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.

How do you accommodate regular extra breaks or substantially shorter hours with the same workload? By ‘move work around’ you do realise many people on this thread have direct experience of this meaning one person won’t do the hard or stressful stuff? The the others want to quit when it all gets loaded on them. You really do just mean ‘hire more people’

Sorry for replying before reading the whole thread. I think you've been unclear on these points:

Reassigning certain duties or tasks, even if this means the person is doing less than others
Reducing workload or output targets, such as call volumes or deadlines

Also you seemed a bit fluffy on the question of employees who become unable to do their job properly after some time of doing it.

The first two adjustments, I would expect to come with reduced pay to reflect the reduced output .

And I think a clinical psychologist who gets 'triggered' by her patients' issues is no longer suited to that role. Same as a scaffolder who loses the use of his legs.

Employers & employees should have insurances against unwelcome developments and, of course, efforts should be made to support an employee's recovery or redeployment. But businesses are not charities, they have a right to seek out the most cost-effective workforce.

I have had 'reasonable adjustments', btw, and my pay was reduced. I felt this was fair as I'd moved from generating millions for the company to another role that was not directly income-producing. The bastards made me redundant first chance they got, anyway ...

ok, this makes it clear now.

It's a family of self diagnosed autists who make living out of employment tribunals.

Dyslexic niece applying for a job requiring reading, but her dyslexia is selective apparently, another niece has anxiety when one the phone but applied to a job in call centre.
Barefoot uncle forced a small charity to waste 3k on upgrading their floors, means couldn't get anything from them through tribunal, so moved on and now harassing another charity hoping for tribunal again.

Readers, you've been warned.

Wow, talk about emotional manipulation.

This kind of thinking is probably going to be the death of a lot of equalises and workplace legislation, across the west.

@nearlylovemyusername, bloody hell! If we want to keep protecting disabled people's rights, the laws need a lot of tightening up. Grifters spoil everything, don't they 😠

These are reasonable adjustments. Nobody else is doing his job for him, wfh is reasonable and a weekly 1-1 is just ye rely good management.
the key point here that the op is not a fan of is that he can do the job! The op seems to think that completely unnecessary 🤷‍♀️

But do you not recognise at all here that client meetings in many businesses are the value roles that deliver business results, and the admin support piece is several large job grades and pay grades down? Not doing client meetings in my experience is the same as being fundamentally unsuited for that role. Maybe there’s another role but that is quite different. (And if it’s admin support that gets paid at admin support role) That’s been my experience for twenty years.

Overall I think yanbu, but the problem is see is that workplaces in making reasonable adjustments for one person often just shove the extra workload in others. And many, many abled bodied NT people are hanging on by a thread as it is - but nobody cares about them until they do actually break.

As for salary, tribunals have found that in certain cases, retaining someone in a modified role at the same pay can be a reasonable adjustment especially where redeployment avoids dismissal. It’s not about creating inequality; it’s about preventing exclusion and recognising the reality of living and working with a disability.

This is misleading. There is case law saying that redeployment to a lower paid role (teacher to TA) while retaining the employee’s original pay is a reasonable adjustment but only temporarily, to facilitate a return to work. In the long term, the Tribunal found it would not have been reasonable to maintain the teacher pay while in a TA role. It’s rare that paying someone more than the standard salary for the role they are doing will be a reasonable adjustment as extra pay does not alleviate the disadvantage caused by the disability.

Given your extensive experience of litigation, OP, you must also be aware that a claim being settled does not mean it has merit - it simply means it will cost the employer less to settle than it will to fight (due to legal fees, management time etc.) and the employer is taking a pragmatic stance.

Not redundancy. I’d be trying for dismissal if she worked for me.

I think this is a common misunderstanding. The law actually does allow for disabled people to be treated more favorably than non-disabled people if that’s what’s needed to remove a disadvantage. That’s not unfair treatment it’s lawful positive action. The whole point of reasonable adjustments is to create equity, not strict equality

I have seen that ‘fixed’ a few times. Essentially, when the rest of the team realises they are doing a LOT more than their colleague, for the same pay but often having to work overtime themselves to accomodate it, they get unhappy. I’ve seen a few cases where the entire rest of the team self-diagnoses with autism and then demands the same adjustments as the original colleague. Some may view this as cheeky fuckery, but it’s really just people sick of feeling fucked over, so they get smart about it.

Equally, the OPs statement that a Reasonable Adjustments could be that the person is promoted - no mention of any capability assessment to do the job, just that they could be promoted as an RA.

That's completely bonkers and not reasonable. It would not go down well with others in the workforce who don't get promoted for anything other than earning that promotion due to their skills and experience.

Promotions are very hard fought and hard won, that would create immense bad feeling which wouldn't be good for anyone.

I explained quite clearly that it does put me and my colleagues in danger.

The time limit for bringing a claim is still three months, not six

Sorry but I find that extremely hard to believe on so many levels. What constitutes a LOT more? Also you can’t just self diagnose, an autism diagnosis involves a lot of evidence and past history. To get on the diagnosis waiting list involves screening. Any employer is going to want evidence.And finally entire teams aren’t going to know the medical details of others. If they do I’d want to know why.

