To feel like some reasonable adjustments are actually unreasonable

yes but the issue arises that docking their pay due to an adjustment is illegal, as it should be!

i'm glad you have a supportive employer my friend!

redeploy them to the admin role and match their salary.

UK employer obliged to offer pay protection to disabled employee who was redeployed | Employment Law Worldview

like this case

they could re deploy them to an office job and match their original salary as an adjustment.

UK employer obliged to offer pay protection to disabled employee who was redeployed | Employment Law Worldview

There's a contraction there though.

Jobs with lower stress and more pay tend to be a bit thin on the ground.

If the entire business is about delivery against the deadlines? and only lowest pay grade of admin is not involved with it? so there isn't anything at the same or senior level?

a different job, lower stress job at the same pay etc, these are all things courts have upheld before.

Potentially offering them another job (at the same pay or more senior) in a lower stress environment. This could work!

i'm glad you got your adjustments!

luckily the law doesn't work like this and employers are required to adapt as they should.

How did you resolve it?

We had a similar issue in my previous workplace

yeh it sucks for everyone involved but legally disability trumps their rights in law

I agree, I’m a big believer in if you can’t do the job you’re employed to do then find a job you can do.

Labour have a lot to answer for.

Not just for the fear and uncertainty foisted upon the disabled, but also for the toxic public debate it has encouraged.

See, I was in a similar situation but the co worker that had to pick up the extra lifting & walking to further away departments in a small team.
That's the reasonable adjustment lifting & walking PLUS my share of holiday & sickness cover for other colleagues. So as in my case, a team of 6 people, 2 could not do the lifting and /or further distance walking.... that leaves 4 people to get the heavier work shared out to. Now, at any time 2 people can be off on holidays... at times it was 2 people doing the heavier work with 2 people doing the lighter work. Add a bit of sickness in the mix and you have 3 people doing the work and you could easily end up doing all the lifting because the other 2 colleagues left couldn't do it. Thus making myself ill in the process... starting a vicious cycle of sickness for the able body co workers, who would then leave.... reducing the workforce further until suitable replacement is found. Then the new starter had to be eased into the job by giving them lighter, straight forward tasks no wonder the department has a huge staff turnover.

And no, we didn't need extra staff as on paper it all looks fair and fantastic. The job itself was great, even with that bit of extra work for other colleagues. But all the constant covering was insane. So I had no choice but follow suit and vote with my feet as many have done before me.

Those posters saying it’s the employers fault for not employing more people - have you considered the employer’s position? If a team’s work can normally be covered by 4 people and then 3 of them require additional adjustments which means that the team now would need 6 people to operate - how does that make sense for the employer? I agree that relying on the goodwill of the 4th employee is not reasonable - but just expecting employers to employ more people is not always reasonable. As the head of a department I am always juggling costs and revenues to ensure I can maintain the headcount I have. I definitely could not magic up the money for more people in my department. All this could do is encourage employers to think twice about employing disabled people which is not the way to go.

This is why so many of my jobs have had ended the same way, "we just want the person we interviewed".

I did twenty years in the NHS with increasing adjustments. I can't pretend to not be autistic any more.

Yes and emplpyers aren't removing large volumes of the workload but allowing extra breaks or a slightly smaller workload. Eg instead of 10 clients a day 8 with extra admin to compensate is reasonable and this has been upheld in court.

What you describe is reasonable - swapping for alternative type of work etc. But in many places employers feel they have their hands tied. I had a staff who had mental health issues. We tried SO hard to offer support, but the only things the employee says makes a difference is basically an outright reduction in workload or else they say the deadlines are too pressured etc. No one else in the team had any issues, its a nice workplace with senior management (my boss & his boss) who care about the wellbeing of the team.

What do you do if the employee finds a normal workload too much?

We offered them part time hours but the response is they cannot afford it/do not want the reduction in pay.

Absolutely- although that mother getting flexible working gone would also be finding a new job. Here it sounds like the op isn’t in the situation that you find in your workplace.

See this is the way it should be! People helping out their colleagues and picking up bits and pieces for them to help them out. Pwople i this thread are making a dramaover disabled people working it's very ablist in my humble opinion

Yes and emplpyers aren't removing large volumes of the workload but allowing extra breaks or a slightly smaller workload. Eg instead of 10 clients a day 8 with extra admin to compensate is reasonable and this has been upheld in court.

Emplpyers may not like it but these are the laws of the land we live in.

It sucks when a mother has their flexible working request removed because a disabled person needs those changes, or when someone has to work.from.home due toa disability so the rest of the team have to pick up the office wirk instead but ultimately disability rights have to come first and that's the way it should be

I don't think any emplpyers are letting people do half a job...

And if your emplpyer doesn't provide reasomabke adjustments I hope all the disabled staff each go to an emplpyment tribunal.and win their case.

Maybe your employer paying out some of their profits as payments to thaoe staff not getting adjsutments would cause them to treat their staff better.

I see your point. When I say heavy lifting I m talking a box of paperwork not concrete slabs. But yes it possibly is unfair that that is solely their responsibility. But I do take on more of other jobs some are the less enjoyable ones for example stock take which my colleague dislikes. We have also found ways to do some jobs without out the lifting, common sense like moving things in several journeys rather than all at once.

My colleague and I are both happy with our roles.
No option to employ additional staff as we work for local council and there’s no funding.

I'm seeing this a lot too. Staff costs are my employers biggest cost, and the company can't afford to just increase costs by 20% to hire extra staff to cover all the ones who are paid as full time but only do about 60% of the job.

I cannot see how it is sustainable. Reasonable adjustments should be things like allowing someone to come in 10-6 when trains are quieter than 9 to 5, or supporting use of assistive technology, or tolerating more direct communication styles etc. Not just letting someone do half a job & get paid full wage.

I'm seeing this a lot too. Staff costs are my employers biggest cost, and the company can't afford to just increase costs by 20% to hire extra staff to cover all the ones who are paid as full time but only do about 60% of the job.

I cannot see how it is sustainable. Reasonable adjustments should be things like allowing someone to come in 10-6 when trains are quieter than 9 to 5, or supporting use of assistive technology, or tolerating more direct communication styles etc. Not just letting someone do half a job & get paid full wage.