarcity of available flexjob positions. This exemplifies how equal standards for workers can have an unequal impact, as the labor market conditions for both groups are dissimilar.

After finding a flexjob the ambition is that employees in flexjobs ‘progress’ towards ‘ordinary’ employment. ‘Progression’ means that the individual is supposed to gradually acquire more working hours, more complex tasks, or increase the intensity of work, with the ideal being returning to work on ‘normal’ terms. This again reflects the ableist notion of compulsory ableness where those deemed ‘abnormal’ are encouraged to ameliorate or eliminate their deviancy and return to the normal (Campbell 2009), reinforcing the perception that flexjobs are inferior to ‘normal’ work.

We have shown that ableism is not only present in the legislation regulating the construction of flexjobs, but also in the implementation of flexjobs in negotiations between individuals with disabilities, potential employers and the job centers. It is, therefore, important to examine the implications for workplace inclusion of these ableist norms and standards.

Implications for workplace inclusion and exclusion of employees in flexjobs

The interviews with flexjob employees show great variation in the experiences of workplace inclusion and exclusion. Many of the respondents are grateful for their flexjobs, experience job satisfaction and find their jobs meaningful. At the same time, however, several recount negative experiences, discrimination, and stigmatization due to being a flexjob worker.

This aligns with previous studies, which also highlight the nuanced and ambivalent experiences of flexjob workers, who may be formally included in the workplace, but nonetheless experience barriers to equal participation in the labor market (cf. Shore, Cleveland and Sanchez 2018). In general, employees in flexjobs express a high level of job satisfaction, work motivation, and meaningfulness in work (Holt et al. 2015). Nevertheless, flexjob workers are steered toward marginal positions in the workplace, where they perform ‘simpler’ tasks, are unable to fully use their competencies, have fewer opportunities for advancement, and experience instances of discrimination (Hohnen 2000; Larsen, Jakobsen and Mikkelsen 2022; Bredgaard and Holt, forthcoming).

Some respondents describe how they are judged as less capable workers than their colleagues, due to the assumption that flexjob workers are inherently less capable – irrespective of the work that they do. This flexjob employee has been used to working with and being compared to non-disabled colleagues. However, performing the same is not enough, he must outperform them to get recognized:

When I perform in a work setting, I have always been used to the fact that I not only have to perform the same as others. I must do more. I have not had the other dimension that there were others like me. I have only been used to non-disabled people.

Flex job employees often compare themselves to those in ‘ordinary’ jobs and tend to overcompensate to be perceived as ‘normal.

Despite a desire to be viewed as any other worker, flexjobs tend to be associated with certain types of work, namely work that does not require special qualifications. This flexjob employee has had many flexjobs across a long period of time. He laments how flexjobs are associated with unskilled labor, restricting flexjob workers from utilizing their skills in positions that entail more complex tasks:

Flexjob workers just make coffee or tidy the workplace up a bit. But why on earth shouldn’t you be able to work as an architect? Or a professor, for that matter, in a flexjob? Yes, you have a head injury, but you can just work fewer hours, and you’re still incredibly sharp. So maybe it’s some kind of attitude in society that flexjob workers are just those people who… well, what do I know.’

Some employers argue that company core tasks are not suitable for flexjob employees, as their low number of hours prohibit them from being adequately attuned to the business conduct, or that relying on an employee who is not present at the workplace for as many hours as their colleagues can be challenging. This employer manages a housing association. She describes that her flexjob employees primarily do simple practical tasks such as cleaning the coffeemaker or preparing food, as their few hours preclude them from learning more complicated tasks:

If you only work a few hours, and even require accommodations during those hours, it becomes quite difficult to learn the more complex tasks (…) And then it might be better to say, ‘well, then there are those more manual job tasks.’

The ‘normal’ worker is a full-time worker, and the conflation of workload and capability constrain flexjob workers, who by the nature of their employment scheme have a lower workload, from being recognized as skilled workers.

This is related to confining of flexjob workers into jobs where they perform tasks that require fewer qualifications compared to ‘ordinary’ employees. Skyum-Jensen (forthcoming), distinguishes between ‘support’ and ‘core’ flexjobs, referring to whether flexjob workers perform core or support activities within the organization. Flexjobs are predominantly support jobs, where workers are more prone to work independently with lighter, practical, or administrative tasks, resulting in a higher risk of social exclusion. Consequently, they may be formally but not fully included in the workplace. The following employer is she manager of a design and marketing agency. She hires flexjob employees exclusively for doing supportive tasks, such as cleaning and preparing lunch, to alleviate the other employees. She describes that the flexjob employees are not seen as part of the organization to the same extent as other employees:

They [flexjob employees] don’t eat with the rest of us (…) and don’t sit down with us in that way. They are perceived as part of the workplace, but to a lesser extent as part of the social community.

This highlights that segregation may occur at workplaces, with flexjob workers being grouped as a separate category of workers. This following informant has struggled with his mental health and has been unemployed since he quit his previous flexjob due to the poor working conditions and harsh treatment of flexjob employees. He describes how his views and needs were simply ignored:

I wanted to get some things through, right? But it felt like I was not supposed to think I was anyone significant; I was just a flexjob employee, expected to fall in line. So, every time I suggested something, it was simply swept aside.

Flexjob employees find themselves identified – and often identify themselves – as ‘flexjobbers’ rather than by their professional roles (e.g., as an accountant). The difference or ‘otherness’ of employees in flexjob implies that even if they are seen as part of the workplace, it is not to the same degree as ‘normal’ employees; they are seen as a separate group (Mik-Meyer 2016). This highlights the powerful role of language in both normalizing and perpetuating ableist practices. By focusing on their employment status rather than their professional roles, flexjob employees are marked by their deviance. This reinforces the divide between ‘normal’ workers and flexjob workers, where the latter are conditioned to viewing themselves as ‘different’.

Experiences of discrimination and marginalization are recurrent across the interviews, with some informants describing the sentiment that flexjob workers are not considered to be ‘worth the same as other people’ in the labor market. For many employees in flexjobs, finding a suitable flexjob has been a long journey, and some describe it as ‘too good to be true’ when it occurs – even though the job itself appears to be unremarkable. The following employer runs a private school and has hired several flexjob employees over a longer period of time. She describes their gratitude when they find employment on good terms – often following years of negative experiences in the system or at other workplaces:

I tell the flexjob employees to not be overly grateful just because I gave them the opportunity, as they have just as much right as anyone else. But that’s how they are, they are so grateful and worried about losing their jobs.

Due to the difficult conditions on the flexjob market, many employees in flexjob express relief and gratitude if they do manage to find a suitable flexjob. This highlights how they internalize ableism and come to perceive themselves as less valuable or desirable in the labor market.