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 .

I'm in a similar boat to the OP. I have to cover all the office based tasks of a colleague who is physically capable of going into the office, but does not on the grounds of mental health. She also doesn't pick up any extra tasks to compensate, which means my workload is higher. I'm sick of it.

I have a colleague who is now allowed to work from home 4/5 days a week for health issues. We are a small team of 5 and minimum two need to be in the office at any one time. Since this adjustment was given the other 4 of us need to come to office more often (works out 3 days instead of 2 or even more during holidays etc), which is more expensive for me and affects my work/life balalnce, missing gym classes, time with kids etc. is that fair?

No. She gets full pay for her job

Tbf she has a learning disability too so we are looking at fairly menial jobs - the trouble is it is obvious she has a learning disability (she went to a specialist needs school for starters) so she would reveal that and so it would be inappropriate to reveal half the story if you see what I mean.

The epilepsy does massively impact what she can and can't do, her availability (a seizure means she sleeps all day).

I guess I'm agreeing with the OP about some adjustments being too much.

For example she volunteered in a hospital . They wanted her to make cups of tea and push people in wheelchairs but health and safety wouldn't let her near hot water or be in charge of a wheelchair. And tbf that's understandable. So the whole volunteering fell apart. Because of the learning disability they didnt have other jobs she could do.

The Gov is pretty naive imo. My daughter gets loads of PIP points btw she won't lose hers. But the point is going to apply to other disabled people.

Why, if she’s not working the same hours as her colleagues? Seems unfair on her colleagues, no?

Its a difficult situation and i wish your family all tbe best

I see your argumement but dissagree. Employers wouldn't dock someones pay who has ibs and uses the bathroom more or someone who has to inject insulin during working hours.

No it’s absolutely not fair. You should not be inconvenienced by someone else. This provision has gone too far.

Absolutely agree.

OP can't say that she's struggling with workload because she'd be the first one out of the door. She can't say it because of RA because line manager will guilt trip her.
The business might be unable to afford hiring more people. Those at the top can see the headcount as sufficient without knowing the details about disabled people not doing 100% expected of them.
And poor line manager can't even have a conversation about RA because they would be accused of disability discrimination.

Complicated but WFH can be a reaspnable adjustment so what can the company do? They can either accept it or rol the dice at an employment tribunal

I have already commented but what do the people complaining about reasonable adjustments actually want to see happen?

Are you saying that disabled people/people with long term health conditions should not be in the workplace?

In which case are you happy to pay for higher/lifelong disability benefits?

It is not the fault of disabled people if they require additional support and the law allows them to request reasonable adjustments.

People don't choose to be disabled...

It sounds in many instances that the issue is not the reasonable adjustment but poor management anyway.

The employment rate of disabled people is 53%, compared to 82% of non-disabled people. This thread shows exactly why so many are simply not welcome in the workplace...

I feel like innfeberal.people need to be grateful they are able bodied!

Someone might correct me but I don’t reckon the ibs sufferer or insulin user is using the same amount of time per day as your pal is “off the job”. The total amount of time per week, per month, per year added up that the nurse has as down time is quite a lot.

Roll the dice and get rid.

If they’re actually in the workplace, and it is seen they are doing less work, their pay should be reduced. That’s the only fair thing to do.

Your coworkers have the right to ask for reasonable adjustments and the employer then needs to determine whether it's possible. It sounds like they haven't adequately accounted for the workload issue.

Less work isn't usually a reasonable adjustment, though flexible working and/or extended deadlines might be. Your colleagues might just be working the expected hours though, and because the workload isn't managed well, you are picking up the slack. The only way to get it changed is to make it the problem of someone higher up the chain.

You aren't wrong. I feel like in general public sector jobs are a lot more open to reasonable adjustments.

The fact that occupational health suggested it an the nhs went along with it likely means it is legal though, and docking 5 minutes of pay after every patient (almsot hour long appointments may not be reasonable.

I guess it's no different to someone taking screen breaks every hour which desk users are encouraged to do

One of the issues I have found is that when you accommodate one person, it makes it more difficult or even impossible to accommodate another in the same way.

I found this early on when I hired a team member who have some mobility issues, and it seemed to me simple to manage as it was just a little task reallocation in the team.

Then another, very long time employee had some health issues that prevented her from doing the same kinds of tasks, for an unspecified amount of time, potentially permanently. However, there was no real capacity in the team to manage that because we were already down one person for those kinds of tasks, it would have left one person doing all of the more physical work, which was likely to be too much for one and in any case seemed clearly unfair, and there would have been no one to cover in case of regular types of things like someone being off with the flu. Or even an extra busy day.

in that case it suddenly looked like a long time employee might have to leave the job while we kept a new one (and frankly, not as hardworking or useful) who had the same limitations. It would have been grossly unfair.

It seems to me that it is so easy for accommodations made in the interests of fairness to end up shifting the unfairness on to other people.

Some people seem to think that every workplace has a lot of extra capacity in terms of what employees can take on, lots of flexibility in terms of moving people around, or extra money to hire more staff. Lots of places have none of those things, especially small and medium sized workplaces.

Reducing someones pay for reasonable adjustments is directly illegal under the equalities act. By law reqspnable adjustments are not allowed to impact an employees pay negatively

Yes sack people with disabilities or health conditions who are trying to stay in work. They should all be on pip and stay at home! How dare they try to remain in work!! 🙄

I've only read the first page because some of the ablist crap on here is too depressing. But compare this thread with those about dismantling welfare benefits. So disabled people should stop costing the state/tax payers and get back to work. But also they shouldn't be allowed any of the adjustments that make that possible. Well thanks.

This question always bugged me. How do employers decide who to give the adjsutment to.

Ie employee a has a bad back so doesn't have to take the trash out

Employee b then gets cancer and can't take the trash out

Spmeone has to do it. But if employee a has already been told they can't accomodate this when employee a already has this adjustment

Well if it needs more people due to so many of the workforce needing " adjustments" then surely employers will stop employing people who need them rather than cough up thousands for an extra member of staff

I don't choose to be an smallish sized woman, or a bit scattered, at times, but that doesn't mean I should be "accommodated" to be a firefighter or air traffic controller.

People need to be able to do the job, is what it comes down to.

No one is saying that disabled people should not work. But they will not, like all of us, be able to work in every job, and they may not always be able to work in the job they had before.

That will leave a cohort of people who may not be able to do many conventional jobs, and there I think there will be a need for some programs for such people to access work.

Well there you have it. Employers cornered. In this case the tax payer is paying your pal’s salary. Multiply that with the numerous people having extra breaks/not doing the job fully and there’s another reason the tax payer is being short changed (and NHS waiting lists getting longer).