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 .

Schrödinger disabled people. Yeah I agree, sick to death of it. Stay in work and you get shit, but receive benefits and you get shit, what do people fucking want us to do.

I know someone who has dyslexia and as an adjustment asks for the interview questions upfront.

They have worked their way from office assistant to SLT at a financial institution. They prepare structed answers to interview questions and score really highly in them.

Some people may not agree with this but acas and the dyalexia website agree this is a reasonable adjustment and has never been refused.

Did you read the list the OP quoted?? Do you have any clue about disabilities such as MS and what they can do to a person? Or are you just spouting off daily mail headlines?

This thread is depressing.

I was given a reasonable adjustment of a reduced workload and flexibility with working from home by OH due to disability. I'm experienced and often help new staff get up to speed, even in my own time. I go the extra mile in emergency situations but don't follow the culture of unpaid overtime for routine tasks when we are (always) understaffed. I work with difficult individuals and have been praised for resilience in situations that often cause staff burnout.

My manager wouldn't implement this for months because like many here she said it was unfair on other staff. Ironically I didn't need it with other managers who were generally more flexible.

I now have the reduction, but not in reality as my workload is now sitting at over 100% so basically the same as everyone else's.

The company policy of up to 2 WFH days a week is ignored and mandatory team meetings and training mean it's very difficult to even get 1 a month.

So, I am looking for another job. As are over 50% of our department. So instead of me having my adjustments and the whole team having some flexibility to work from home 2 staff have handed their notice in, 3 are waiting to hear back from applications they have a good chance of getting and another 3 are actively looking.

Ironically, new staff will start with 50% reduction whilst they learn.

But without these adjsutments they couldn't work at all... which would cost the taxpayer more

Whenever someone asks my work for interview questions up front they are given up front to everyone interviewing for the post. That seems a fair approach

If they aren't following your adjustments then I'd advise you to seek legal advise. You couls get a tasty oayout at an employment tribunal.

I'm a big advocate for disabled peoples rights and hate to see anyoe misstreated

Yes this is thr public sector approach however my friend works in orivate sector jobs knowing normally they aren't (to the best of ehr knowledge) leading to ehr acing jnterviews and climbing the ladder

This is how my workplace does it now. Everyone gets interview questions up front.

This works because there is no reason to spring them on people, and this way everyone is in the same boat. If we only gave them to some, they would have an advantage. And the idea isn't to give some an advantage in order to "make up" for their dyslexia, it's to make sure they all have the same chance to have a fair interview.

No adjustments should mean that other staff have to do more work unpaid.
Your employer needs to sort it out. If people need longer to do things or more mentoring or something then they need to supply that without detriment to other staff.
I think it needs to be addressed in a clinical way, the hours each week or day added on to others workload as a result of this and how it can be managed.
It's certainly fair that disabled staff get adjustments but it should not make any difference to the workload of others.

Apparently reasonable adjustments can put people in a better position than they would be in if they weren't disabled.

So although in theory this is true legally it seems like other people do have to pock up the slack for disabled people which I'm okay with personally

I guess I feel like if I went back to work I'd need loads of adjustments, but wouldn't be at all comfortable if they came at the expense of others. I'm such a people pleaser I'd rather get on with colleagues than progress my career. But that's for another thread...

Don't be ashamed to be disabled my friend. If you take a job and they don't provide adjustments then go to acas and go to the emplpyment tribunal. If the judge agrees with you you will get paid out.

People see court as scary but honestly they are there to protect our rights!

Thank you. That's really kind x

What it comes down to as far as I can see is that a reasonable adjustment shouldn't be unfair, financially or otherwise, to other employees.

It also shouldn't compromise the financial or operational viability of the business.

That means that a lot of accommodations will be impossible - there are really going to be limits to what they can change.

I think that's actually how it was intended to work, but there are a lot of people who seem to think it should amount to other people having a harder job without fair remuneration for that, or employers having to increase costs or decrease productivity.

And I think there can be a lot of pressure to do those things.

I think it's difficult when you look at acas and disability websites the adjustments seem to be quiet "heavy" ie WFH, extra breaks, less workload, less client meetings, which means companies feel obligated to give them as they are scared of paying out in court.

also from a business perspective it is easier to give Jeff a lower workload or extra short paid breaks and give his workload to others than risk an employment tribunal

I appreciate we've moved on from here, but 'take the job and tell them in day one' is such terrible advice.

If done by a SQEP person, the 'health and safety assessments' (risk assessments) which make someone with epilepsy unsuited to a role are likely to be things like lone working or operating machinery. Not their fault, but the employer has a duty of care to keep them & others safe.

Following the advice to 'take a job and conceal the condition' the worker in PP post would have rocked up & immediately had to declare herself unable to do the main tasks of the role. Potentially embarrassing for the worker, really unhelpful for the employer and a waste of everyone's time.
Or even worse, may have felt unable to speak up, worked with boiling water and potentially got badly hurt or harmed someone else.

Why would you accept a job which could cause yourself, or others, harm?

Totally agree and am facing the same issue. I’m doing the lion’s share of the work, for the same money.

Apologies.

My advice was more job dependant.

What I was trying to say (although admittedly poorly) was for a condition such as autism or ADHD which may require additional screen breaks or less client contact (commonly approved and enforced adjustments depending on the role) then getting the job and declaring t on day one is a commonly used and encouraged strategy by people with disabilities to avoid being discriminated on during the hiring process.

I apologies as I agree for epilepsy this could be more stressful

Also I never advised not declaring epilepsy at all ..

Telling somebody else that they have to add to their workload by helping out is not a reasonable adjustment.

This I think.

It’s up to the employer to make reasonable adjustments but they can’t just be passing someone’s work on to a colleague.

And I’m also not sure that not doing your job is a RA!

Really you're willing to to make 1600 WIDGETS a day, working 4 nights in 10, and the person next to you is only making 400, getting longer breaks than you, is allowed to bring their dog into work, doesn't ever have to do the night shifts and is excused from off site training... Even though you're both contracted to make 1000 a day, both contracted to work 2 nights in 10... and you're all getting paid exactly the same?

Reasonable adjustments should be something put in place that allows a person to do their job as well as everybody else. So a special chair, larger monitor, headset instead of phone for example. If adjustments are required to the point that the person is not even doing the actual job anymore and creates more work for others then, no, this is not reasonable or fair on everybody else. I've had experience of this and it really breeds resentment within the workplace and frankly makes it less likely that someone with those issues would be hired in the future.

Don't want them taking your tax money and on benefits.

Don't want them in work either.

What the hell are disabled people supposed to do? They can't just stop being disabled and can't just stop needing those adjustments to be able to work. If you think "they can manage without", the you're pretty stupid. No they can't, if they want to stay in work. That's the whole point.

This country really does just want disabled and sick people rotting in the ditch don't they.