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.

Yeah you didn't answer my question.

No ones saying she shouldn't have support, but when that support DIRECTLY impacts victims of crime, members of the public, and your very colleagues who are themselves burning out, then she needs to reflect and realise that maybe Response isn't for her and find or be supported to move to another team where it won't have such an impact.

Surely you agree?

Actually, they do. And they should.
Disabled rights absolutely trump a business’s right to maximise profit. That’s not just a personal belief it’s backed up by law. In the UK, the Equality Act 2010 legally obliges employers and service providers to make reasonable adjustments to ensure disabled people can access, work in, and thrive within their environments. That includes physical adjustments, flexible policies, and accommodations others might not “see” or understand. And no, the law doesn’t say “unless it’s inconvenient” or “unless it cuts into your bottom line.”
The whole point of disability rights is to level the playing field, because not everyone starts with the same advantages. And suggesting profit should take precedence over inclusion is quite literally saying some people don’t deserve to participate in society unless it’s cheap or easy to accommodate them. That’s a slippery and, frankly, discriminatory slope.
It’s not about special treatment. It’s about equitable treatment. And if that means a company makes a tiny bit less profit to uphold human rights and ensure someone can work with dignity well, that’s not a failure of the system. That is the system working.

But again you are missing the point. Reasonable adjustments should not impinge on other people at the firm- it is for the employer to make the adaptations not the other employees. You seem to think that everyone else has to compensate the person disabled by picking up the slack, potentially getting smaller bonuses as the employer has to employ someone else to help the disabled person for instance

My point is I am happy as a work colleague to make reasonable adaptions for someone in need. Eg move desks, don’t speak to them while they are working or potentially work around their flexible hours but I wouldn’t be prepared to work longer hours, give up a hard won promotion, or again in this case attend meetings with a colleague with their bare feet out. These go beyond a reasonable adjustments and from the poll it seems most people agree.

I completely understand the pressure that frontline teams like Response are under, and of course no one wants to see victims or colleagues left unsupported. But it’s not as simple as saying, “This role’s too hard for you, move along.” That attitude however well-meaning can easily drift into discrimination if it isn’t handled with care, understanding, and legal awareness.
When someone discloses a disability, especially a non-visible one like ADHD, it is the employer’s responsibility to explore reasonable adjustments first not to leap straight to removing them from their role. The Equality Act and Public Sector Equality Duty both make that absolutely clear. If someone is struggling, the first question should be: “What can we do to support them so they can continue doing their job?” Not: “Should they be doing it at all?”
And yes, sometimes the right outcome might be a change of role or adjusted duties but only after proper support has been explored and only with the individual’s consent. Being neurodivergent doesn’t make someone less capable it just means they may need to do things a bit differently. That in itself doesn’t mean they’re a risk to the public or a burden on colleagues.
We have to be careful not to conflate lack of support with lack of ability. If people are burning out or struggling to cope, that points to a wider issue in how the system supports everyone, not a failure on the part of disabled staff trying to do their job with integrity.

I think the crux of our disagreement is in how you’re defining “reasonable.” You seem to equate any adjustment that mildly inconveniences others as unreasonable which isn't how the law or basic inclusion works.
Reasonable adjustments aren’t about making sure no one is ever slightly disrupted. They’re about making it possible for disabled people to participate equally and yes, that sometimes means colleagues need to tolerate small differences. Being near someone who’s barefoot for medical or sensory reasons is not on the same level as being asked to give up a promotion or work overtime. That’s a false equivalence.
Employers are responsible for implementing adjustments, but that doesn’t mean other employees are never affected. Inclusion sometimes does require a bit of flexibility from those around you just like you'd expect in any decent workplace if someone was going through pregnancy, bereavement, or illness. That’s just part of being human at work, not an undue burden.
The idea that supporting a disabled colleague automatically leads to someone else “picking up the slack” or getting a smaller bonus suggests the real issue is with how employers are managing workloads not the disabled person themselves. Shifting the resentment onto them is unfair and, frankly, ableist.
What’s most concerning is the idea that you wouldn’t feel comfortable attending a meeting if someone had bare feet due to a disability. You don’t have to like it but asking for disabled people to be excluded from visibility to maintain others’ comfort? That really isn’t reasonable.
Adjustments exist not because people are weak or difficult, but because our workplaces have long been designed without all kinds of bodies and brains in mind. It's not about one person being prioritised over others it's about everyone having a fair chance to be there in the first place.

So a lovely inclusive employer goes bankrupt cos their business can't work with all the RAs and all those disabled employees lose their jobs....you see where it can end up?
Again, it's why so many employers are so reluctant to take on anyone with a disability.

You don't live in the real world and you see screwing people out of money for baseless reasons, as a badge of honour.

there is a big difference between a naked body and feet.

