To feel like some reasonable adjustments are actually unreasonable

That’s not quite right. The law doesn’t say an adjustment stops being reasonable just because it causes some extra work for colleagues. Reasonable adjustments can involve some redistribution of tasks or changes to how the team works that alone doesn’t make them unlawful or invalid.
What matters is whether the impact on the business or team is disproportionate. That’s a higher threshold than just “this is inconvenient” or “someone else has to do more.” The employer has to weigh up all the circumstances including the size of the business, available resources, and how essential the adjustment is to removing a disadvantage for the disabled person.
Plenty of Employment Tribunal cases have upheld adjustments that caused some extra workload for others. It’s the employer’s job to manage those impacts, not to deny someone their legal rights to access work equally. So no added workload alone doesn't automatically make an adjustment unreasonable.

This kind of thinking is exactly why so many disabled people end up pushed out of work unnecessarily. No one is saying a wheelchair user must be hired to lay bricks or that someone should be paid for work they’re not doing. But the Equality Act makes it clear: if someone can still do the core functions of a role with adjustments, then those adjustments must be seriously explored even if they’re long-term.
And on the pay point you're wrong to assume that keeping someone on their original salary after a role change is automatically unreasonable. There are real tribunal cases where judges have ruled that it is a lawful and reasonable adjustment to maintain someone’s pay after moving them into a lower-paid role due to disability. For example, in Powell v G4S, the court found that keeping a disabled worker’s higher salary in a new, less demanding job was justified. So it’s not about opinions it’s about what the law actually says. People don’t need to "get real" they need to get with the law.
Adjustments aren’t about handouts or wishful thinking they’re about removing unnecessary barriers and making work accessible. That might mean shifting duties, rethinking how tasks are done, or yes, helping with transport or workload in some cases. Employers don’t have to say yes to everything, but they are legally required to consider all reasonable options especially in large organisations like the NHS, where these kinds of changes are often very doable.
Saying someone “probably shouldn’t be a nurse” just because they struggle with one aspect of the job ignores the fact that most roles involve a mix of tasks, and people often excel in some areas while needing support in others. That’s why reasonable adjustments exist to keep skilled people in work, where they belong.

If a company genuinely can’t afford an adjustment, then no it might not be considered reasonable. The law takes into account what the business can actually manage. But that doesn’t mean nothing can be done. A lot of adjustments don’t cost anything like changing someone’s duties a bit. For example, if someone struggles with client-facing work, maybe they could do more admin or behind-the-scenes stuff, and someone else takes on more of the public-facing role.
It’s about being flexible and looking at all the options, not just saying no. Employers are expected to explore all reasonable alternatives before deciding something isn’t doable.

the difficulty is as I said before that for companies it is safer to redistribute work to other employees than sack the disabled employee, as a company without much money cannot afford to fight at an employment tribunal, as in general fees for disability discrimination are not recoverable even if you win.

PIP is intended to help with care costs and costs of equipment needed due to disability. It is not intended as an income replacement (although it is often used in that way).

With the criteria for claiming PIP tightening, and it being the new basis for Universal Credit recognising limited capacity to work, this is going to get worse.

There really needs to be some consideration of disabled people who cannot work full time, even if they don't meet the new high threshold for PIP. Some kind of benefit top-up.

Most employers are unable to cover these costs to enable disabled people working for them in roles these people want. It would be great if they could, but they mostly can't.

It just doesn't make any sense to employ a person in a role they can't do permanently. I accept that some very shor-term adjustments might work, but if it's perm disability.

A person in a wheelchair can't be a bricklayer, no matter how much they might want it. They might be a top IT, lawyer, accountant, etc etc, but not a bricklayer. To force a building company to make adjustments for them is unreasonable.

Equally, a person who gets overwhelmed by working with people, and sick people at
this, probably shouldn't be a nurse. They can be a brilliant accountant or do many other roles.

To get a project manager who gets anxiety over deadlines, then move them to an admin role and still pay the project manager's salary is not a reasonable adjustment.

People need to get real.

OP, adjustments that involve significant increases in workload to others do not count as reasonable adjustments.

You need to speak to your manager.

No they can't get rid of them for that but can do for pretty much anything else.

Ah some are more equal than others. Anyhow that mother leaving would be another employers gain.

I'm not sure why you think this? If removing flexible working for the mother means you're now indirectly discriminating against women - which it might - then this is the same in law as disability discrimination. The protected characteristics aren't ranked - disability doesn't trump sex discrimination.

That's just ridiculous though surely.

At what point do you conclude that they are just not capable of doing the job to the required level?

It’s completely valid to feel the pressure when you're in a demanding job like nursing. But it’s important to remember that the legal right to reasonable adjustments exists specifically to make sure people with disabilities, including mental health conditions like anxiety, aren’t excluded from professions they’re otherwise capable of doing.
Having a quiet space to step away for a few minutes isn’t about avoiding the job it’s about managing symptoms so someone can keep going and stay safe, for themselves and for patients. It’s not that different from someone with MS needing to rest if they're fatigued or managing symptoms quietly. Just because you haven’t asked for adjustments doesn’t mean others shouldn’t. Everyone's condition affects them differently, and the law doesn’t require people to suffer in silence to prove they belong in their role.
We don’t say someone with asthma shouldn’t be a teacher because they might need to use an inhaler. It’s about managing the condition in a way that makes the job sustainable, and that’s exactly what these action plans are meant to support.

