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 frequently tried to eat a meal whilst breastfeeding!

I pumped at work. Usually for about 10 mins mid morning, then again at lunchtime.

This thread has sadly been a bit of a own goal for the op. Their attitude, such as taking a charity to tribunal becyse they couldn't cope with 5 clients a day absolutely demonstrates why there can be bad feeling in work places for those wanting adjustments.

Reasonable adjustments should be about how someone needs adaptions in the workplace if they have a physical disability. It shouldn't be more breaks if they get tired or overwhelmed. That should be up to the person to find an environment more suited to their capability like wfh, work in a library or similar.

OP is why many autistic people don’t admit to being autistic in their work place but try to struggle on regardless.

I think there needs to be a balance between reasonable adjustment and taking in to account whether the individual is actually good at their job in the first place.

My team are all excellent at their jobs. I wouldn’t want to lose any of them. Unfortunately, I can’t had out pay rises and bonuses to them as much as I would like to - so I give as much flexibility to them as I can. I don’t enforce working in the office, I allow to attend appointments during working hours or take a few hours off if they’re stressed and overwhelmed. None of them take the piss and all still do their jobs to a high standard. If I had someone with a disability working in my team who worked to the same level, they would also get those reasonable adjustments.

You sound like a great employer and exactly how it should be. There is give and take on both sides and you have the best people for the job. Flexibility for everyone and reasonable adaptions for those that need it.

the OP’s stance that everyone should assert their rights to such an extent that everyone else has to be negatively affected because they are in effect ‘compensating’ someone for being disabled is ridiculous. The laws are the to protect people but they shouldn’t be used to roughshod over everyone else.

unemployed breasts 😆
Mine were working overtime when I had recurrent mastitis. Perhaps I should have promoted them to a less demanding, merely symbolic role.
Thankfully, they're now enjoying their well-deserved retirement.

OP also ignores the fact that other people in the workplace may be disabled too.

Nah. A few people did WFH regularly. Not sure why but the capacity was there. Strange how people who dont like WFH dont have it as a reasonable adjustment (even if they have others) but those who do, suddenly have all sorts of reasons for it.

Of course walking around an office barefoot is stupid and dangerous. Errant staples, spilt hot water, rough stair edging, risk of stubbed toes on desks, slippy flooring etc etc. An office is not set to have people skipping along without shoes. Does he walk aboit outside without shoes? Does he go to the supermarket without shoes? Does he drive without shoes?

We're not talking about inclusion and adjustments that are (I'll say it again) reasonable. What you are saying is giving disabled people promotions because they cant do their job or letting them pass on bits of their jobs to other members of staff. I work with someone who has visual impairments. 2 of the programmes we use (that account for 15% of the job) cant be adjusted so he cant do that bit of the job. That's fine. However, according to you, he should just be let off doing 15% of his job and that should be passed to his colleague so that his colleague is doing 115% and he is doing 85% for the same wage. That is not a reasonable adjustment. Instead, he doesnt use those programmes and does 15% extra of work on the programmes he can use. So both him and his colleague are working 100% but he is not disadvantaged. That is a reasonable adjustment.

I think you are getting confusing about squeemishmess because I didnt mention anything about that.

Thank you. If giving them as much flexibility as I can keeps them working for me then I will continue to do so! We are a huge global organisation but I’m not micromanaged by my boss and so left to manage my team as I see fit. If giving them extra time off increases a work load burden, I do the extra work myself as I see that as my responsibility as a manager - I’m paid more than they are and this is one of the reasons why! Not that it ever really causes an issue with extra work load issue that often.

I completely agree with your second paragraph, too. If anything, her extreme views on this would put many people off hiring someone with a disability in the first place and that’s not where we want to be!

Well, this! It’s like the EHCP argument in schools where some reasonable adjustments clash with other’s reasonable adjustments.

Whoops 🤭 me and my sausage fingers.

You are wrong!

Under the Equality Act 2010, employers aren’t entitled to demand a formal diagnosis before they consider reasonable adjustments. What matters legally is whether a person has a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term effect on their ability to carry out day-to-day activities not whether they have a piece of paper from a consultant.
Of course, employers can seek advice that’s what Occupational Health is for. But there’s no legal requirement for a formal diagnosis, especially when we know NHS wait times for things like autism, ADHD, or mental health conditions can be years. Refusing to support someone just because they’re stuck in that backlog? That’s not “protecting the business” it’s asking for a lawsuit.
And no employers are not required to pay for private assessments either. What they are required to do is engage in the process in good faith. That might mean working from the employee’s self-reported difficulties, OH input, or GP notes not stonewalling people until they shell out for private care most can’t afford.
Gatekeeping support just pushes people out of work. That’s not good practice. It’s not legal. And it’s definitely not sustainable if we actually want disabled people in employment.

a charity that discriminated against me yes, by breaking the law, as upheld by a judge!

I say this because it’s factual - last night my stepson threw juice all over his bed, and then 10mins later had his hands all up in his own excrement.

However. After reading this thread the last few days…

He’s going to be an astronaut. By the end of the year. No ifs, buts or maybes. And if for some reason that doesn’t happen, I’m going to sue the UK Space Agency (🤷🏻‍♀️) for all they’re worth, for not providing reasonable adjustment to make that possible.

Yes, When my husband and I ran a small company we used business link. It is such a shame it is gone. We used their employment contracts as a template.

Agree

What is it with your family and charities.

Out of interest, was the charitable cause worth taking £35k out of? Like, did it take that money from kids, others with disabilities, abused animals?

Gross. Absolutely gross.

No my uncle didn’t “force” anyone to do anything illegal or exploit charities. He requested a reasonable adjustment due to a medical condition that made footwear painful. The charity chose to spend £3k upgrading flooring to accommodate that which was their legal duty under the Equality Act. Not a favour. Not blackmail. A basic compliance with the law.
And after they made the adjustment, he didn’t “scam” them he did his job, got offered a promotion elsewhere a couple of weeks after they installed it (as people do), and left. That’s not a grift, it’s a career. The only reason people are angry about it is because he stood up for his rights and the employer followed the law which apparently offends some of you more than the idea of someone working in pain every day.
Also it’s rich accusing disabled people of “gaming the system” when all they’re doing is asking not to be excluded from working life because of access needs. If your takeaway from a legal adjustment is “they’re scamming us,” you might want to take a breath and reflect on who’s really being unreasonable here.

Wow so charities need to be above the law!

Agree. There's a difference between reasonable adjustments for someone who can competently do a job versus to compensate for someone that was never capable of doing the job. That's like someone blind flying an aircraft, no thanks! * *

please stop insulting my family!

Reducing workload or output targets, such as call volumes or deadlines

That I'd not a reasonable adjustment and would cause resentment

The concept has changed vastly now. We've moved from physical accessibility to being allowed to start late, adjustment hours, take breaks, do less than colleagues, avoid meetings
It's not just demands.

Getting £3k worth of flooring installed just for you, and then leaving shortly after?

Getting £35k for the sake of 5min breaks, for anxiety you’re not diagnosed with?

Both from charities? It may not be illegal, but it’s morally unconscionable.

Anxiety also takes about 5mins to diagnose. It’s a doctors appointment. One. I know, because I have it. Diagnosed and prescribed for at the same appointment.

I read this earlier. I couldn't take anyone who would even defend someone like this seriously. This example is a joke, and she should be fired, examples like this give me the absolute rage.

Wrong reasonable adjustments should be about adaptions and services for all disabilities - some are hidden.