To feel like some reasonable adjustments are actually unreasonable

if supporting disabled people to stay in work means others have to work a little differently too

I'm fine with working different. Not fine with doing 120% of a job to cover for someone else to do 80% of theirs for the same pay.

People need to start accepting that one answer is to work part time at a level you can cope with. Benefit top ups would help this be manageable financially

How did you resolve it?

We didn't. We've lost several good staff now because they were having to soak up extra work that person wasn't doing. I'm also looking to leave.

Surely the reasonable adjustments are to allow the person to do the job? If the adjustment is to not to do parts of the job is that still reasonable?

don't worry I defended everyone with a disability the best I could!

Oh good another thread bashing those with disabilities. Lovely.

Comments like this are exactly why the Equality Act exists. The idea that society was better off when disabled people were pushed to the point of breakdown or simply disappeared from the workforce isn't just heartless it's wrong. We’ve moved on from a time when people were expected to suffer in silence or be discarded when they couldn’t meet rigid standards. That wasn’t strength it was neglect.
Yes, adjustments can shift workloads around, but that’s not a failure of disabled people it’s a sign that employers need to manage their teams properly. Reasonable adjustments aren’t about special treatment; they’re about fairness and legal obligation. And if supporting disabled people to stay in work means others have to work a little differently too, that’s part of what a fair and decent society looks like.
Mocking people for needing support says a lot more about your attitude than it does about theirs.

I get why it might feel like a big ask, especially with NHS budgets being tight. But yes, if travel is an essential part of the role and someone can't do it safely due to a disability, then paying for taxis or alternative transport can absolutely be a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act. It’s not about whether it feels like a good use of money it’s a legal obligation to remove barriers so that disabled staff can do their jobs.
Reasonable adjustments aren’t optional, and sometimes they do cost money that’s just part of the cost of being an employer. It’s no different from spending on equipment, uniforms, or training. If the adjustment allows the person to keep doing the core parts of their job, then the employer (in this case the NHS) is expected to cover it, as long as it’s not disproportionately expensive relative to the organisation's size and resources and the NHS clearly has far more resources than most employers.
Also, Access to Work can sometimes help cover travel costs like taxis, especially for public sector workers. So the NHS might not even have to pay the full cost in every case, but they do have to make sure the adjustment happens.
At the end of the day, it's about keeping skilled people in work, and that benefits patients too.

People with disabilities had breakdowns and were never well enough to work again.

That’s a much better solution.

You're absolutely right that not every job can be adjusted to work for every person, and the law does recognise that. If no reasonable adjustment can be made to help someone carry out the key parts of a role, even with support, then it's legally fine to say that the role isn’t suitable. The pilot example makes sense some jobs have safety or performance limits that just can't be changed.
But that’s very different from refusing adjustments just because they’re inconvenient or because someone thinks the person doesn’t deserve them. The Equality Act says employers have to remove disadvantage, not discomfort or preferences. If someone with anxiety struggles with the same workload as others, it’s not about laziness it’s about whether their condition seriously affects how they cope with pressure over time. If it does, that counts as a disability in law, and adjustments may be needed.
Employers do have a right to look at whether an adjustment works in practice, and whether it’s reasonable in the circumstances. But they can’t ignore it just because it doesn’t look serious enough to someone else. It’s not about special treatment it’s about making sure people aren’t shut out of work because of a health issue they didn’t choose.
And yes, sometimes adjustments do cost money but if they’re reasonable, then the business has to cover it. That’s just part of the responsibility of being an employer under UK law. If someone needs a support worker, new equipment, or a role change to stay in work, then the cost isn’t a reason to say no if it’s affordable for the business. That’s the deal.

But in this current climate would you agree that it is a good use of NHS money to pay taxis every single day for someone to do their job - taking them to and from multiple home visits all day long? I wouldn't.

I agree completely, if a company hires a disabled person and makes less money because of it, so be it, at least the disabled person is working

We’d make reasonable adjustments so they can do their job with their disability. That might include providing assistive tech or even a support worker to help with visual tasks.

Yes, this is a good example of a reasonable adjustment.

The goal isn't to force someone to meet original standards no matter what, but to remove barriers that stop them from doing the job effectively.

And this is key. But if you could not make a reasonable adjustment to the original job for effective performance, it is also ok to say so. An airline might reasonably say that blind people cannot be pilots because that job cannot be adjusted in a way to make this possible. Its this point that gets missed - its whether it is really possible to adjust that job enough.

I do think not enough adjustments are made. And that by disadvantaging people the economy suffers. But there can also be a real entitlement and frankly piss taking about adjustments - I see a lot of people with anxiety where their anxiety only relates to carrying the same workload as everyone else. Is that reasonable? Possibly, but possibly not.

