To feel like some reasonable adjustments are actually unreasonable

[Tiredjusttired]

Fully prepared to get flamed here, but please hear me out.

The small team I work in has an increasingly large proportion of people receiving workplace adjustments for disabilities such as ADHD, stomach issues, MS, depression, heart problems. The adjustments typically involve less workload, more time to complete tasks, less responsibility, less travel, priority for desk based tasks (while being paid the same as those with full responsibility and workload obligations).

My problem is that it means there is no capacity for the rest of us to catch a breath, undertake shadowing for professional development, or do general CPD, since the overall team workload has remained the same. I keep telling myself it is right my employer makes these adjustments, but it just feels so unfair. I’ve had to work so much of today to keep up with the workload. The ones without reasonable adjustments have to pick up the slack.

Does anyone else feel similarly? I guess I can take comfort in the fact my employer will hear me out when or if I have health issues myself, although the policy for menopause/pregnancy is very frugal. Currently, it seems a bit two-tier .

Ah some are more equal than others. Anyhow that mother leaving would be another employers gain.

No they can't get rid of them for that but can do for pretty much anything else.

OP, adjustments that involve significant increases in workload to others do not count as reasonable adjustments.

You need to speak to your manager.

Most employers are unable to cover these costs to enable disabled people working for them in roles these people want. It would be great if they could, but they mostly can't.

It just doesn't make any sense to employ a person in a role they can't do permanently. I accept that some very shor-term adjustments might work, but if it's perm disability.

A person in a wheelchair can't be a bricklayer, no matter how much they might want it. They might be a top IT, lawyer, accountant, etc etc, but not a bricklayer. To force a building company to make adjustments for them is unreasonable.

Equally, a person who gets overwhelmed by working with people, and sick people at
this, probably shouldn't be a nurse. They can be a brilliant accountant or do many other roles.

To get a project manager who gets anxiety over deadlines, then move them to an admin role and still pay the project manager's salary is not a reasonable adjustment.

People need to get real.

PIP is intended to help with care costs and costs of equipment needed due to disability. It is not intended as an income replacement (although it is often used in that way).

With the criteria for claiming PIP tightening, and it being the new basis for Universal Credit recognising limited capacity to work, this is going to get worse.

There really needs to be some consideration of disabled people who cannot work full time, even if they don't meet the new high threshold for PIP. Some kind of benefit top-up.

If a company genuinely can’t afford an adjustment, then no it might not be considered reasonable. The law takes into account what the business can actually manage. But that doesn’t mean nothing can be done. A lot of adjustments don’t cost anything like changing someone’s duties a bit. For example, if someone struggles with client-facing work, maybe they could do more admin or behind-the-scenes stuff, and someone else takes on more of the public-facing role.
It’s about being flexible and looking at all the options, not just saying no. Employers are expected to explore all reasonable alternatives before deciding something isn’t doable.

the difficulty is as I said before that for companies it is safer to redistribute work to other employees than sack the disabled employee, as a company without much money cannot afford to fight at an employment tribunal, as in general fees for disability discrimination are not recoverable even if you win.

This kind of thinking is exactly why so many disabled people end up pushed out of work unnecessarily. No one is saying a wheelchair user must be hired to lay bricks or that someone should be paid for work they’re not doing. But the Equality Act makes it clear: if someone can still do the core functions of a role with adjustments, then those adjustments must be seriously explored even if they’re long-term.
And on the pay point you're wrong to assume that keeping someone on their original salary after a role change is automatically unreasonable. There are real tribunal cases where judges have ruled that it is a lawful and reasonable adjustment to maintain someone’s pay after moving them into a lower-paid role due to disability. For example, in Powell v G4S, the court found that keeping a disabled worker’s higher salary in a new, less demanding job was justified. So it’s not about opinions it’s about what the law actually says. People don’t need to "get real" they need to get with the law.
Adjustments aren’t about handouts or wishful thinking they’re about removing unnecessary barriers and making work accessible. That might mean shifting duties, rethinking how tasks are done, or yes, helping with transport or workload in some cases. Employers don’t have to say yes to everything, but they are legally required to consider all reasonable options especially in large organisations like the NHS, where these kinds of changes are often very doable.
Saying someone “probably shouldn’t be a nurse” just because they struggle with one aspect of the job ignores the fact that most roles involve a mix of tasks, and people often excel in some areas while needing support in others. That’s why reasonable adjustments exist to keep skilled people in work, where they belong.

That’s not quite right. The law doesn’t say an adjustment stops being reasonable just because it causes some extra work for colleagues. Reasonable adjustments can involve some redistribution of tasks or changes to how the team works that alone doesn’t make them unlawful or invalid.
What matters is whether the impact on the business or team is disproportionate. That’s a higher threshold than just “this is inconvenient” or “someone else has to do more.” The employer has to weigh up all the circumstances including the size of the business, available resources, and how essential the adjustment is to removing a disadvantage for the disabled person.
Plenty of Employment Tribunal cases have upheld adjustments that caused some extra workload for others. It’s the employer’s job to manage those impacts, not to deny someone their legal rights to access work equally. So no added workload alone doesn't automatically make an adjustment unreasonable.

As people can probably tell disability rights are something I feel strongly about!

Not the "in good ol days we nanaged" bs...
Wet didn't manage it in the past, people who needed adjustments didn't get them and were out of work. Now the subsequent governments want them to contribute and to work, as it's a right for people with disabilities to have the necessary adjustments.

Right on! Companies need to understand that hiring people means accepting that some support might be needed and that’s just part of doing business in a fair society. If they don’t want to step up, then honestly, I hope the long arm of the law reaches deep into their pockets and the tribunals hand out pay outs like confetti. Nothing reminds a company to do the right thing like a nice, expensive wake-up call.

1. wheelchair user, not person in a wheelchair.
2. Many wheelchair users can lay bricks.

I feel like people pick up extreme examples for their arguments, obviously we aren't going to have blind pilots, but why can't someone in a wheelchair lay bricks?

You totally missed the point of what reasonable adjustments are and I hope you are not and never stop be in a position of responsibility over others. The other option for you is to become disabled and try to work, and tell us in some years time how it worked out.

Edited as replied twice

I think sometimes those lucky enough to not have disabilities find it hard to put themselves in other peoples shoes.

Of course, the same could be said for lots of other things. That is why it is important to listen to people who are living with disabilities, who can see things from a different perspective.

it's a fine balance I guess, businesses are struggling lately and don't want to make adjustments but I guess if they don't want to work within the remit of the law they shouldn't be business owners.

I'm now retired but I had both - managed a very large team (and quite a few of them became my life long friends eventually) and grafted more than 30 years with significant disability.

Companies may make reasonable adjustments for existing staff, but how likely are they to employ people knowing about their disabilities and the adjustments that will be needed?

In my experience they won't. The gov is removing PIP from lots of people and telling them to get jobs but the jobs dont exist. And part of the reason is the unwillingness of employers to take them on.

Pip is not an out of work benefit or to cover the gap in payments. It's to support independence.

In some cases it is used for this because employers cannot accomodate reasonable adjustments but it isn't the purpose of PIP, no.

There are a lot of business owners at the moment who are questioning whether they want to still be business owners. My bosses included.

reasonable adjustments are fine thing but ultimately people are employed to do a job.

This is why I am a big advocate for not disclosing your disability until your first day at work, springing it on them will prevent staff with disabilities from being discriminated against during the hiring process.

yes that is true, and to be fair those business owners who don't want to comply with the law should either sell their business or wind it down

Did you ask for adjustments for you job due to your disabilities?