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.

Why is it not a surprise they're "self diagnosed".

Epic trolling BTW. You've put thousands of people off employing anyone with a disability.

Quite. All the OP has achieved here for me is to now think that the Equality Act 2010 needs repealing!

OP, what would you think about this situation.

I work for an organisation that puts on events, that delegates pay to come to.

Our events team obviously needs to have a team member (or members) at every event, to run it.

People employed in the events team have this as part of their job description and in their contract of employment, and obviously knew this would be the case when they applied for the job.

But yet we have team members saying this part of the job makes them anxious and they don’t want to do it.

Should we really be expected to make a “reasonable adjustment” for them, and not make them attend/run events, which would put a lot of extra pressure on the rest of the team?

Or are there actually situations where an employee has to hold up their hands and say “this isn’t a job for me” and find another job?

Maybe it’s not ‘inflexible practices’ but just the nature of the job? No one, able-bodied or disabled, should be applying for jobs they are wholly unsuited for, for whatever reason. I have very bad back issues, so bad that they probably could be classed as a physical disability. Would I apply for a job as a house mover? Obviously not. If I did, I would expect the employer to question my judgement, quite frankly.

Interesting thread. I think so many people on here are used to working for big companies. I employ 9 or so people. The idea that I could pay someone more for a job they cannot do or hire someone else at the same time as researching what adjustments could be made is laughable. The people who work in a small team on not great money are not happy if they have to do more than someone else.

Please don’t tell me for the last bit we should pay more or the staff should lump it. Finding staff is really hard, we pay more than NMW and I’d love to pay more but seeing as the supermarket sets the price of my goods based on cost of production it’s impossible.

I also say this as someone who employs 2 people whose conditions are covered by the Equality Act. They are fab employees who have been with us a long time.

I have 2 DC with SEND, who need RA in order to attend school and I also have a hidden disability myself.

I do agree that many employers don't do as much as they could to be inclusive. I work in a school in a Leadership role and, on balance I think it is positive that more staff now feel able to disclose health conditions or disabilities and ask for RA's. The difficulty we have is when people apply for a role with a really clear job description, don't disclose any issues with the job description at interview, accept the role and then once they are in post they inform us that they cannot do absolutely essential elements of that job description. We cannot re-deploy that person to another role, because we do not have the budget to create an extra role in school. Neither do we have the budget to hire an extra member of staff to cover the elements of the role they now don't feel they are able to do. We have had a situation where a TA (self-diagnosed ND) said they felt unable to be in the classroom as it makes them anxious. Supporting children in the classroom is literally their job. At what point is it ok to acknowledge that this is not really about disability, the reality is that this person has accepted a role and then once in post realised they don't like it, so they want to fundamentally change the job rather then looking for a job that is suitable for them.

Well that isn’t going to happen.

The way hidden disabilities are treated and views by some on here is pretty dreadful. Would you treat visible disabilities in the same way?

“Redeploying someone to a different role if their original job can’t be adjusted
Promoting or transferring them to a better-suited role, even if that role comes with higher pay or more opportunities, if it helps remove a barrier”

So people get promoted, even when they don’t deserve the promotion? Over someone else who does?

It is no wonder industry this country is going down the toilet.

I agree with you 100 per cent. I suspect the abled ableist of mumsnet will be clueless though

If someone is experiencing anxiety on such a level that they need to be able to walk off their job any time they feel the need, then that job is not suitable for them - especially one so anxiety inducing as front line policing. You don’t need to know the ins and outs of the EA2010 to understand that.
I’m a teacher. Trying to teach 30 unruly children can be extremely stressful. I have seen teachers crumble under the pressure of daily stress. Schools can put a myriad reasonable adjustments in place as recommended by OH managers, but that helps no one. It doesn’t reduce the stress, unless the RA says the teacher can only teach 10 children instead of 30, or they should only teach for 2 lessons a day but still get paid a full time salary, or they can leave the classroom any time they feel the need meaning there would need to be another teacher in the room to carry on with the supervision / teaching. It is not possible! Sometimes, an illness or disability will preclude someone from actually doing a particular job and no amount of adjustments will change that.

There are plenty of hidden disabilities in my family, myself included. I think the OP and I just have very different views on what is ‘reasonable’. My line is drawn in expecting other people to do my job, applying for jobs that I’m clearly not suited for and expecting a promotion because I can’t do the job I’ve been hired for. I believe any disabled person - with any disability - should be given ‘reasonable adjustments’ not ‘special treatment’.

But these people managed perfectly well before covid. There were no requests for WFH before covid even though it was possible.

As for going barefoot in the office. Dont be so ridiculous. H&S nightmare. Slippers yes, barefoot, no. I bet you would be the first person to threaten to sue if he trod on a stray staple and got a foot infection etc. That falls under a simple but totally unreasonable adjustment.

no. Quite frankly. Reasonable accommodations by an employer would never extend to expecting other employees to give up their promotion with the extra responsibilities and money that would entail. I would be raising a grievance myself and potentially resigning if that happened.

