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.

Evidence that this is happening please.

As a said those with hidden disabilities are largely out of work or in work below their capabilities. Having a big disability like autism doesn’t mean you apply for a job that would be insanely difficult and cause a huge amount of stress and difficulty as every day is already like that without it. The reality is most with autism struggle with applying, interviews and finding work they can manage at all so they end up not working or in work they are overqualified for which they are then berated for. It’s a can’t win situation.

The idea that autistic people are applying for these high expectation jobs in their hoards and getting loads of reasonable adjustments to slack off is frankly ludicrous- and abelist.

Top trolling by the OP, been highly entertaining!

There is a massive difference between, say, providing a bigger font for someone partially sighted or a special chair for someone with a chronic back condition, and allowing someone to do half a job or be promoted without any evidence of being any good.

Disabled people should have reasonable adjustments made so that they can do as well as they can and their pay should reflect what they can do after the reasonable adjustments.

Most people would feel it would be ubiquitous (as in not equity) to go beyond that, as you can see from the vote, and they will react to this.

The swing away from DEI in the U.S was very popular, and we risk getting Reform here. There is a difference between compassion and fairness and making society into an inverted hierarchy of privilege, where the more ‘protected characteristics’ that you have, the better you do.

Most people are compassionate but they are not mugs and want to be treated fairly.

*iniquitous not ubiquitous

My workload has increased massively since (un) reasonable adjustments were given to a colleague that meant that I now have to pick up the slack.

It's getting to the point where I think I should go off with stress and ask for adjustments. It's public sector, so this would be tax payers' money going to waste.

And should she receive the same pay? She is an experienced teacher with 20 years of experience and a role on senior leadership. A salary of £45k+ what admin role should she do?
Our business manager probably earns £35k and we already have one....we can't create a role for her.

Honestly? No, not if they are not the most suitable candidate for the job. We can’t put people into a higher level job and pay them more based on disability status. I’m all for reasonable adjustments to enable people to work but I don’t agree that what you are proposing should be classed as such.

I work in a IT and work with quite a few autistic people who are mainly software engineers/developers. Incidentally that is a role I would rule out for myself as I don't have the logical thought process for it and there isn't a reasonable adjustment that would make me any good at it (despite have a computing degree). I work more with people and service management which suits my thought process a lot better.

There should be a stronger obligation for Reasonable Adjustments. However, employers should also have a duty to uphold Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value. It is not reasonable for a disabled person to have a more junior, lower responsibility role at the same pay as someone doing a senior/higher responsibility role, or to be recieving 100%FTE pay while only performing 75%FTE workload. Employers certainly should create these adjustments but absolutely should reassess and reduce the pay according to what the employee is actually achieving. And likewise should reassess the coworkers pay if the adjustment for a disabled colleague has bounnced more difficult tasks onto them. Several illustrations in the OP are about an expectation for disabled people to recieve better and more privileged treatment than their peers, and to be paid at a higher rate than people doing the same work, rather than equality.

Evidence that this is happening please.

Both these scenarios have been mentioned on this thread, a poster who is a police officer has a colleague opting out of lots of parts of their job, and the OP is the one who advocates promotion as a reasonable adjustment, irrespective of ability/experience.

I think op’s definition of ‘reasonable ’ is different to other people’s. Providing yellow paper for someone to use, rather than white is reasonable. Providing a standing desk is reasonable. Applying for a job, getting it and then cherrypicking want they want to do is unreasonable. Why apply for that job in the first place if they only want to wfh, not do night shifts, find answering the phone stressful etc.

As others have said, you need to manage what you’re capable of, and not apply to be an astronaut if you don’t like heights.

My adjustments are for my periods (endometriosis)

If Inwas the OPs uncle's employer I would have simply sent him a link to these - https://www.amazon.co.uk/Vibram-Fingers-Classic-Minimalist-Walking/dp/B0BQ2J1JTR

But why, surely going to the toilet to change sanitary protection is sufficient and you taking painkillers?

No I meant official evidence not scenarios dreamt up be abelist MNers.

Adjustments have become like pip eligibility for some. Just having a medical condition seems to be enough for people to expect benefits and special treatment at work.

Adjustments should be for serious issues like sight and hearing loss appliances to help, ramps for wheelchairs not more breaks for those who get tired.

@IfIHadAHeart I'm in a similar role and I have had similar situations. I'd love to ask why take up a role you cannot do. They'd be better suited to potentially academia in police training instead. I've had people in my line of work (probation) refusing to work with people who have committed offences.
Wonder if the fire service have people who can't work with fire .

Painkillers don’t work well for deep endometriosis
It’s so that I don’t trigger the usual sickness policy, and that I can have an hour off (unpaid) to take morphine and let it kick in and WFH so nobody has to see me on the floor yelling in pain and I don’t have to try to get home
it’s not a pain I can work through, sometimes the morphine worked, sometimes it didn’t. I would already have taken paracetamol, naproxen, dihydrocodeine and used a heat pad

temporary adjustments while I was waiting for operation

Just having a medical condition in no way gets you PIP.

I’m still laughing at painkillers. The surgeon said it was the equivalent of being 5-6cm dilated and I would like to see anyone working through that on paracetomol and being able to change

It would be a promoted post in pay and name only though wouldn't it? So they'd have line management and authority over other staff, but they wouldn't be doing any of the actual tasks or responsibilities? The other staff would in addition to their own work, and your view is that they would be pleased and eager to do this with no financial recompense?

I remember a colleague who breast fed her 1yr od. Lovely, absolutely nothing wrong with that but her dh brought the dc in so the colleague could go and bf in the maternity unit multiple times a day. Couldn't coincide with breaks oh noo this was extra. She may as well have not been there.

Not obviously the same as reasonable adjustments for disability just another example of how some peope are very entitled and take the mick at work

Re period pain. A woman in my team used to really, really suffer. Her workplace adjustment was being able to take annual leave at really short notice and having a female manager.

Work were flexible with holidays so giving her a little extra flexibility wasnt an issue. It benefitted them too that she wasnt having to call in sick every month. The female manager was a bit more difficult because the existing manager was (rightly) expected to be able to deal with periods etc in a grown up manner. They sorted it by shifting (willing) staff about.

Both were sensible approaches and "reasonable". Creating a whole new WFH role for her would not be reasonable.

You know that babies need feeding more than 3 or 4 times a day don't you?

Also the risk of having full and unemployed breasts runs the risk of mastitis, abscesses, sepsis...

If the baby wasn't coming to feed, she would still need to take breaks to express.

Sounds awful. How old are you? do you have kids are you planning on an ablation or hysterectomy? Sorry, you obviously needn't share just if I had a condition that meant I was on regular morphine and regular breaks at work I think I'd be looking at surgery.

I understand endo can grow outside the uterus but generally surgery will improve things.