To feel like some reasonable adjustments are actually unreasonable

This debate is about reasonable or unreasonable adjustments. A few previous cases are pure examples of former, I don't think anyone can disagree that equipment must be provided to enable a person to do their job.

The issue that OP raised is about adjustment when a person cannot meet full requirements of their role and some parts of it have to be picked up by colleagues. Example of people facing role when a person can't do this.

than frankly it's stupid. If a lot of businesses fold then there's no employment for disabled but also no taxes to support them - no NHS, no PIP, no UC

We need to be pragmatic about what is health condition and what is true disability and what is reasonable or unreasonable adjustment and what is plain p..s taking

You do realise that there are some people who have reasonable adjustments who would prefer not to be going through occupational health, and wish they could go back to before their diagnosis. I’ve been asked by previous colleagues to justify why I got a laptop when everyone else used a desktop or why I have a dictation system for when I struggle to type and they don’t, or why I have a mouse that cost over £250.
BTW the job I do now, there are four of us who have the same role across the county I live and work in, I have the biggest area, most staff in the team and I do the job over 30 hours per week unlike the other three who work 37 hours. I’m very good at my job and unlike yourself, my team do value the contribution that I make daily and are willing to help me when needed because they understand the daily challenges I face living with a degenerative condition.
Be grateful that you have your health because I would rather have not received the diagnosis than I got eight years ago, I’d rather not have the laptop, dictation software or mouse - but here I am requesting reasonable adjustments so that I can do my job well.

And there's no reason any of that couldn't be mentioned at interview stage is there?

It's the people that apply for receptionist jobs for example then say they can't do people facing. Or a surgeon that's got a phobia of blood. Or someone who has a " fear of driving" due to MH that applies as a delivery driver

Absolutely none of your examples put your CO workers at a disavanted or increase their workloads

Both these people have disabilities that would be obvious at interview.

yes!

too right!!!

Stop doing more than you have capacity for

you Get as much done as you can get done for the amount of hours you work!

Nonsense.

I could be perfectly capable of typing up notes, but I need a bigger monitor to do so because my eyes strain otherwise.

I could be better than anyone at making buttered toast, but I just need a chunky handled knife.

I am absolutely 100% qualified to be a solicitor, I just need a space to work that allows me to get myself around on my crutches I need for daily life.

I am an excellent teacher, but I have a back condition that requires me to have a specific support chair in my classroom.

You should try having MS! See how difficult it is just to function. I’m very sorry our disabilities are such an ‘inconvenience’ to you!!!!

So my colleague in a wheelchair who has a different desk and my visually impaired colleague with a different monitor set up and high contrast keyboard can't do their jobs? News to me. They have those adjustments and they are totally capable of doing it and do their jobs well.

.

That’s not actually how the law works. Under the Equality Act, someone can be entitled to reasonable adjustments from day one of employment even if they disclosed their condition after being hired. There's no legal requirement to disclose a disability before applying, and it doesn’t invalidate their right to support if they do so later.
People are allowed to apply for jobs they can do with adjustments that’s the whole point of the law. The obligation is on the employer to consider whether the role can be adjusted to remove any disadvantage, not to assume the person isn’t fit for the job just because they’ve asked for support.

to be very clear dismissing someone for asking for day one adjustments would result in a hefty payout!

Someone upthread mentioned hot-desking. That absolutely is an adjustment that should be fairly simple to make. Just requires a bit or organisation.

But someone refusing to answer the phone at all or unable to meet clients in a client facing role - no can do.

If someone is asking on day one for adjustments then they have obviously applied for a job they can't do

🤣🤣

That’s exactly the kind of comment that shows why we do need legal protections in place. People always say “it’s not about disabled people, it’s about the ones taking the piss” but somehow, it’s always the disabled person being doubted, second-guessed, or painted as lazy or dishonest.
You don’t get to decide who’s “genuine” based on vibes. If someone needs adjustments because of a condition that seriously affects their day-to-day life, that’s a legal disability and they’re entitled to support. Not judgment. Not disbelief. Not whispered resentment from colleagues who think they’re getting special treatment.
Nobody’s asking for a free pass they’re asking not to be set up to fail in systems that weren’t designed with them in mind. If that feels like “taking the piss,” maybe the problem isn’t them.

People apply for jobs for all kinds of reasons sometimes they don’t know exactly what the demands will be until they’re in it, or their health changes after they start. Someone might have been fine with client-facing work at first but developed anxiety, hearing loss, or another condition later on. That doesn’t mean they’re suddenly useless or that they never should’ve applied it means the employer now has a legal duty to consider reasonable adjustments.
Also, the Equality Act isn’t just there for job applicants to make perfect choices. It exists to make sure people can stay in work if their situation changes especially when the alternative is being pushed out of the workforce entirely. Swapping out some tasks, rebalancing a role, or shifting priorities isn’t always ideal, but it’s often better than losing someone completely

No one is pushing disabled people out though. It’s people taking the piss we have the issue with.

If someone struggles with client facing work why on earth would they apply for a job that has it? I can't hear well especially on the phone. I wouldn't apply for a job in a call centre

obviously it depends on the adjustment, but i'd rather companies close than businesses push disabled people out yes.

It really makes me laugh when people say this. You’d prefer entire firms worth of people to have no jobs than to push back on UNreasonable adjustments.

be careful what you wish for.

well then honestly I agree the business should close, disability rights aren't treated seriously and I think change should happen!

It will mean the loss of 35 jobs in my case.

true but if the judge upholds it then in that instance it was legally found to be reasonable I suppose.

Just because a judge says it’s reasonable doesn’t mean we’ll have to agree.