@Mustard4747 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

Don't believe what you like but I have seen it on a few occasions. Also no idea what you are talking about with not knowing the medical details of others? It’s all planned together as a team so of course they all know as they are all in on it. Usually because they are all sick and tired of carrying the load while another team member has less work with the same pay/benefits. And no, as OP is so very keen to point out, these days people don’t need official diagnosis at all, there are many things that are self-diagnosed, such as autism, where employees can legally demand accomodations based on functioning (irrespective of not having a formal diagnosis). I also, personally know a few people who don’t have autism but have been diagnosed for health purposes to do what I was describing. All clinicians, it’s not at all hard as they know the screenings and how to answer and we’re all privately diagnosed in quick time.All are now on reduced loads I.e. no overtime (as is standard) and for most a 4 day week.

If she worked for a GP surgery, then although she was working in the NHS, she wasn't an NHS employee in the same way that a clinic receptionist or secretary in a hospitla is. Essentially, most GP practices are a type of small business owned by the GPs, so the employer is not the NHS per se, it's the practice, which may only have a small number of admin staff meaning that reasonable adjustments that might be possible in another larger setting would not be considered reasonable from the employer's point of view (it is legally possible not to have to provide required adjustments if the impact on the business is too heavy, although obviously you would need to be on absolutely firm HR/legal grounds to do this). It would be like someone working in a small independent corner shop which was a sole business owned by a person, and saying that they could move to another sole business small independent shop, owned by a different person, but the owner of the first shop would need to continue to pay their wages.

The GP model of work is very different from the hospital model of work.

Sorry it’s a long one and a bit of a rant . . . some of what I say may seem incredible to those who have never worked in the public sector. I’m fully prepared for the pile on 🫣

I managed people in the public sector and saw how easy it is to get ‘reasonable adjustments’ . The bar is set very low - no medical evidence was required just a person going to occupational health and saying they felt stressed/ had a bad back etc . . .

At one point I was managing 4 people on ‘reasonable adjustments’ ie doing less work than their colleagues. I was managing 8 staff in total. This not just happening on my team.

Retirement age was removed several years ago in my public sector organisation and dealing with age related issues such as 70 year old staff needing lots of breaks and only wanting to answer the phone was becoming the norm before I left not to mention dealing with staff who were showing evidence of possible dementia who became angry and confrontational when asked to do certain work they didn’t want to do. HR were useless and just suggested contacting IH and more ‘reasonable’ adjustments- anything for a quiet life . . .

Consequently, more staff became stressed from having to do more work and seeing people who get paid the same as them doing less. This lead to an increase in sick leave as a ‘ if you can’t beat them, join them’ mentality arose from those not on reasonable adjustments.

Imho, many of the so called ‘reasonable’ adjustments are far from reasonable. These staff members often can’t do much of the core business required of the role especially more tedious/ problematic/ complex tasks. This in turn puts extra pressure on their colleagues.

I think there is a place for reasonable adjustments, however, they should be reasonable and backed by in depth medical evidence. There also need to be enquiries made at the recruitment stage about the applicants ability to do the job. This used to happen as standard but there is limited capacity for this to happen now in the interview / recruitment process within the public sector.

i left my public sector job largely as a result of the stress I felt managing ‘reasonable’ adjustments and I know this was part of the reason other experienced managers

I'm very much on the fence with your post OP. As someone who is dyslexic (diagnosed) then I know that I can access reasonable adjustments at work so for example working from home I have two monitors, my line manager is very willing for me to find my own ways of working that work for me etc. However, even I know that there are loads of jobs that aren't a great fit for my ways of working and I just wouldn't apply for them. I don't believe if you go in to a job interview and the recruiting manager is very clear on what the job includes ie being present in the office so many days a week with the rest of your team that is then fair to suggest that a reasonable adjustment is for you to suggest you work from home full time. Surely the interview process is about you finding out what is required?

Redeployment is one thing if there are suitable roles but promoting someone who is just about scraping there own role and can't come in to the office in to some sort of leadership role is just bonkers OP. It's not fair to the team that works under them or the the people who are hitting there targets. I don't believe decent work places would consider this an option.

So how does your uncle get to work? I assume he has shoes on for his journey to and from work. Bare feet in an office are a H & S hazard.

Well it was a restaurant so remote working would have been out of the question. Should they still have closed the business?

The idea that hoards of autistic people are applying for jobs above their capabilities is ridiculous and abelist rhetoric.

For many autistic people getting through an interview is a massive challenge in itself. Very few are going to be stretching higher than capabilities. The stats show that the vast majority of autistic people are out of work or over qualified for the work they do.

I think you live in a world where you think companies are all floating around with bags of cash

Public sector.

The problem is the word reasonable. Everyone would agree it's reasonable to change the location of someone's desk, or provide text to speech software for someone who is dyslexic. Then there's a spectrum right up to the other end of "reasonable" which appears to allow police officers to pick and choose what work they do and being promoted beyond your capabilities/experience.

I think it's more workable in large organisations. I've only worked at small businesses, my current job has 3 other employees in the business. We each have crucial roles and whilst the boss would do their best to be flexible to keep it's core staff, it wouldn't be feasible to make all your suggested adjustments.

So Jane should get a promotion purely because of her disability? That is what you are saying.

I very much doubt that anyone, especially Jane wants that.

Again, back to "reasonable".

Still not dealing with my points raised.

Most companies who not consider someone who asked for a phone interview. Yes you can say it is discrimination but Employers will find another reason why the candidate was unsuitable for the job.