Useful to know(!). I’m guessing this is why employers start people off on short term contracts.

YANBU. I feel so chewed up and used up and burned out to be a little worker ant for an employer for whom I increasingly feel like just another, replaceable, body

In my opinion that is awful advice to give out.

I am physically disabled and I can't hide my disability.

If I came for a job in your cafe I doubt you would hire me as a waitress or in the kitchen as my two crutches would give the game away that I could not keep up with your other employees and you would probably not want to promote me to cafe manager while you wait on and wash up.

I have no issue with reasonable adjustments for disabled workers but my experience of invisible disability and a successful job applicant hiding their anxiety and then asking for reasonable adjustments having applied for a job they were not suitable for ( anxious , depressed person applying for a job that was fast paced and stressful as dealing with angry clients) meant our HR department was even more risk adverse to employing anyone in future with a disability.

Maybe if I follow your advice, I can work for you after a phone interview and then see you struggle to pay your mortgage after I have reduced your profits by my continued requests for adjustments or by my promotion to cafe manager or book keeper.

At my last place of work we were based on the first floor with no lift . The building was old . When a colleague broke a leg he had to work from home . In a fast paced stressful environment it’s hard to make ‘ reasonable adjustments’ without compromising other team members . An autistic man was employed and it was just so difficult, he couldn’t be relied on to do a single thing , his line manager was frequently in tears having to sort out his errors and he got caught driving whilst smoking something he shouldn’t have ( to calm him down apparently ) Now he got away with it because of his autism whereas others would be fired .

This and the post you have quoted is complete bullshit. Most people with an autism diagnosis don’t get PIP. PIP is based on need and an autism diagnosis isn’t automatically going to get you PIP whether it’s self diagnosed or otherwise. Getting PIP involves a lot of evidence and paperwork. To get reasonable adjustments you will need to provide evidence of your disability eg your autism or ADHD report. The reality is most autistic people mask their disability, don’t declare it and don’t ask for reasonable adjustments hence the employment stats for autistic people being so dreadful. If we want ND people in work and off benefits reasonable adjustments are crucial and thankfully protected by law. Things like the Access to Work scheme are hugely needed and make the difference between working or not.

Would you not rather your disabled colleague got a promotion over you due to not being able to do his current job due to a disability as opposed to him losing his job completely? I would!

I believe you will find this philosophy is pretty much isolated to you and all of your relatives/friends who spend all their time at tribunals. In the rest of the world, no, people are only happy if the promotion goes to the person who is most deserving based on demonstrated qualifications and skill, not the most disabled. The only thing more galling is when you don’t get a promotion as the most incompetent person gets it to simply move them out of the way of fucking everything up all the time, less ‘hands on’ work being less to fuck up.

As for many of the examples given and your ‘gotcha’ moments, most of the amounts quoted for settlement are piss poor in the scheme of companies being able to unload unsuitable people, for whatever reason. Many companies would very happily settle for those amounts, not because they have done anything wrong, but because a) it’s well worth their while and a small price to get rid, and b)it’s less than the cost of legal fees and time, when you are still on that side of the see/saw, your legal dept will advise settling as it’s fiscally responsible, better than paying more and winning to show you are right. You don’t factor this in.

I say all this as a parent of 2 disabled children, with official diagnoses and all😊. Weirdly, we took the strange route of encouraging them to find the best fit for their jobs and careers taking their disabilities into account, because we believe win/win situations are best. Yes, disappointing that this has kept our kids from years of tribunals but you can’t win em all, hey. They are in well paid, professional roles with the right peg hole that fits with their pegs. That did take a lot of pre-planning and consideration though, which I guess is not for everyone. It’s just common sense, for example, that if you are in a wheelchair, you wouldn’t look to get a job in an air traffic control tower, where if in an emergency the lift can’t be used you have hundreds of stairs, and then spend your life at tribunals going on about it. Some people do though.

I think the key here is the word ‘reasonable’ adjustments for that job role. For example perhaps an office worker cannot read green pen. To me a reasonable adjustment is to write in black, blue, red instead. However a pilot who gets anxious over heights, or a nurse with a needle phobia, or a scaffolder who has had a limb amputated - well that’s a bit more tricky! ND or not, I do think we all have some responsibility to ensure the job we apply for is suitable for our individual needs and ability. For example my ND son would never manage the fast place, noisy environment of McDonalds, so he has never applied to work there. However he flourish’s being outside, so works as a gardener.

I'll never forget when I was working at the priory, my manager saying ‘ive opened a can of worms’ when I said I've applied for disability funding via the government scheme.

@twistyizzy I own a small business and would struggle to accomodate certain RAs. The OPs response has showed her ignorance here.

We have this issue at work.
A large amount of colleges with disabilities relating to mental health who cannot or will not do certain tasks, take more breaks etc.

It creates an angry team, forced to work dangerously and constantly take the shit work that the person/s with anxiety etc can’t do. Sometimes we don’t get lunch until 4pm after starting at 7:30 it’s that busy and not a job you can leave to eat either.

The employer won’t employ anyone to fill the gap either so the rest of us suffer massively.