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.

I was tempted to turn this thread into a drinking game (drink one for every reference to Equality Act 2010) but that would be a very bad idea on a work night!

@coffeeandmycats good luck to you as a small business owner!

thank you, fortunately my business does well but i'm a big advocate for disability rights

YANBU but for some it allows them to swing the lead. The majority are always affected but the good for nothing minority.

Sadly the majority with disability being affected by the minority probably not with a disability but entities ah's causing a stink.

Adjustments are just that

• need a wee in a meeting is an adjustment it's open to all but can be abused - Ive seen this.

• need a cigarette break is an adjustment it's open to all but is def abused.
• need a break cos Im overwhelmed is an adjustment but not open to all so it's not acceptable.

Can't believe 67% said YABU. You are not, shows how many people are (hopefully unconsciously) discriminatory though, eh?!

the other alternative would be full work from home. which would be hard as the role involves client facing meetings with stakeholders.

Absolutely this.

OP's militant position makes me feel like avoiding hiring disabled people at any cost. To a point that £27k of tribunal cost mentioned above is a fair price to get rid.

As to barefoot - it's trolling really to force WFH, nothing else. Then they'll drop some broken glass on the floor and sue for injury. Like they never leave home in winter? or walk barefoot in -5C?

OP, you realise there are a lot of employers on this thread? both for own business and hiring managers for large companies? and they change their mind about disabled people thanks to you?

It does now… just wait until some takes you to tribunal! because your option is to accommodate them or stay solvent.

Same

I mean obviously the thread was made to show how far adjustments should go...

also yes they do walk around barefoot all the time, and at their last job (a small charity) the charity agreed to the adjustments and even installed foam around the office at the cost of 3k for them when my uncle contacted acas to start the tribunal process.

Epic trolling. 👏🏻👏🏻 Fair play.

it absolutely is. She made children suffer, she's absolutely not suitable for the role. If she did this to my child I'd sue her.

Of course reasonable adjustments must be made. Reasonable. Not adjustments when a person is fundamentally not suitable for the job but for some reasons decides they want it.

So he got a small charity to pay £3k for his special foot foam and then left and is now trying to get another charity to do the same? Can he really not just put some flipflops or something on to move around the office?

I'm afraid I am also wondering now if we are being trolled.

I was thinking about how it would work in my sector if a disabled person needed an adjustment of taking on less work e.g due to needing time for medical appointments, fatigue, needing breaks, working slower etc.

I’m a lawyer. We have billing targets and targets for how many hours we need to work.

For example, a lawyer might be required to bill £200k per year which would typically be c.4 x salary.

Let’s say that target was reduced by 20% to £160k per year as a reasonable adjustment.

The issue is that most of the amount billed by a lawyer pays their salary and overheads.

Of £200k billed, 30% might be profit for the firm (so £60k).

If the billing target falls to £160k the amount going on overheads remains the same at £140k. Only £20k profit is made.

What looks like a relatively small adjustment in target hours leads to a 3x reduction in profit. You would need 3 disabled people with this adjustment to make the same profit as someone on a normal target.

It is very stark when you are billing by the hour but many businesses basically operate in the same way.

In practice my firm does make a lot of adjustments for disabled people or people who are temporarily ill but it simply wouldn’t be viable or competitive to reduce the workload significantly for a significant number of people on a permanent basis.

I suspect an unintended consequence of enforcing reasonable adjustment law more strictly would be that businesses become even less willing to employ disabled people. Discriminating when hiring may be illegal but is hard to prove and why would you employ someone who makes you a third of what another candidate would make you.

why did he leave that charity?

I'm sure charity's benefactors were delighted to know how their money were spent

reudndancy isn't the right choice, redundancy is for when a role is no longer needed...

he took a promotion at a competitor - charities aren't except from adjustments

It's super well done to you. You reached your objective of showing how far adjustments should go.

Something makes me believe that this also made many hiring managers reading this thread to become extra vigilant and to avoid hiring at any sniff of disability. Or better always try short term contracting in first before making someone perm.

honestly not a troll, why shouldn't he take a promotion due to a disability?

I would assume a law firm would be well versed in employment law and wouldn't discriminate anyway though.

I hope not, I'm just trying to stand up for disabled people around the world who struggle with their disabilities

it's not trolling... please don't be toxic

Hmm depends. There seems to be a lot of people with autism and sensory issues entering the world of childcare.
They often have conflicting sensory issues. The staff that don’t, have to carry the weight of everything and that is not fair.
People without disabilities are also able to fall into depression and physical exhaustion and their pain matters too.

i feel bad for everyone who has ever been decimated against!

discriminated

This makes me think ofa friend of mine who teaches at the law school, as well as being a practising lawyer.

He told me that about a third of his class now have accommodations, mostly either to write tests in a private space, or have more time writing them.

He says that there are quite a lot of students getting through due to accommodations who will never be able to work as lawyers. And where we live, there are already lots of failed lawyers, there is a big gap between those who are successful and not.

I have a similar story from my cousin who teaches - almost unbelievably - welding.

It makes me wonder, maybe a lot of these people with crazy expectations for accommodations are being taught to expect this at school - where it doesn't matter if you can do the work, they just pass you through.

Like the OP, perhaps they have been taught to believe that employers have an obligation to pay people whether or not they can do any relevant work.