To feel the ‘social model of disability’ is being used against me?

[Ungratefulorwhat]

Short version:
In education and work the words ‘social model of disability is trotted out at me a lot.
I’m being told that because adjustments (quite often the wrong ones) have been made, I’m “no longer disabled by impairment.” And “adjustments have already been made for you.”
So, I’m now not struggling because I’m disabled, just not good enough because I’m ‘impaired’ and that isn’t covered by the DDA?

With PIP and ESA I’m being told that as I’ve been awarded disability aids and a carer “Obviously the effects of your disabilities are now considerably reduced.” This seems to be relying on the same ‘social model.’
Absolutely they’re reduced, from unable to do everything, to unable to do quite enough to please anyone.

Is this a flaw in the ‘social model,’ it being abused, or something else?

Sorry that was in response to JudgeRudy

@LangClegsInSpace You are another example of the law and social model being misundersstood.

I know 'reasonable adjustment' is what the law says, but its dangerous to just focus on what is reasonable and what the law says. You will inevitably get it wrong - why? Cause only a court or tribunal can confirm what is reasonable or not.

Plus it makes the employee feel a bit shit and as though you are just ticking the boxes. You should take a best practice approach, seek to be an inclusive employer and GO BEYOND the mere minimum required by law.

Hence the social model.

Is it enough to just go "here's a hearing loop, 'reasonable adjustment' done", when you could also include deaf awareness for all staff, copy of the agenda in advance, copies of minutes afterwards, joining the disability confident scheme, caption all video calls, have a clear disability / adjustment policy, introduce an adjustment passport, have a disabled staff network.....

NONE OF THOSE THINGS COST ANY MONEY.

Furthermore, employers and other organisations, should not just wait for someone to tell you what adjustments you can make, you should be proactive. Just because you haven't had a disabled employee, doesn't mean you won't get someone walking through the door tomorrow for an interview (the law doesn't force you to share your disability at application, so it could happen - hence being proactive and anticipating such situations and what you can do).

I'm a multi disabled person, sit on my unions national disabled workers committee, qualified in HR, work as a disability trainer, won a disability discrimination tribunal, have a PHD in disability studies, and have an OBE.

Just saying, I know what I'm talking about.

@storminamooncup I note that you work for an organisation that advises employers and not employees.

Cause only a court or tribunal can confirm what is reasonable or not.

I also note that you won your tribunal. Congratulations, it sounds like you had a really good case.

My specific department advises employers but as an organisation we help employees and other disabled people too. We are also led by disabled people. You may have also forgotten to 'note' I represent disabled people through my union work as well?

The majority of disabled people are disabled by chronic conditions that mean that they are going to struggle with numerous issues. An otherwise healthy person who uses a wheelchair or who is deaf is a person who can be adjusted for reasonably easily and it seems like these are people the social model has in mind.

It is far more difficult to provide adjustments for people with more complex conditions. Often these people have such poor health that no amount of adjustment is going to overcome their disability. It sounds like the op falls into this category.

But the social one can't be used while people still maintain the "oh dear poor person with X condition" and "it's so terrible they have Z condition it's so disabling" attitude. That's the medical model hanging over us all.

The social model works if people embrace it wholly and completely

Don't say 'overcome' - no disability can be overcome. Its always there.

Remember what the real barrier is - society and attitudes like the PP.

Right, and do you not think it's important to advise the disabled employees who you represent of their legal rights?

Where do I say I don't? or my organisation doesn't? You continue to misunderstand me and misinterpret the law. I'm not going to argue with you anymore. I'm going to finish by suggesting you get disability and social model awareness training and read up on disability discrimination case law.

How have I misinterpreted the law?

It's like with social housing, I can't be rehoused because I can stagger around my home, I only stagger round my home because it isn't big enough to use my wheelchair, there isn't enough room to turn my wheelchair around. I can only use my kitchen stood up because the sink & cooker are too high to use from my wheelchair. All I keep on being told is contact us if you get any worse, I can't use the bins because they are too heavy to open & too high for me to lift the bin bags in, my flat ends up stinking because I have to wait for ds to come up once a week to put the rubbish out for me.

