AIBU to think employers aren’t going nearly far enough with adjustments and that ableist attitudes are still totally normalised?

[coffeeandmycats]

I’m honestly so fed up with how “reasonable adjustments” are treated like some kind of special favour or workplace charity. They’re not. They’re a legal duty under the Equality Act, and they exist because without them, disabled people are shut out of employment or slowly squeezed out once they’re in.
Every time someone says “we couldn’t adjust the role” or “it wouldn’t be fair on the team,” what they usually mean is “we didn’t want to deal with it.” And that’s what drives me mad how often laziness, bias or lack of imagination is brushed off as “just being realistic.” That’s not realism. That’s ableism.
Most jobs can be adjusted. If someone can’t do one task but can do everything else why is the answer to push them out, instead of reshuffling the tasks or offering alternatives? We do this all the time in other settings. You wouldn’t chuck a kid out of school because they struggle with stairs. But in work, suddenly job specs are sacred texts.
And now, with the government trying to push more disabled people back into work (often with threats of benefit sanctions), where is the structural support? Employers still get to decide whether something is “reasonable,” even when they’ve shown time and again that they don’t understand or don’t care. That’s not a system that’s a gamble.
We should be encouraging every disabled person denied adjustments to take their employer straight to tribunal. I don’t care if it’s uncomfortable the law needs to be enforced. But also, it shouldn’t have to get that far. There should be an independent ombudsman-style service that employers must subscribe to something that can assess adjustment requests fairly and quickly, without making the disabled person go to war to be heard.
And honestly? If a business can’t afford to make space for disabled people, whether that’s with flexibility, equipment, transport help or task reallocation, then maybe they shouldn’t be in business. If your model only works when everyone is 100% able-bodied, then your model is broken. Shut it down.
AIBU to think we’ve got this totally backwards? That we’re still treating inclusion like a bonus feature instead of a basic requirement? That people who need adjustments are somehow seen as the problem instead of the systems and attitudes around them?
I’m sure this will rub some people the wrong way. Maybe that’s the point.

He could have quietly slipped his shoes off under the desk, and popped them back on for meetings and I bet no one would have noticed. Instead he's made a huge song and dance and taken money from a charity in the process.

because the shoes cause their feet pain?

because the charity ignored the law.

It’s amazing how everyone related to you has some sort of condition to the point that they can threaten to sue so that the company settles to stop the legal expense. It’s almost as if they’re milking it or exaggerating it to
get a payout.

I’m not surprised they said no to a man walking around the office and meeting clients barefoot. Are you actually joking? It’s pretty gross and there are other people to think about. Once again an example of what you describe as a reasonable adjustment having an unreasonable impact on those around him.

I hope to god the judge argues shoes off in the office is unreasonable (and minging). Put your feet away!

but that affects everyone in the office. Whilst I appreciate he might be in pain, a reasonable adjustment would be to be specialist shoes not walk around barefoot. Sorry this is ridiculous.

Wouldn’t walking around the office barefoot be a potential health and safety risk anyway?

I’m sorry but I absolutely would not want a colleague to be walking around barefoot in the office.

Potential H&S risks too, I would think.

The obligation is to make reasonable adjustments. Not all adjustments. The obligation also takes account of the resources of the employer.

The example of expecting pay for a higher role
to be maintained when the employee isn’t capable of doing that job is quite unlikely to
be deemed “reasonable” for most employers, especially if they then have to employ someone else to do that job too.

But in general yes I agree. A lot of adjustments can be implemented with a bit of
effort. Access to Work are good.

I have to agree with this, I'm afraid.

I do believe anxiety exists and is a real barrier to life. I suffer with anxiety, too, but I wouldn't take a job where I'd be in a high stress/high conflict situation on a regular basis if I couldn't manage it.

At a certain point, there needs to be an honest discussion about whether or not certain jobs are for certain people. Taking a job that involves high pressure/high stress when you have anxiety and are unable to cope with the environment is simply shoving the problem onto someone else, and is, in the long-term, unsustainable.

And people can harp on about the employer needing to resource better/recruit more people-wouldn't that be lovely? That isn't reality and many employers do not have the budget to recruit more people so they can accommodate one person who isn't suited to the job.

I'm all for reasonable adjustments in the workplace and removing barriers to work, however, the clue is in the word "reasonable."

What reasonable is and isn't looks different depending on the role, the team and the employer and maybe the customer, too. It's not always possible to accommodate everyone's adjustments.

If your disability means that you would need the role altered significantly to be able to work, then maybe that's not the role for you. An adjustment is meant to provide the tools to enable you to perform successfully in the role and to help remove barriers to work.

What they aren't is tools to completely alter the specification of the role and duties within it so that it is unrecognisable to what you were employed to do.

And many businesses can't simply redeploy staff like that. It's just not within their scope to do so. Also, let's say there was a magic opportunity that opens up and this member of staff is able to be redeployed elsewhere (great) they will still need to hire someone else to fill the gap that that member of staff was originally hired to plug in the first place.

I think adjustments should be made where possible and reasonable, but if a person isn't able to fulfil the contractual obligations of their role-the role may not be suitable for them and people need to sometimes be honest with themselves about that.

And no, businesses should not be making adjustments for staff that unfairly impact the rest of the team to a degree where it places extra stress and burdens on them. All that does is create a culture of resentment and fuels people leaving to find work elsewhere which ultimately helps no one.

There has to be a balance.

A less stressful role on the same pay? Yeah, sounds great for the employer. What about the employers desire to create a meritocracy?

