Why so much hostility toward reasonable adjustments for autistic/ADHD students/workers?

[KeenTaupeDog]

I keep seeing backlash whenever someone with autism/ADHD asks for reasonable adjustments. Things like:
• being accused of cheating or getting “special treatment”
• people assuming you're lying or gaming the system
• resentment for accommodations that simply level the playing field

Why do so many people react this way?
Is it ignorance about what these conditions actually mean?
Envy?
Fear that fairness is “zero-sum”?
Or something deeper around stigma toward invisible disabilities?

Would be interested in honest perspectives — especially from those who’ve witnessed or experienced this dynamic.

If you dont think adhders etc. should be employed if they cant stay in work due to their adhd, then are you happy with them sitting at home and claiming benefits? Or dying of hunger?

Not looking to fight — just trying to understand where this reaction comes from.
Am a apsergers sufferer and people at uni accused me of cheating when they found out i had remote exams

NT part timers face exactly the same issues. And no, I’m not changing my recruitment processes away from interviews to suit a minority of people. Because then you are asking me to move away from interviews for everyone, because otherwise it wouldn’t be fair, and completely upending a recruitment process that otherwise works well is not a reasonable adjustment.

And many business processes are set up because, believe it or not, it’s actually the best way to do things given the current limitations on a business,

Once again, there is no obligation to give anyone a job that’s ideally tailored to them, ND, disabled or not, and there is clear blue water between benefits only and a perfect job with unlimited adjustments.

Fired, not fitted.

ND people are not facing systematic oppression. The system doesn't always suit them. Its not the same thing as being a black woman in segregated America. Preferring to use the other toilet is not the same as only being allowed to use the other toilet. Pretty offensive comparison in my opinion.

The problem, and I say this from experience, is that they are the one determining what is "relevant" feedback and what is merely "feedback from random people". And that tends to reinforce pre-determined beliefs.

Dealing with the unexpected and sometimes unwanted is what drives learning.

People who take more time are often right more often. 'Measure twice, cut once' is used in the trade industry.

Time taken isn't an indicator of output quality. I'd definitely rather wait for a whole and fully explored legal decision, for example.

I've had several interactions with Universal Credit about a quite complicated situation. First, I was assured that a set of circumstances would never need to be declared, so wouldn't be an issue. I had to point out the clauses in their own decision makers' guide that refute that. Then someone else has said it's impossible to get advice before making decisions, so I've had to point out the clauses in the DMG that say 'if you tell someone something before you do it and they say it's ok, then it's ok'.

These people are giving fast replies, but wrong replies, and if I had relied on their advice I could have 3 years worth of consequences.

I understand your point but my answers were in relation to additional exam time where both time and accuracy are being measured.

give it a flippin' rest will you?

You have been shown to be wrong repeatedly.

And you must be young because the rest of us are posting about the real-life world of work, we are not hung up on what happened in our school- or uni-days.

You would do a lot better to pin back yer lugs and listen to what people are telling you.

Partly because if this is how you behave in real life, it is not surprising that you put people's backs up. It is probably not about reasonable adjustments at all.

People who take longer serve fewer people. So either more people need to be hired more cost, or everyone's problem takes longer to deal with.

The marginal cost of perfection for everyone means everyone also has higher costs.

So the service doesn't try to be perfect, it tries to be just goid enough overall, and accepts that this means some people lose out.

This is the type of trade off commercial businesses have to make all the time. Not "what's the best service we can offer, money no object?" but "what can we offer that customers want at a price they will pay?"

Unfortunately for some NT people "just good enough overall" is not the type of trade off they are good at, especially if it's in the area of a special interest.

Best case they are frustrated not to be able to do the thing "right". Worst case they burn out going massively beyond what they are paid to do and have time to do and/or fail in other areas and are angry/frustrated because their careers are not progressing despite their (in their eyes) over achievement. I've seen it happen.

(FWIW I'd agree that public services are currently underfunded and not even "good enough overall". Rather than being an ND/NT thing it's more likely your "working too fast" UC person simply doesn't get enough time to care or is paid enough money to care. But that's a different problem. )

so you are just envious ND can be given RA that you'd want yourself?

i know you are not reading any posts that don't agree with you.

I am not jealous, i fully support Reasonable Adjustments for anyone and everyone who wants them and doubly support Reasonable Adjustments for disabled people or people with disabilities.

