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 .

Potentially offering them another job (at the same pay or more senior) in a lower stress environment. This could work!

a different job, lower stress job at the same pay etc, these are all things courts have upheld before.

If the entire business is about delivery against the deadlines? and only lowest pay grade of admin is not involved with it? so there isn't anything at the same or senior level?

There's a contraction there though.

Jobs with lower stress and more pay tend to be a bit thin on the ground.

they could re deploy them to an office job and match their original salary as an adjustment.

UK employer obliged to offer pay protection to disabled employee who was redeployed | Employment Law Worldview

redeploy them to the admin role and match their salary.

UK employer obliged to offer pay protection to disabled employee who was redeployed | Employment Law Worldview

like this case

i'm glad you have a supportive employer my friend!

yes but the issue arises that docking their pay due to an adjustment is illegal, as it should be!

they could do this, both options work. However organisations are expected to spend money on adjustments so arguably the taxis is also viable.

of course they have to though, why shouldn't they have to do it.

I agree with you OP, but I think this is an issue that is too systemic to tackle.

I am disabled. Autistic, ADHD, hypermobility, CFS, and on the diagnostic pathway for dyspraxia.

I am declared not fit to work, but with the state of the benefits system it's a terrifying thought that I might end up launched into work in order to not starve, but the adjustments that I would need to do the job would be unreasonable. It doesn't mean my needs aren't valid it just means businesses can't accomodate my needs without having to hire more people or pass work on to others.

The government are forcing disabled people back into work so this issue is only going to get worse.

also re deploying could hurt their future career prospects so may but the disabled person at a disadvantage

I agree with you, it's a fine line though isn't it

I don’t regard myself as disabled however I have a heart issue and epilepsy combined with a blood disorder which means I work fewer hours thus am paid less. If employees inhibited with reduced capability aren’t able to work at the same rate and level as others surely they work part time or from home so the employee structure works for all. It’s down to the management to readjust their HR framework.

Thanks for sharing that it sounds like you're managing a lot, and it’s completely understandable that you wouldn’t necessarily see yourself as disabled in the typical sense. But under the Equality Act, what you’ve described a heart condition, epilepsy, and a blood disorder affecting your ability to work full hours would very likely meet the definition of a disability. You don’t have to use the label or identify with it personally for the legal protections to apply.
In fact, if your health conditions have a long-term impact on your ability to carry out day-to-day work, then you’re probably entitled to reasonable adjustments like reduced hours, flexible working, or different ways of structuring your role without having to lose pay or status automatically. Employers should be proactively offering support, not just expecting people to silently reduce their hours or responsibilities.
You’re absolutely right that it’s up to management to structure teams and roles in a way that works for everyone, but the law places a specific duty on them to do that for disabled employees, whether they’ve openly declared it or not.
You shouldn’t have to carry that load alone, and you deserve to be supported properly.

I feel the government should also be doing more to help disabled people work.

There’s an argument in this that if you continue to be pushed and your workload is so unmanageable that you are stressed and become burned out, your mental health will suffer as a consequence. You may then yourself require reasonable adjustments to return to work (if you have to go off sick) or to continue in your role. It’s not right that other employees suffer or struggle as a result of other people having reasonable adjustments. Although, it’s a managerial issue to solve, not yours or those who’ve been given reasonable adjustments.

also legally large organisations are expected to do more to support employees with disabilities. another important point.

The issue isn't "too many adjustments" the issue is the boss not hiring an extra person or ensuring workload is shared properly etc.

Actually, although that may be the case in some places, sometimes it is that there are too many adjustments. There has to be a balance between making adjustments and drawing a line where it negatively impacts the ability to do the job.

I think people are afraid to assess whether people actually have the capability to do the job and just feel they have to give any adjustments asked for. Or an adjustment is given which should be reviewed but is just left in place indefinitely. This starts to negatively impact the business, and then is unfair to others. And as another thread said, it can mean that people dont get asked the do the bits no one else likes either, meaning that other staff have to do more of those things.

