For all the disabled people who cannot work to the standard of a non-disabled, what would you rather happen to them?

[KeenTaupeDog]

1. work in a job with RAs like access to specialist software, less time but less pay, extra time to finish exams
2. no RAs in their jobs, they have to live off benefits instead
3. no benefits for them, live off charity and family/friends

That isn't being kind. That's just not saying something contentious. And presumably you aren't sitting exams at work.

Can I ask how old you are?
You seem to be upset about comments made to you at school.
Teenagers say stupid things and don't always understand the reasons why someone might need extra help with an exam.

They probably don't get extra time for their exams.

Seriously it's like talking to a brick wall. People feel genuinely aggrieved that some people are getting what they consider to be an advantage in exams that may be peer ranked. This could directly adversely impact them. You think that speaking up about this is unkind and they just have to accept it. The reality is that they don't. They can bitch and moan. Whether this is morally right or 'kind' is subjective. Fairness almost always is subjective.

I think you see the world in a very black and white way. You think you're currently entitled to these things and therefore this is how it has to be always. That's not generally how things work. If enough people feel discontent and anger about something then they can effect change. If public sentiment turns against certain accommodations then democracy will eventually ensure that the rules are rewritten to the extent that most people are happy with them and think they strike a fair balance. At the moment lots of people feel the balance is off. Change probably will therefore occur over time but I don't think it will happen during this parliamentary period.

those are exams.. how do they affect the business operations of a business if an employee neeeds extra time? also the employer knows lol they get informed by the exam provider

In the real world. Stuff needs to get done by a deadline. You might have multiple projects to balance.

A client might critically need something for a board meeting. You don't get extra time.

But this makes me realise how hard life is for the disabled and how they need support

I don't get them that bad. But all I want to do is lie down. The last thing I want to do is look at a screen or be in a room with lights and people (because noise makes it worse)

those are ACA exams 21 year olds and over take after uni

have u not heard of professional exams?

Of course I have.
Interesting that you ignored everything else I said.

ACA exams use a form of scaled marking. So if you get extra time and therefore a potentially higher score then this will push down everyone else's score. At an individual level not a huge level, but at a population level this will have an impact and could describe why people are annoyed.

Do they know the reason why you need extra time? You don't have to tell them obviously but if you did and they still keep saying that you cheated then
report them to your supervisors or whoever is in charge.

I have no idea what an ACA exam is for but presumably if they allow those who need extra time to have it then there surely should be a system to account for that when it comes to the marking ?

Accountancy exams. No, there is no system to account for it when marking. The papers are all marked as if they were completed in the same amount of time.

Obviously the idea is that the person who is awarded the extra time doesn't have an unfair advantage as they need the time to have an 'equal' chance to compete the exam but you can easily see how this is impossible to manage completely fairly and guarantee that nobody is gaining an advantage. The reality is that some people undoubtedly do

@KeenTaupeDog have you formally been accused of cheating or is it just a stupid comment someone has made?

I think there’s a lack of knowledge about how disability, and the treatments we use to alleviate it, affect us. And little understanding that sometimes all the reasonable adjustments in the world can’t help keep a disabled person in their job. This is why I get so angry when this subject is discussed, and trivialised, like the opening post.

My disabilities stem from arthritis in my spine and its knock on effects, eg herniated discs, nerve damage. I take huge amounts of anti-inflammatory medication, tablets to deal with nerve pain and also opiates. And I’m still in pain. My cognitive abilities have been affected, and so I struggle to ‘learn’ or remember things.
At work, after an occupational therapy assessment, I started with an ergonomic chair, then a movable & adjustable screen, a writing slope. Then my employer got me speech to text software and text to speech software. But none of this helped with my productivity in the office and when my work was quality checked, well..you can imagine. I was on disciplinary improvement plans for attendance, productivity and quality so wasn’t far off being sacked. I was working at about a third of the rate of my colleagues. It’s hard to admit, but you can see why they didn’t want me. Between that daily humiliation and the overwhelming pain & fatigue, I had no life. I don’t believe the option to work from home would have made the slightest difference.

So, to that poster who think anybody can work, no matter their disabilities, you’re wrong. I didn’t ask to end up like this. I worked more than 30 years before being forced to give up, so I resent being called a scrounger in the media, on sites like MN and in daily life. Employers, put simply, don’t want disabled people and that Disability Confident tick on their literature means very little.

You are not a scrounger at all. And you've given me serious pause for thought

I have a disabled dd. I presume her workplace holds her to professional standards as they do the rest of her colleagues. She gets reasonable adjustments and funding from access to work. So option 1
However, she has been through a time of not being able to find work because she can't just take any job. Therefore she lived off benefits for a while (just PIP). I don't believe any of the employers who turned her down should be forced to give her a job so option 2 was the most appropriate in this situation.
Option 3 also applied as she lived with us during her time of unemployment and we didn't charge her anything.
So all three have their place.

Awful post.