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 .

Really tough situation. How did you resolve this?

The reasonable adjustments are there to enable the employee to do their job. It’s not to enable less work for the same pay.

Time to look for an other job. I wonder how your boss will write the job description for what you do now.

They can be in work. But if they can't produce 1000 widgets a day as per their contract, but can only produce 500, they shouldn't be paid the same, surely? Especially if the missing 500 needs to be produced by the person who is already making 1000.

If they can make 1000 widgets a day by being allowed to sit down instead of standing all day, then there's no issue, is there? That's the reasonable adjustment.
What's not reasonable is them not producing 1000 widgets whilst being paid to produce 1000 widgets, and calling "oh do half the work for the same money and let others pick up the slack" a reasonable adjustment is madness.

Genuinely disabled people absolutely should have reasonable adjustments.
The problem is when every neurodivergent Tom, Dick and Harry starts requesting them too. With ND now being diagnosed at higher rate, this issue is going to start causing a lot of problems for employers and other members of staff.

I have autism and get very overwhelmed in certain situations. In no way did I see that as a reason to ask for adjustments. Thats just something that I needed to work with and manage myself. But my chronic bladder condition meaning I would need to make more toilet trips than most, I did request that management be aware that I may disappear to the loo more frequently than most.

Nail on the head!

A good illustration of how it should work, sadly too many managers havn’t the balls to make it work like that and other workers are having to pick up the slack.

I hear you. I've been in a similar situation and in the end I had to voted with my feet.

The constant stress and covering extra workload for others was making me ill.

Thanks everyone for your very reasonable replies. It’s a real dilemma. I guess the key thing for me is the increase in cases of depression, ADHD and anxiety. In the last 4 years or so it has rocketed. Some of these colleagues then tell me ‘oh you’re so lucky to be normal. I’d give anything to be able to concentrate on work for hours like you’.

Plenty of people get reasonable adjustments at my work for all sorts of things. Some official and some unofficial. Basically, if you do your job well, you can do it in a way that suits you. Everyone works in different ways and at different paces regardless of disability. I work at a fast pace and don’t mind taking on some other people’s work load, so long as they don’t mind if I nip out to do my shopping or leave early sometimes. My advice is don’t be a martyr and try and find a way that works for you.

I wouldn't be tolerating that.
You need to spell out to your employer that moving the workload of others on to you is not acceptable or sustainable, that you are feeling unduly burdened and stressed.
If they want to reduce the work load of others, they add a new hire, not dump it on you.

Look at your job description and stop accepting extra tasks.

It sounds like your employer isn’t actually considering and implementing these adjustments in a reasonable manner.

It might be time for a calm, but pointed discussion on how to make things sustainable with these adjustments in place. It sounds like they’ve taken the muddle through while someone is ill approach to adjustments but done it for permanent issues. Eg. Adjust base salaries and add a travel allowance, which can correctly only be paid to those who travel. Reasonable adjustments very explicitly dont mean being paid for something you’re not doing.

According to acas Reasonable adjustments can be to remove or alter small bits of the job though. Eg if someone's job is to fix 5 software bugs a day and after each bug call the user and tell them its resolved and they have autism the adjustment could remove the need for them to call the client (meaning someone else would presumably have to)

Cases where companies haven't made adjustments above have gone to employment tribunals and the employee has won and the employer has been found guilty of disability discrimination.

But the question still stands, if a company removes part of the workload from someone who do they give it to? Because they aren't going to hire another person just to make those calls meaning it would fall down to one other member of the team realistically. If the employee refuses to make the calls then the company may go down the dismissal route and if the employee hasn't been there for two years can be sacked for this reason (although the increased workload isn't fair it's not illegal)

I feel like this is how we get in these situations, bad employers shorting on staff making disabled people take the hit.

The OP may have no choice but to accept it

Most job contracts have a clause about carrying out extra work for needs of the business etc. And without two years service you can be sacked for reasons that aren't related to a protected characteristic meaning if OP refuses they could be dismissed.

This

In principal I agree but when you look at employment tribunal case studies it does appear removing part of the job is a reasonable adjustment meaning someone has to pick it up.

In your example I agree reducing the case load from 1000 to 500 isn't reasonable but altering it from 1000 to maybe 800 with some filler tasks in could be reasonable etc. I suppose it depends on a. Case by case basis

I agree with this, I think the issue is there is no way to decide whether a judge would find something reasonable or not and employers are scared to say something isn't reasonable incase they go to an employment tribunal so sometimes unreasonable adjustments go through. It's a hard line

I did some digging and also found the below.

There is case law confirming that if someone cannot continue in their current role due to a disability, moving them into a higher paid role can be considered a reasonable adjustment. The courts have upheld that in some situations, employers may need to offer a more senior or better paid position without a competitive process if it helps remove the disadvantage caused by the disability. This principle was confirmed in the case of Archibald v Fife Council.

People on this thread saying people with a disability shouldn't get so many adjustments need to be careful as they may find the disabled person becomes their boss if they keep bashing them.

I work in community NHS, if I turned up at the interview and said I couldn't drive then I would be ruled out of the job. My colleague is back from sick leave having her driving expectations "adjusted" which basically means the rest of us will have to do more driving to cover her.

I don't wish unemployment on anyone but I don't agree that you can "reasonably" adjust a job that requires driving by cutting driving.... It's not fair on everyone else as it's a direct negative impact on everyone else

Hi, I feel your pain.

To clarify though is you not being able tod.rive down to a disability or just because you never learned.

If it is because you never learned than legally yes the employer can do this, however if you also have a disability you should let them know.

The courts have often removed removing driving from a job is a reasonable adjustment. however arguably the employer could cover taxi costs for this person if need be depending on the job.

Sorry you are going through this but it is legal although frustrating

I can drive - that's how I do my job.

What I am saying is, being able to drive is listed as an "essential requirement" at interview - the spec states that you cannot do this role unless you can drive and own a car.

She is now having to drive less due to her health yet still "doing" the role, whereas someone new who interviewed for it would be told the lack of driving would be an issue

I work for myself and have no employees, but to me, this sounds like a time vs resource problem.
Those that genuinely need adjustments (a good example is my husband, who has scoliosis and sometimes he requires 15-20 mins to just get up from his computer and stretch his back) should get them, because they are just that - adjustments to help the person continue functioning and accessing the world in the same way as NT people do.
However, the amount of burnout you are suggesting is happening implies that either people are piss taking (“I have IBS so I need a 40 min bathroom break” when actually they need to adjust their diet for example) or there are simply too many people with adjustments working and sometimes that is the case!
Your employer has to manage what is “reasonable” with what is actually sensible for the company and possibly have a recruitment drive, start ensuring adjustments don’t impact on others and compensating those that are working more properly.

Three members of my household need reasonable adjustments. One of them has a vestibular condition so the adjustments re to do with lighting etc, the others are ND.

Dh was unable to drive for 3 years (literally not allowed by the DVLA). His adjustment was slightly different working hours to accommodate public transport times. If he had been in his previous job which involved travelling to 2-3 different schools in one day he wold simply not be able to do that job. He turned down a fantastic opportunity because he could not drive.

Adjustments only have to be reasonable. There seems to be many people demanding adjustments that are totally unreasonable for the situation. employers can't take this.

I guess it's a difficult one here..

Arguably the NHS should be covering taxis for them in this case. But also if she has to drive less but can still drive somewhat I can see how a judge would find this reasonable

Plus if they fired her she is out of a job which is never nice.

It's a difficult one isn't it.

I think the main issue here though is the NHS should be covering taxis instead of re distributing the workload

What kind of adjustments are not reasonable to.you out of interest?