EVERYONE, even us bloody pesky NT people you so clearly despise, should feel able to ask for processes to be refined and reasonable adjustments to improve the workplace. Businesses are free to ignore them unless they have to actually listen to the request and do a fesability study.

I know you're not going to read this. Perhaps you should give yourself 25% more time per post?

@Lanva @DeafLeppard Not really the point of this thread but if either of you are on the London/Surrey border.... I have a yoga instructor I can recommend who I am 100% certain would be supportive! She's astonishingly accomodating and understanding of different challenges!

OP, I'll say it again - you're young and ND yourself. You're going to need to try and educate yourself more and force yourself to look at the world through a slightly less binary lens. I appreciate that is difficult for you. It's not the same but I am not English and there are still things here I find weird and bizarre and ridiculous but I have learnt to accept it just is what it is, I trust my english friends who assure me that x or y is/is not rude and I act accordingly.

LOL "envious".

I think if you have a special interest it certainly isn't logic.

Or business. Or team building. Or learning. Or listening.

Consider:

If an adjustment would benefit everyone at no extra cost to business it should be given to everyone.

If it would benefit everyone but costs extra (in money or in a knock on effect on the productivity of other colleagues) it should be given to the most productive employees not the least, as that has the greatest multiplier.

If it would benefit only a specific ND person but costs nothing in money or knock on effects then absolutely it should be done.

If it would benefit only a specific ND person but costs extra (in money or in a knock on effect on the productivity of other colleagues) the business needs to consider whether the increased productivity of the ND person justifies the cost.

Out of interest, what RA do you need, and what do you think you offer an employer that would make them feel your RA is worth it to employ you?

A 50% reduced caseload isn't a reasonable adjustment so that's where the problem laid for you. That would be considered unreasonable.

@KeenTaupeDog

Here is an interview practice question for you. It's one I often use because it speaks to self awareness and openness to learning.

"Tell me about a time you have been wrong and had to rethink a plan or action. How did you come to realise you were wrong? How did you approach the situation with colleagues? What did you learn from this and what would you differently with hindsight?"

But the current law isn't about hiring a disabled only when the RA needed for them would give them an edge over non-disabled people

it's about levelling the playing field so the disabled person doesn't have to sit at home and claim benefits

e.g. the company authortises the disabled person to work less hours but also take a pay cut for doing so rather than firing them

or

e.g. an autistic person is less productive than normal at handling calls, so he does data analysis instead for other teammates who handle his calls

or

e.g. a dyslexic person gets grammarly to help them write emails to a normal person's standard instead of being sent home and claiming benefits

Which would be fine if the company is advertising for a data analyst, not a call handler. And if a comany has to recruit an extra person to make up for a part time role (so 2 part time roles instead of 1), then that's two sets of overheads.

you do know that it costs an employer more to hire 2 part-time people than one full time person, right? They are not charities, they also need to make money.

PP mentioned that there should be an onus on companies to employ disabled people. We have that law where i live, either they have to employ inclusively (and have all the correct infrastructure for that) or they pay an annual fine for that. It is calculated according to the size of the company/number of employees.

Because it often means more work for everyone else. And others may have reasons for wanting to leave early, come in late, work from home and so on. Like sick child or aged parent.

Can anyone explain the difference between “slow processing “ and “slow” as I’ve come across it a lot recently.

If someone takes longer to figure out a problem ( eg in maths/physics), even if they eventually arrive at the correct answer, to my mind that makes them less intelligent ( in maths and physics, not generally) than the speedy person who just “gets it” immediately.

Doesn’t extra time in that physics exam lead to a false representation of intelligence?

Einstein said he was a slow thinker. So I suppose it depends of you want fast recall of other people's work or slower groundbreaking stuff.

I dont know if slow and slow processing are the same. Slow processing would often be the linguistic skills not the physics though.

Again, you are failing to realise that businesses are not charities.

Businesses hire the candidate who has an edge over other applicants. NT or ND should not come into it.

If the ND person is not the best person for the job at the price point it is offered (wages and business overheads including any RA needed), then they should not get the job. That's how it works for NT people.

Einstein wasn't paid for his thinking initially though. He was self funded by other work until he had tangible proof of what he could do.

I was really only commenting on who was more intelligent. The person i replied to felt speed waa an essential component to intelligence.

As it happens ive not had any jobs where I need to be fast or that intelligent

I've never had a job where I didn't!

You've never had a job where speed was important? You've always been able to take as much as you fancy with everything? Never had a deadline or a quota to reach? I find that hard to beleive.