Why are accommodations for autistic people often seen as unfair?

[YourPoisedFinch]

In my last job, I received some accommodations and explained them to colleagues when they asked why I was coming in late. Instead of understanding, they accused me of fraud and faking my condition to get special treatment. This isn’t just my experience—many people with mental health conditions and other invisible disabilities face similar challenges. They’re either not believed and resented for receiving accommodations or believed but then negatively stereotyped.

@BellaAndSprout

Realistically the hours that someone else works, does matter to most of us. Imagine if we were discussing generally, no sn, and colleagues all came in doing 9-5.30, but one (not part time, not flexible leave application) only came in, for the same salary, 10-4. Surely most would be :

But then it wouldn't be a reasonable accommodation. How is this that hard for people to get?

If I am hired as a dog washer, I can't use the fact that I have autism and sensory issues around being wet to have a legal entitlement to not have to wash dogs! If I had a particular issue around the smell of one brand of shampoo and there was an alternative that worked as well and cost the same, a reasonable accommodation might be to use the alternative shampoo. (And before the 'what ifs': If the dog grooming place has a signature scent and it was this I had a problem with, probably wouldn't be a reasonable accommodation. It all case by case).

So if 90% of work for a job was done between 9 and 10, then an employer could say no (but they could also propose the employee starts at 7 or 8 instead).

So in your workplace everyone at the same grade is paid exactly the same? Because if not, then what you're describing already happens.

Plus most if the time people do have to take a pay cut if they reduce hours.

@cockywoof

Eerrr no! Most places I've worked have all sorts of people working all sorts of shifts, salaried, self employed, contractors, all sorts.

And your point is?

The thing is though that, even if that is the law, it doesn't mean that people are going to like it.

If OP has a colleague who struggles to drop off her kid and get in for 9am, she may resent OP being able to start later when she is not given the same rights.

Lots of people won't think that the law strikes the right balance 🤷‍♀️

[nb policies which impact negatively on parents can sometimes come under sex discrimination, although there is no equivalent to reasonable adjustments for the sex protected characteristic]

Fucking hell, do some damn research.

The complete arrogance and ignorance on this thread is RIDICULOUS.

Absolutely. Kids in primary school manage to understand that everyone is different and work differently, yet adults seem to find it much harder.

I remember one child asking me why my charge got to use a laptop for a particular task, so I told them that everyone is different and needs different things at different times. They thought about it, shrugged, and said something like "yeah, makes sense" and carried on.

I am neither an HR expert nnor a lawyer, but I'm sure peope understood what I meant anyway. In any case I used the same word 'accommodations' as the OP did.

Utterly ridiculous comparison. Reasonable adjustment is a legal right under the Equality Act 2010. It’s to allow the disabled person to function in the workplace to the best of their ability and minimise the impact of their condition on their ability to do the job. It’s absolutely nothing to do with the flexibility or otherwise shown to other staff.

OP if you’re getting flak for this from colleagues you need to make your manager or HR aware of it. It’s harassment and could be seen as discriminatory.

My only experience of working fewer hours but still receiving my full salary was when I was returning to work after a long, disability related absence or surgery, and it was only for a short term ‘phased’ return to work, to see how I coped. The aim was to ensure I could stay in work and not have to go off on another long absence. And then, when I couldn’t cope, I had to reduce my hours, and salary.

I wish people would think of reasonable adjustments as ways to help mitigate the effects a disability has on a person’s work, giving them the chance to perform at a level acceptable to their employer, and in my case I had the same targets as everyone else. And remember, the ‘reasonable’ bit applies to the employer.

And a disabled person wouldn’t get ‘reasonable adjustment’ just for dropping off their child at nursery either would they ? Why should parents get accommodations - having children is a choice, disability isn’t.

I already made it. Read my post.

This sums it up. Generally it isn’t about the adjustments as objectively people can see they are needed but instead the impact on them. Obviously this is selfish but it is what it is. I’m NT but I would absolutely hate to be in a 1.5 hour taxi ride with a stranger (using a previous suggestion). If I had to do it every single time as a colleague didn’t due to adjustments for ND I wouldn’t blame but colleague but I’d be looking for a new job. Trying to do my job while supporting 3-4 colleagues with ND adds a lot of additional stress and strain to me while removing the exact same form them. Again- not their fault but it does impact others.

It is absolutely understandable that people feel it is unfair, workplaces need to acknowledge that even if people feel that they cannot raise this in the workplace. Other employees feel they are picking up parts of the job that others should be doing, when employees feel they are being paid the same for doing more then of course they feel as if they aren't being treated equally. People are tolerant but that tolerance is running out as the majority feel more and more taken advantage of.

But if the OP’s colleague (who doesn’t have a diagnosis of a disability or mental health condition) struggling to do the school run and get to work on time and “doesn’t like the law” ISN’T entitled to the same “rights” as the OP.

The (hypothetical in this scenario) colleague can feel resentful all they like, but it will never change the fact that the OP has been given reasonable adjustments for flexi-time hours due to a diagnosed disability.

Any person feeling hard done by and resentful for a disabled colleague’s reasonable adjustments need to a) do their research on the Equality Act 2010, b) do their research on disabilities (including hidden) and mental health conditions and c) stop fucking whinging and apply for flexi-time hours as per their organisations policy if applicable and available.

you don’t need a formal diagnosis to qualify for protection under the Equality Act. The demonstrable effect that the condition has is enough.

A couple of things on that "choice" point:
A) Lots of people have kids by accident;
B) Having kids is good. The birth rate has fallen below replacement rate in this country and will fall faster the more people are put off kids;
C) These parenting issues almost always affect women more than men, and being female is not a choice.

I am not saying though that I agree with any of OP's colleagues - I am just trying to explain why they might resent OP's reasonable adjustments if they aren't offered the same flexibility.

Nailed it. 👏👏👏

The law can only be changed by an Act of Parliament. You are entitled to write to your MP.

Do you realise the taxi driver is the stranger in question here? Not another passenger.

But I get your point about when accomodations impact you. The issue there is with the employer - they're the ones that need to balance these and ultimately if the impact on other employers is high then the accomodation won't actually be reasonable. Example someone gave earlier of someone not wanting to go to external case management meetings seems a classic example of an accomodation that isn't reasonable as implemented.

The (hypothetical in this scenario) colleague can feel resentful all they like, but it will never change the fact that the OP has been given reasonable adjustments for flexi-time hours due to a diagnosed disability. [my emphasis]

But the OP was asking why people see the adjustments as unfair, so presumably OP and others don't think that colleagues ought to feel resentful. I am just saying why I think they might feel resentful.

But you are also entitled to be a bit miffed if you think that you are getting a raw deal. Nobody can force OP's colleagues to say that they think it's great that OP gets flexibility and they don't.

Again - I am not saying I agree with them. I just think saying "It's the law" won't make them actually happy about the situation if they feel that it's not fair.

They’re resentful because they are ignorant and envious.

I’m unhappy about plenty of things, but talking about it online does nothing to change the law of the land which has been in place for 15 years and was preceded by the Disability Discrimination Act.

Having kids ‘by accident’ is still not the same as having a disability. You don’t become disabled by being careless with a condom. And from the threads l’ve read on MN working parents are accommodated for things like the school run, and wrap around childcare is widely available. Why should parents feel entitled to something exclusively intended to increase the number of disabled people who can access work and retain it ?