Also courts have found less or looser fitting clothes to be a reasonable adjustment

It’s honestly quite telling that the idea of a business adjusting slightly for disabled staff sends you straight to bankruptcy scenarios. Reasonable adjustments are called reasonable for a reason—they’re meant to be proportionate, practical, and sustainable. No one’s suggesting a small business bankrupt itself for one person’s needs. But let’s not pretend the biggest threat to most companies is disabled people asking for a footrest or flexible hours. It’s not.
Most adjustments cost very little or nothing at all. And when they are needed, employers can often get funding (like through Access to Work). What actually drains companies? Poor management, toxic cultures, lack of retention, and failing to recognise the talent that disabled people bring when they’re supported. The idea that inclusion and profit can’t coexist is outdated and honestly, a bit lazy.
As for your comment about people "screwing" employers wow. That kind of language is exactly why so many disabled people feel unsafe disclosing their conditions up front. Many of us do choose to wait until day one to disclose because we know from experience (and from advice given by disability organisations and charities) that employers often discriminate before we’ve even had a chance to prove ourselves. It's not deceit it’s self-protection.
If someone needs an adjustment to do their job properly and safely, they’re not being manipulative by asking for it. They're doing what the law entitles them to do. And if an employer chooses not to support them, that’s not the disabled person’s fault that’s a failure of leadership.
You say I don’t live in the real world but the real world I live in is one where disabled people are routinely overlooked, underpaid, and expected to be grateful just for being allowed in the building. If some employers are "reluctant" to hire us, that reflects their prejudice not our value.

Your uncle should just find a WFH job. Ideally not for a charity, at this point, they’ll have nothing left by the time your family has finished suing them all.

Can go shoeless at home whenever he wants.

That’s what most people would do, anyway.

While I agree in principle, there are genuinely times that adjustments aren't reasonable for an employer, particularly when they're a smaller employer.

Looking at my business, there are many adjustments that can be made. A fee-earning employee with mobility issues can work from home, rather than in the office.

Someone with a condition that makes them unable to work regular office hours can have their hours adjusted.

Someone that develops a condition that requires them to work less hours, or spreading their hours out differently or mobility issues for those with an in-office client facing role is more difficult to accommodate.

If one of reception team was no longer able to travel to the office, they could answer the phone from home, but not do the other in house work. Our office doesn't have a lift and we can't install one because we rent. We don't have the budget or staff capacity with others to pick up the difference.

If someone needed to spread their working day over a longer period to allow for more breaks, that becomes very difficult to man as we don't have any sort of building maintenance team that unlocks and locks the office. It would mean me doing longer hours in the office to accommodate it.

I know there are employers that don't do enough, but it's also not fair to say that every adjustment must be able to be accommodated by an employer.

If the business fails to make by a profit, it won’t be in business very long. Basic economics.

well that was the choice occupation health gave, WFH or barefoot.

OP do you have any employees at your cat Cafe?

"If someone is struggling, the first question should be: “What can we do to support them so they can continue doing their job"

Urrrr, they have. Her Sgts are wonderful and her team are battling on without complaint.

But clearly she can't continue to do this specific role. It's only getting worse tbh the more adjustments they give her the more she seems to be unable to do, at a detriment to victims. You surely can't think that's a good thing?

But there is no evidence firms aren’t doing these reasonable adjustments - most will be. Certainly every firm I have worked with have tried very hard to make adjustments when asked

the things you are suggesting go much much further

And if the business can’t accommodate either - get a new job. That is actually suitable for his feet.

There isn't a 'right' to make a profit. Making a profit isn't a given for businesses, they can often make losses, especially in the early years.

But there needs to be an incentive for small business owners to put in the graft and take the risks that are required. They don't exist just to create employment. Employees are there to do a job and if the business isn't economically viable it will ultimately cease to exist.

He had one. But he left before he even made use of the supposedly vital expensive new flooring.

Thanks for laying all that out it’s honestly good to hear from an employer who actually tries to support their staff, rather than dismissing the whole idea of adjustments out of hand.
That said, I do think sometimes people hear “we rent” or “we can’t put in a lift” and assume it’s a dead end but there are often more options than it first seems. No one’s expecting you to rebuild the building, but things like portable stair lifts, evac chairs, or reorganising workspace layouts to keep certain roles on the ground floor are all worth looking into. Especially in smaller businesses, it's often about thinking creatively rather than assuming “not possible” means “nothing can be done.”
Virtual reception tools, remote access systems, role sharing, and rearranging duties are also things that lots of places (even small ones!) are already doing and they don’t require a facilities team or a massive budget. Sometimes it's more about willingness than resources.
And I completely get that you can’t do everything. The law doesn’t ask you to. It asks you to do what’s reasonable and that’s going to look different for every employer. But it’s really important that “reasonable” doesn’t just mean “convenient,” because those aren’t the same thing.
So yes, I do see where you’re coming from and it sounds like you're already on the right track. Just worth keeping in mind that sometimes, what feels like an unworkable situation might just need a fresh pair of eyes (or a quick Google) to open up more options.

yes because a better opportunity came up

access to work fill fund adjustments.

So he clearly didn't really need the special floor...

he will do, but he will also go to a tribunal as we don't believe it's unreasonable to allow barefoot working.