My view. It’s already too easy to claim. You think encouraging people to claim left, right and centre is a noble quest but it actually makes it harder for those coming after.

Reasonable adjustments.

no this is a real thing it is common fir disabilities to flare up during stressful times

Reasonable adjustments.

Barefoot in the office? No thanks! Also I'm quite clumsy...what happens if I drop a stapler on their barefoot? What happens if someone has dropped a cup/glass and there are fragments of china/glass on the floor?

We currently have a push to get people back in the office min 3 days a week...the number of conditions that are now cropping up is incredible. We have people saying due to anxiety/depression they 'need' to wfh, but I too have both of those conditions...I'm so keen to show they aren't a barrier that I push myself harder..maybe I shouldn't?! So should I be doing extra running around for someone who basically doesn't want to travel to work/moved further away during covid. I think this is the problem op, the genuinely disabled are being overshadowed by the lazy and work shy.

I know of someone with a hearing impairment that want to work in the prison service. She threatened to take them to court so they eventually gave her a job. No-one wants to work on the landings with her because her lack of awareness in a potentially dangerous situation is frankly bloody dangerous. But hey...let's just threaten to take everyone to court so they'll back down or pay up...

Jeezus, listen to yourself. You're telling a disabled person to suffer pain in order to appear professional.
Your post is exactly the attitude that is the problem. 🤦‍♀️
In the same breath do you complain about disabled people on the dole? You can't have it both ways.

eta: lost the quote of the post I was responding to

It's constant stories such as this that explain people's low tolerance of others like this individual and why the poll is currently how it is.

Actually, offering someone a less stressful role on the same pay can be a perfectly reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act 2010. It's not about giving people a cushy job for no reason it's about recognising that disabled people might need different support to stay in work. That is fairness. Equality doesn't mean treating everyone exactly the same if their needs are different.
There are real tribunal decisions backing this up. In Archibald v Fife Council, a woman who couldn’t do her old job anymore because of disability was denied a less physical admin job unless she reapplied and competed for it like everyone else. The House of Lords said no, that’s not good enough. She should have been moved across as a reasonable adjustment, even if it meant treating her more favourably than other candidates.
There’s also London Borough of Southwark v Charles, where a man was moved to a less stressful role at the same grade after mental health issues and that too was upheld as a reasonable adjustment. So yes, it can be done, and it’s legal.
It’s honestly not “too easy to claim” people have to jump through loads of hoops to get adjustments in the first place. Most just want to keep their jobs and not be driven into sickness or unemployment because the workplace can’t flex even a little bit. It's not about avoiding work, it's about surviving it.

https://www.gov.uk/employment-appeal-tribunal-decisions/london-borough-of-southwark-v-mr-g-charles-ukeat-0008-14-rn

there is the decision

how dare a disabled person show feet! people are so disrespectful

How dare anyone show their feet in the office, disabled or not?

Properly grim. Health and safety stopped existing? Going for a piss with no shoes on 🤮.

I voted YANBU but then I read your second post.

I think your perception of "reasonable" adjustments goes too far.
Yes to breaks, to stepping away between tasks, to being transferred to a better suited role, to having tasks which constitute a small portion of the job description reassigned.
But the rest is wild: giving same pay for a less senior or demanding job? Why?
Allow full time work from home for an office based job? Isn't the point of a job being office based that it requires interaction F2F? Sure, maybe reasonable allowances like hybrid but I think your demands go too far.
And I say this as the sister, mother and daughter of disabled people. L

Blimey, a bit of compassion wouldn’t go amiss.
We’re not talking about someone kicking off their heels for fun. Some people have serious medical conditions affecting their feet chronic pain, open wounds, deformities, etc. Requiring shoes in all cases can cause real harm. Suggesting someone like that should suffer or stay home because it’s “grim” for others to see their feet isn’t exactly a shining moment for inclusivity.
And no, it’s not a health and safety issue unless you’re in a lab or food prep. Plenty of people wear open-toed shoes or sandals in offices without causing some hygiene apocalypse. Going to the loo barefoot isn’t ideal, but you can work around it — flip-flops, separate slippers, even accessible loos with clean flooring. That’s what reasonable adjustments are small changes so someone isn’t excluded because of a disability.
No one’s asking to turn the office into a beach. Just that we don’t treat disabled people like they’re dirty or offensive for existing. That attitude is far more “grim” than a bare foot.

I'm intrigued, how does he get to and from the office? Assume he is barefoot walking to get the bus, or driving, or on the train etc

There are plenty of employers who are shit who can and should do more. You seem to be the opposite extreme to be frank.

'If a business can’t afford to make space for disabled people, whether that’s with flexibility, equipment, transport help or task reallocation, then maybe they shouldn’t be in business".

I have trouble with this statement. Many businesses run on incredibly tight margins, but they're still profitable (perhaps making enough money to support just the owner and one staff member with very specific key-skills or abilities) therefore still viable businesses. Not all businesses are huge faceless conglomerate corporations with endless budgets to accommodate a range of staff, with a full HR department etc. Have you experience of running a business? Of taking the full financial risk yourself? If the job market is not offering you what you want then take the plunge and set up your own business - run it exactly the way you want with all the adjustments and breaks you and your staff need, and then tell me if you break-even. It's not easy.

I'd have thought a reasonable compromise would be to allow him to wear slippers in the office. Not wander around barefoot, that's gross. Do you really mean barefoot? Not even socks?