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 .

means to keep her in the job NHS would be wasting precious budget? why not to redeploy her to another area where she doesn't need to drive?

@coffeeandmycats

it's also worth noting that disabled people are often very aware of the impact on others, many people like yourself go above and beyond and try and push through silently until they burn out.

Are you so sure about it?
See quoted post - "so my co worker has to do the heavy lifting", very flippant, like it's all ok. Co worker has to. Was this co worker asked if they are happy to do twice more heavy lifting? did they have a chance to refuse or they'd lose their job?

Same. Have a chronic illness. Got a parking space nearish work and was allowed to work pt (pro rata).

Op it sounds like ur manager just hasnt done their homework.

Posters on here are always complaining about 'work shy' disabled people but apparently, when we require adjustments to allow us to work that's unreasonable too, I guess disabled folk are just an inconvenience whatever we do.
I am completely blind. I am only able to work because my employer provides me with equipment, adaptive technology and personal assistants to help me get to appointments, meetings, etc. Without these things I could not do my job. I am fortunate that my employer is willing and able to accommodate me but what so many of those whinging about disability benefits ignore is that my situation is far from usual. Employers as are not generally as keen to accommodate disabilities as so many of the posters on this thread seem to suggest.

Can I just say I was dreading reading this thread after a really horrible ableist one on mn the other day. Unless I have missed something most pp are being very fair.

This! It's not possible for most companies to 'hire more people'. To think that, means you obviously have no clue how a business operates.

This was all fine decades ago when the DDA came in but these days, every dog and his auntie needs 'reasonable adjustments'.

You do the same workload as your colleagues or do a workload that is equal to your pay? This is fine. The op wasn’t complaining about disabled people at work but was pointing out that they do less for the same pay at her workplace.

It would be quite excessive for the poster to go into detail about how the workload was redistributed and what consultation was conducted with the other person. It doesnt seem unreasonable on the surface for OP to pick up elements of the other person's role in lieu of the heavy lifting. Someone in my team needs to wfh permanently, part of all of our jobs is a small amount of in person filing- i didn't mind picking this up as I enjoy being in office and for those hours they do part of my job that I hate but they dont mind so it works out. Largely informal, but works for us both which is just as possibly the case here too.

I'm seeing this a lot too. Staff costs are my employers biggest cost, and the company can't afford to just increase costs by 20% to hire extra staff to cover all the ones who are paid as full time but only do about 60% of the job.

I cannot see how it is sustainable. Reasonable adjustments should be things like allowing someone to come in 10-6 when trains are quieter than 9 to 5, or supporting use of assistive technology, or tolerating more direct communication styles etc. Not just letting someone do half a job & get paid full wage.

I'm seeing this a lot too. Staff costs are my employers biggest cost, and the company can't afford to just increase costs by 20% to hire extra staff to cover all the ones who are paid as full time but only do about 60% of the job.

I cannot see how it is sustainable. Reasonable adjustments should be things like allowing someone to come in 10-6 when trains are quieter than 9 to 5, or supporting use of assistive technology, or tolerating more direct communication styles etc. Not just letting someone do half a job & get paid full wage.

I see your point. When I say heavy lifting I m talking a box of paperwork not concrete slabs. But yes it possibly is unfair that that is solely their responsibility. But I do take on more of other jobs some are the less enjoyable ones for example stock take which my colleague dislikes. We have also found ways to do some jobs without out the lifting, common sense like moving things in several journeys rather than all at once.

My colleague and I are both happy with our roles.
No option to employ additional staff as we work for local council and there’s no funding.

I don't think any emplpyers are letting people do half a job...

And if your emplpyer doesn't provide reasomabke adjustments I hope all the disabled staff each go to an emplpyment tribunal.and win their case.

Maybe your employer paying out some of their profits as payments to thaoe staff not getting adjsutments would cause them to treat their staff better.

Yes and emplpyers aren't removing large volumes of the workload but allowing extra breaks or a slightly smaller workload. Eg instead of 10 clients a day 8 with extra admin to compensate is reasonable and this has been upheld in court.

Emplpyers may not like it but these are the laws of the land we live in.

It sucks when a mother has their flexible working request removed because a disabled person needs those changes, or when someone has to work.from.home due toa disability so the rest of the team have to pick up the office wirk instead but ultimately disability rights have to come first and that's the way it should be

See this is the way it should be! People helping out their colleagues and picking up bits and pieces for them to help them out. Pwople i this thread are making a dramaover disabled people working it's very ablist in my humble opinion

Absolutely- although that mother getting flexible working gone would also be finding a new job. Here it sounds like the op isn’t in the situation that you find in your workplace.

Yes and emplpyers aren't removing large volumes of the workload but allowing extra breaks or a slightly smaller workload. Eg instead of 10 clients a day 8 with extra admin to compensate is reasonable and this has been upheld in court.

What you describe is reasonable - swapping for alternative type of work etc. But in many places employers feel they have their hands tied. I had a staff who had mental health issues. We tried SO hard to offer support, but the only things the employee says makes a difference is basically an outright reduction in workload or else they say the deadlines are too pressured etc. No one else in the team had any issues, its a nice workplace with senior management (my boss & his boss) who care about the wellbeing of the team.

What do you do if the employee finds a normal workload too much?

We offered them part time hours but the response is they cannot afford it/do not want the reduction in pay.

This is why so many of my jobs have had ended the same way, "we just want the person we interviewed".

I did twenty years in the NHS with increasing adjustments. I can't pretend to not be autistic any more.

Those posters saying it’s the employers fault for not employing more people - have you considered the employer’s position? If a team’s work can normally be covered by 4 people and then 3 of them require additional adjustments which means that the team now would need 6 people to operate - how does that make sense for the employer? I agree that relying on the goodwill of the 4th employee is not reasonable - but just expecting employers to employ more people is not always reasonable. As the head of a department I am always juggling costs and revenues to ensure I can maintain the headcount I have. I definitely could not magic up the money for more people in my department. All this could do is encourage employers to think twice about employing disabled people which is not the way to go.

See, I was in a similar situation but the co worker that had to pick up the extra lifting & walking to further away departments in a small team.
That's the reasonable adjustment lifting & walking PLUS my share of holiday & sickness cover for other colleagues. So as in my case, a team of 6 people, 2 could not do the lifting and /or further distance walking.... that leaves 4 people to get the heavier work shared out to. Now, at any time 2 people can be off on holidays... at times it was 2 people doing the heavier work with 2 people doing the lighter work. Add a bit of sickness in the mix and you have 3 people doing the work and you could easily end up doing all the lifting because the other 2 colleagues left couldn't do it. Thus making myself ill in the process... starting a vicious cycle of sickness for the able body co workers, who would then leave.... reducing the workforce further until suitable replacement is found. Then the new starter had to be eased into the job by giving them lighter, straight forward tasks no wonder the department has a huge staff turnover.

And no, we didn't need extra staff as on paper it all looks fair and fantastic. The job itself was great, even with that bit of extra work for other colleagues. But all the constant covering was insane. So I had no choice but follow suit and vote with my feet as many have done before me.

Labour have a lot to answer for.

Not just for the fear and uncertainty foisted upon the disabled, but also for the toxic public debate it has encouraged.

I agree, I’m a big believer in if you can’t do the job you’re employed to do then find a job you can do.

yeh it sucks for everyone involved but legally disability trumps their rights in law

How did you resolve it?

We had a similar issue in my previous workplace

luckily the law doesn't work like this and employers are required to adapt as they should.

i'm glad you got your adjustments!