You say disabled employees should just talk about 'adjustments' and not 'reasonable adjustments' in the hope their employers will go above and beyond the legal minimum if the word 'reasonable' is not there.

OP just wants a desk the right height.

Most disabled people are having to fight hard for the absolute minimum legal rights.

Well firstly, people identify in different ways. Some people prefer disabled over impairment, some prefer impairment over disabled. Some people prefer autistic or dyslexic, over either disabled or impairment. Some people don't even realise they meet the definition of disabled under the Equality Act.
The social model says we are disabled by society. We don't 'have' a disability, disability is something that is done to us. We are prevented from being able - society is DIS abling us. If that make sense. We still have our impairments though, and that's kind of why we say impairments.
But as I said above, we all have different ways of identifying and that's cool. You do you. There is no right or wrong. Some people don't like the social model at all and prefer the medical model. Again, you do you.

Well thanks for the definition of the difference in disability and impairments.

Absolutely unnecessary to repeat "you do you" throughout when I simply asked a question to understand the OPs use of terminology and their definitions. "You do you" is insulting and very much does to a non disabled person exactly what you complain is done to disabled people. Minimising their questions and concerns.

FWIW I was as,img because my ds with a rare neurological disorder and autism is heading out into the world of work very soon and I wanted to learn the terminology to support him with reasonable adjustments if he needed them.

But don't worry - I'll do me and toddle off and sort it out alone 🙄

From googling around it appears there are an absolute fuckton of well funded third sector orgs that advise employers, colleges, public services, service providers etc. etc.

If you're on the shitty end - if you're the disabled employee, student, patient, prisoner, service user ... there's really not much. You might find free initial advice but the chances are you will end up representing yourself if you pursue your complaint to tribunal or court.

If you're an employee you can join a union and just hope your rep is not too hung up on whether you 'identify' as disabled or not to accurately inform you of your rights and support you in your claim.

This all seems weirdly familiar.

'Going above and beyond the law' for disabled people sounds lovely but employers, service providers etc. need to be very sure of the law before they do that.

It's easy to be very enthusiastic, sometimes too enthusiastic to properly listen to the person to whom you owe an equality duty, and get it badly wrong despite your good intentions.

Also there is no longer a stand-alone DDA. Those rights have been folded into the Equality Act which has nine protected characteristics, including disability, none of which takes precedence.

Going above and beyond the law, when it comes to the EA, always risks infringing on other groups' equality rights. That's not to say it shouldn't ever be done but employers etc. should have a rock solid equality impact assessment to support their position because going above and beyond the law means the Equality Act no longer automatically protects them. They've gone out on a limb.

TBF I can't see this being too much of a problem for employers etc. regarding disability rights because it's hard enough getting them to even meet the legal minimum.

My understanding of the social model (I am no expert!) is that it's a way of preventing society from just shrugging its shoulders and saying disabled people 'can't' do things with no further thought or accommodation:

'Wheelchair users 'can't' work for my company because we're on the second floor and they can't get up the stairs.'

'Deaf people 'can't' follow UK govt. covid press conferences because they can't hear what the speakers are saying.'

By default, disabled people are dis-abled because the whole of society is built to suit people with no impairments. The social model demands that society looks at all the ways it can enable people with impairments to participate in all areas as fully as possible and implements all the ways that are reasonable.

Reasonable adjustments in the EA are the social model made law.

This doesn't mean that people don't still have impairments and it doesn't mean there will always be possible reasonable adjustments, or even completely unreasonable £££ blue-sky adjustments, that would eliminate all disadvantage. Many times, disabled people simply cannot do certain things regardless of any possible adjustments, e.g. blind people cannot drive and there are no possible adjustments that would currently allow them to safely do so.

Disabled people who have been provided with all reasonable adjustments are still disabled and are still protected by law from all kinds of discrimination.