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

These exclusions have shaped my whole life, and you just tell me that they don't really exist?

The parallels with women's rights become even more apparent.

There are subtleties here. There's dealing with people, and there's dealing with people.

And they call me "black and white".

teenagers are often egocentric. Maybe that is the reason?

IME the people who most think there is no need to be in the office are the people who most need to, because they are the most likely to overvalue their own opinions, analysis and objectivity and undervalue the importance of common goals and communication to effective delivery.

There is a lot of rigid thinking generally on this thread, isn’t there?

Mainly not from people who have said they’re ND.

Did you read the original suggestion to get the context before replying to me?

I think with something like inappropriate directness can be a huge issue in lots of jobs that centre around relationship building or working in collaboration with others. It also can be a huge problem in customer facing roles. This is why I make a point that it isn't always enough to be efficient if you are being ineffective because you are pissing too many people off in the process. I don't know if this is the case with your friend but in my experience what feels like social exclusion to one person can actually be people refusing to tolerate rude or unprofessional behaviour. I have seen people brought to tears by overly direct colleagues who have effectively humiliated and completely undermined them. Are you absolutely certain this isn't the case with your friend?

I agree that a cleaner wearing ear buds wouldn't make them less efficient or effective so that would be an easy RA that most people could facilitate.

'innapropriate directness' is very subjective though. It is set by the 'norm' of being British and NT.

I worked for a Dutch company and the Dutch were much more 'direct' than the Brits.

Indirectness can be unclear and waffly. I had to explain to one of my DDs that a teacher saying 'you may like to ...' actually meant 'do it'.

but in Britain in a British company and mostly British employees, Dutch colleagues can be reminded not to be so Dutch (or German applies also) because that is not how British communication works.

I have had this discussion many many times but the other way round with Germans (as in telling British colleagues that if you tell a German "you might like to change a to z" will result in them leaving it as it is as that is what they wanted in the first place). In that case waffly irrititating britishness would be wrong.

ND people have told me they prefer communication to be direct and factual. Points should be made openly not implied. "Sparing feelings" as one might for an NT person is unnecessary and just confuses.

I can see why that might seem "rigid" but actually I am matching the communication style.

Though... does your point not in fact exactly demonstrate that this hard line between the able NT who needs no help and support and the disabled ND who "deserves" reasonable accomodations is over simple?

Yes, absolutely sure. She is never blunt (there's a difference). Like many autistic women, she spends a great deal of time thinking about other people's emotions. She'd be the last person to piss people off. It's not even a client facing role, although she's excellent at that. She just doesn't fit the clique.

Unfair social exclusion in the workplace seems to be an almost universal experience for ND people. Being told it doesn't happen feels a lot like being told that being a woman in a male dominated workplace doesn't make a difference.

And yes, things like wearing earbuds shouldn't be a problem. The problem is that we are constantly told that little things like that are "impossible to accommodate" or "a whim" or we have to jump through impossible hoops to be allowed them.

I've literally had that happen. I wasn't allowed to use headphones while doing paperwork in an office by myself. I'd ask why, and I could see people rack their brains to come up with reasons.

Of course it is relative to the culture and society you are operating in. It is an area where the majority rules and things can change over time. That doesn't make it irrelevant or unimportant. If you got a job abroad then it would be expected that you adopted their approach to directness and social communication. If I was Dutch and started to offend and upset my British colleagues and customers then this would obviously be a problem and something that needs to be addressed. I couldn't insist that it was all fine because the parameters of what is acceptable have been decided by people that were culturally different to me.

The same goes with ND workers. Before I get accused of being ableist, there are plenty of disabled people that would find it particularly difficult to deal with someone that was overly direct. I had a disabled colleague that was hugely anxious and it would have disproportionately impacted her if someone with an overly direct manner confronted her.

Though... does your point not in fact exactly demonstrate that this hard line between the able NT who needs no help and support and the disabled ND who "deserves" reasonable accomodations is over simple?

No, it just means that if (some) NT people were less rigid in their ideas about what work “should” be like then perhaps it would be a nicer experience for a wider variety of people!

The problem is that ND people, up until now, have been expected to make all the accommodations. Simply being met half way would be nice.

No, you're really not.

well for sure. But the bottom line is companies exist to make money for their owners. That is it.

Some things are nice to have, but at the first whiff that it will cost money? it's a big fat nope.

Now i'm not saying this is lovely, desirable or even right. But some of the pp on here seem to be arguing that it is their right to have a job, and their right to dictate the terms of what they are and are not prepared to do and stuff their colleagues who may have to pick up the slack.

And to a certain degree they are right: we can all be picky and indeed choosy about what jobs we (are prepared to) do. And employers are very free to be picky and choosy about who they employ. And unfortunately in today's market? lowest common denominator will win. Every time.

So, to counter that we all need to push back a little and see that reasonable accommodations are made. For everyone though. And some need more than others, that's clear.

Join a union. Fight for workers' rights...

But sometimes these accommodations can place a greater burden on other ND or disabled colleagues so it isn't black and white. Also as extensively covered on this thread, there is a huge grey area between someone being ND or disabled and someone being completely NT or able bodies. NT people can have some more extreme ND traits than someone with an ND diagnosis. It isn't a binary situation. This is why the focus can't just be on accommodating the individual and meeting then half way if this causes distress and undue hardship on others.

There Is a big difference between causing distress and hardship to others, and insisting that things are done a certain way “because that’s how it is” / “because that’s how it’s always been done”.

I actually think a lot of resentment is due to inflexible working conditions. And a lot of things that are requested as reasonable adjustments wouldn’t be needed if companies were a bit more flexible for everyone. There are workplaces and jobs where thst isn’t possible, of course. But in a lot of cases it’s just people refusing for no real reason.

Great! Always nice to get helpful feedback!

How do you prefer to be told when you are wrong?

Be careful you aren't confusing "for no real reason" with "for reasons I personally do not value"

I’m not, but I appreciate you making the distinction.

Oh I agree completely. Nothing should really happen in workplace though for no real reason. It would surely be pretty inefficient to impose rules and restrictions that don't actually have a purpose? Hopefully RA requests around these kinds of things would expose the unnecessary nature of them and lead to the rules being adjusted for everyone.

Gosh that's a confident statement!

How are you so sure? Can you share some examples with your impact and cost/benefit analysis, maybe explain how you decided which factors you would consider and determined the various weightings?

Because I know and understand the places I’ve worked in.

I am not about to share specific examples and CBAs with a random person on the internet, sorry.

I have not said there are not reasons in all cases, and understand that staff members will not always know the reasons behind all the decisions.

To summarise this thread then:

-We pretty much agree that people should be able to ask for Reasonable Adjustments in the workplace
-In some cases those adjustments would benefit more than just the person who asked and could be rolled out across the board
-Employers should be more open to considering RAs and not just dismiss them out of hand [is there statutory guidance as to how this should be handled?]
-Adjustments are not reasonable if they simply shift a burden onto other employees
-Adjustments are not reasonable if one person is allowed to cherry pick the best/most interesting parts of a job leaving the dregs for everyone else
-In general people aren't envious of RAs because they are dicks, but because they perceive them as sometimes being unfair because they could be of benifit to other employees too
-Employers aren't there for the benefit of society just to provide jobs rather than people live on benefits (unless the organisation is specifically set up to do just that)
-There absolutely should be a benefits safety net for people who cannot work due to disabilities of whatever kind

did i miss anything out?