A better approach would be - if you have to have this many customers, but can only manage this many at the moment, how can we get you to a point where you can handle the first number? Not just, ok, do less.

I get that adjustments can feel frustrating when you’re on the receiving end of the extra workload, but the problem isn’t too many adjustments it’s poor management of resources and expectations. The law doesn’t require a disabled person to earn their way back to a standard workload. The Equality Act says adjustments are there to remove disadvantage, not to train someone back to full capacity on a timeline that suits others.
We wouldn't ask a blind person to somehow regain their vision just to meet standard job expectations. We’d make reasonable adjustments so they can do their job with their disability. That might include providing assistive tech or even a support worker to help with visual tasks. And no, the company doesn’t necessarily have to pay for that directly support like this can often be funded through the government’s Access to Work scheme.
The same principle applies to other disabilities too. The goal isn't to force someone to meet original standards no matter what, but to remove barriers that stop them from doing the job effectively.
Yes, adjustments should be reviewed and often are. But long-term or indefinite adjustments aren’t a failure. They reflect the reality that many disabilities are ongoing or fluctuate. Employers don’t have to say yes to everything, but they do have a legal duty to seriously consider and implement reasonable adjustments, even if it causes some inconvenience.
If someone is being excused from certain tasks repeatedly, that’s something management should be dealing with. It’s not the disabled person’s fault the team is under pressure it’s the employer’s responsibility to make the structure work, not just expect the disabled person to quietly take on more or pretend their needs don’t exist.

We can't afford more people relying on state benefits; the country is already on its knees. Anyone who wants to work should have the chance to do so.
We can’t afford to exclude so many people from the job market. Huge numbers of individuals with disabilities want to work but face discrimination. If they can’t find a job, what are they supposed to do? Give up entirely?

We’d make reasonable adjustments so they can do their job with their disability. That might include providing assistive tech or even a support worker to help with visual tasks.

Yes, this is a good example of a reasonable adjustment.

The goal isn't to force someone to meet original standards no matter what, but to remove barriers that stop them from doing the job effectively.

And this is key. But if you could not make a reasonable adjustment to the original job for effective performance, it is also ok to say so. An airline might reasonably say that blind people cannot be pilots because that job cannot be adjusted in a way to make this possible. Its this point that gets missed - its whether it is really possible to adjust that job enough.

I do think not enough adjustments are made. And that by disadvantaging people the economy suffers. But there can also be a real entitlement and frankly piss taking about adjustments - I see a lot of people with anxiety where their anxiety only relates to carrying the same workload as everyone else. Is that reasonable? Possibly, but possibly not.

I agree completely, if a company hires a disabled person and makes less money because of it, so be it, at least the disabled person is working

But in this current climate would you agree that it is a good use of NHS money to pay taxis every single day for someone to do their job - taking them to and from multiple home visits all day long? I wouldn't.

You're absolutely right that not every job can be adjusted to work for every person, and the law does recognise that. If no reasonable adjustment can be made to help someone carry out the key parts of a role, even with support, then it's legally fine to say that the role isn’t suitable. The pilot example makes sense some jobs have safety or performance limits that just can't be changed.
But that’s very different from refusing adjustments just because they’re inconvenient or because someone thinks the person doesn’t deserve them. The Equality Act says employers have to remove disadvantage, not discomfort or preferences. If someone with anxiety struggles with the same workload as others, it’s not about laziness it’s about whether their condition seriously affects how they cope with pressure over time. If it does, that counts as a disability in law, and adjustments may be needed.
Employers do have a right to look at whether an adjustment works in practice, and whether it’s reasonable in the circumstances. But they can’t ignore it just because it doesn’t look serious enough to someone else. It’s not about special treatment it’s about making sure people aren’t shut out of work because of a health issue they didn’t choose.
And yes, sometimes adjustments do cost money but if they’re reasonable, then the business has to cover it. That’s just part of the responsibility of being an employer under UK law. If someone needs a support worker, new equipment, or a role change to stay in work, then the cost isn’t a reason to say no if it’s affordable for the business. That’s the deal.