I really appreciate the way you’ve raised this it’s a genuine challenge, especially for smaller workplaces trying to stay afloat while also doing the right thing. It can absolutely feel overwhelming when multiple people need adjustments, especially when those adjustments involve things like communication or availability that affect the flow of work.
That said, even when the adjustments seem frustrating or hard to understand from the outside, they’re usually based on medical advice or lived experience. Mental health and neurodivergent conditions can make very routine things commuting, phone calls, even replying to emails quickly genuinely distressing or overwhelming. What seems like someone being awkward or avoidant might actually be them trying really hard just to stay employed.
Of course, there’s a balance to be struck, and employers aren’t expected to absorb unlimited strain. What’s “reasonable” is judged based on the size and resources of the business. A small five-person company isn’t expected to offer the same level of flexibility or cover as somewhere like Tesco, where there are more staff and more money to move things around. The law takes that into account so small businesses aren’t held to the same standard, and that's fair.
It’s also okay for employers to explore what’s sustainable, and adjustments should be reviewed regularly, not left open-ended without support or boundaries. It’s a tricky line, but the goal isn’t perfection it’s inclusion, as far as is reasonable. And I completely get how that can feel hard to manage in real life.

Actually, employers taking action like that after someone discloses a disability can land themselves in serious legal trouble. If they try to get rid of someone within the first two years just because they've requested reasonable adjustments, that can still count as disability discrimination, which is unlawful under the Equality Act 2010.
Even though employees don't have full unfair dismissal protection until two years of service, discrimination claims don't have that time limit they can be brought from day one. So if an employer sacks someone or starts treating them less favourably after a disclosure, they’re opening themselves up to a potentially very costly tribunal pay out.
Also, there's no legal requirement to disclose a disability at the application or interview stage, even if asked. That information is personal, and the law protects someone’s right to keep it private until they’re ready to share it usually when they actually need adjustments in place.
So no, it’s not dishonest or untrustworthy to wait until day one to disclose. It’s self-protection, and it’s legally allowed. If trust is broken, it’s usually on the employer's side when they don’t handle disclosures properly.

I have found this with student nurses with anxiety. They have action plans stating they need a quiet space to have time out of they are overwhelmed. Err we have a job that has to be done. If your anxiety is that bad then you are in the wrong job. I have MS and have never requested any adjustments.

I appreciate the reasoned arguments of @coffeeandmycats .

However, I do wonder about workplaces which are faced with multiple people requiring adjustments. Especially if they are small businesses.

And it’s easier to be accommodating to people with physical disabilities. But trying to keep my own blood pressure from rising with the person who couldn’t come into the office (commuting phobia - only commuting mind you) - so wfh allowed and then who wouldn’t speak on the phone (anxiety) - so allowed to email only - and then said couldn’t answer emails promptly as stressful - aaaaagggh!!

you’re right that redeployment is often part of the conversation, but it’s also important to know that offering someone a different job, even a higher-paid or desk-based one, can be a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act, especially when they can no longer do their original role due to a disability.
One key case that confirms this is Archibald v Fife Council. A road sweeper developed a condition that meant she could no longer do her physical duties. Instead of being redeployed into an admin role, she was made to go through a competitive interview process and ultimately lost the job. The House of Lords ruled that the council should have offered her the desk job as a reasonable adjustment, even without a competitive process. It made clear that adjustments can go as far as giving someone a different role outright if it helps remove the disadvantage caused by their condition.
So yes, giving someone a desk job without an interview, if no other options are viable, can absolutely be lawful. It’s not about getting an easier ride, it’s about preventing exclusion from work entirely.

Your manager could have hired a part time staff to reduce workload

What happens when all the employers go bust? Many companies are making wafer thin profits already. My employer made a loss last year. They literally can't afford this.

Surely though the employers could then find a reason to get rid of them in the first 2 years. If I was an employer I'd certainly be very pissed off if someone hadn't disclosed something that affected their working Trust would then be gone in that person

legally adjustments can remove parts of the job (in effect meaning they get assigned to someone else) this is perfectly legal and has been upheld in law many times

Quite - but one could hazard a guess that the intention is for different work to be substituted such that the employee was still as occupied as their colleagues, not for some people to simply do less for the same pay. It is the latter that many of us struggle with.

What happens when all the people doing all the work refuse?

yeh but the law allows for this, you may it like it but legally removing some of their work load is an adjustment in some scenarios. Your manager could have hired a part time staff to reduce workload or retributed it more evenly though.

One could argue that is exactly the sort of thing PIP is for, to help bridge the gap where part time working is required.

Indeed - except the vast majority who receive it are not in work.

That would generally be seen as redeployment, rather than a reasonable adjustment.

A reasonable adjustment might be only certain routes, or trip durations, and any pay adjustments or increase in other duties needed to balance that out.

Sounds like your employer has fallen into the tunnel vision world of only focussing on the task removal rather than how to adjust. Adjustments can (and often should) mean more of one type of thing and less of another. Not just less, unless that less is via part time working.

legally adjustments can remove parts of the job (in effect meaning they get assigned to someone else) this is perfectly elgal and has been upheld in law many times.