We can't afford more people relying on state benefits; the country is already on its knees. Anyone who wants to work should have the chance to do so.
We can’t afford to exclude so many people from the job market. Huge numbers of individuals with disabilities want to work but face discrimination. If they can’t find a job, what are they supposed to do? Give up entirely?

I get that adjustments can feel frustrating when you’re on the receiving end of the extra workload, but the problem isn’t too many adjustments it’s poor management of resources and expectations. The law doesn’t require a disabled person to earn their way back to a standard workload. The Equality Act says adjustments are there to remove disadvantage, not to train someone back to full capacity on a timeline that suits others.
We wouldn't ask a blind person to somehow regain their vision just to meet standard job expectations. We’d make reasonable adjustments so they can do their job with their disability. That might include providing assistive tech or even a support worker to help with visual tasks. And no, the company doesn’t necessarily have to pay for that directly support like this can often be funded through the government’s Access to Work scheme.
The same principle applies to other disabilities too. The goal isn't to force someone to meet original standards no matter what, but to remove barriers that stop them from doing the job effectively.
Yes, adjustments should be reviewed and often are. But long-term or indefinite adjustments aren’t a failure. They reflect the reality that many disabilities are ongoing or fluctuate. Employers don’t have to say yes to everything, but they do have a legal duty to seriously consider and implement reasonable adjustments, even if it causes some inconvenience.
If someone is being excused from certain tasks repeatedly, that’s something management should be dealing with. It’s not the disabled person’s fault the team is under pressure it’s the employer’s responsibility to make the structure work, not just expect the disabled person to quietly take on more or pretend their needs don’t exist.

The issue isn't "too many adjustments" the issue is the boss not hiring an extra person or ensuring workload is shared properly etc.

Actually, although that may be the case in some places, sometimes it is that there are too many adjustments. There has to be a balance between making adjustments and drawing a line where it negatively impacts the ability to do the job.

I think people are afraid to assess whether people actually have the capability to do the job and just feel they have to give any adjustments asked for. Or an adjustment is given which should be reviewed but is just left in place indefinitely. This starts to negatively impact the business, and then is unfair to others. And as another thread said, it can mean that people dont get asked the do the bits no one else likes either, meaning that other staff have to do more of those things.

A better approach would be - if you have to have this many customers, but can only manage this many at the moment, how can we get you to a point where you can handle the first number? Not just, ok, do less.

also legally large organisations are expected to do more to support employees with disabilities. another important point.

There’s an argument in this that if you continue to be pushed and your workload is so unmanageable that you are stressed and become burned out, your mental health will suffer as a consequence. You may then yourself require reasonable adjustments to return to work (if you have to go off sick) or to continue in your role. It’s not right that other employees suffer or struggle as a result of other people having reasonable adjustments. Although, it’s a managerial issue to solve, not yours or those who’ve been given reasonable adjustments.

I feel the government should also be doing more to help disabled people work.

Thanks for sharing that it sounds like you're managing a lot, and it’s completely understandable that you wouldn’t necessarily see yourself as disabled in the typical sense. But under the Equality Act, what you’ve described a heart condition, epilepsy, and a blood disorder affecting your ability to work full hours would very likely meet the definition of a disability. You don’t have to use the label or identify with it personally for the legal protections to apply.
In fact, if your health conditions have a long-term impact on your ability to carry out day-to-day work, then you’re probably entitled to reasonable adjustments like reduced hours, flexible working, or different ways of structuring your role without having to lose pay or status automatically. Employers should be proactively offering support, not just expecting people to silently reduce their hours or responsibilities.
You’re absolutely right that it’s up to management to structure teams and roles in a way that works for everyone, but the law places a specific duty on them to do that for disabled employees, whether they’ve openly declared it or not.
You shouldn’t have to carry that load alone, and you deserve to be supported properly.

I don’t regard myself as disabled however I have a heart issue and epilepsy combined with a blood disorder which means I work fewer hours thus am paid less. If employees inhibited with reduced capability aren’t able to work at the same rate and level as others surely they work part time or from home so the employee structure works for all. It’s down to the management to readjust their HR framework.

I agree with you, it's a fine line though isn't it

also re deploying could hurt their future career prospects so may but the disabled person at a disadvantage

I agree with you OP, but I think this is an issue that is too systemic to tackle.

I am disabled. Autistic, ADHD, hypermobility, CFS, and on the diagnostic pathway for dyspraxia.

I am declared not fit to work, but with the state of the benefits system it's a terrifying thought that I might end up launched into work in order to not starve, but the adjustments that I would need to do the job would be unreasonable. It doesn't mean my needs aren't valid it just means businesses can't accomodate my needs without having to hire more people or pass work on to others.

The government are forcing disabled people back into work so this issue is only going to get worse.

of course they have to though, why shouldn't they have to do it.

they could do this, both options work. However organisations are expected to spend money on adjustments so arguably the taxis is also viable.