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.

Well yes what works for one doesn’t work for another but I’ve known a lot of others with neuropathy(Having worked in care) and I cannot think of anyone who would have been advised to go permanently barefoot because it tends to cause even more problems and worsen the neuropathy. Indeed they were actively advised against doing so.

Honestly, ChatGPT is so bad for the environment. It also affects your brainpower, but that ship may have sailed... #StopTheSlop

it's not AI. I am typing myself...

Are you generating your responses using AI, OP? Because that was a remarkably detailed response that you formulated in the three minutes since I posted. Also a bit repetitive of what you’ve said before and using some key words I tend to associate with ChatGPT (e.g. gatekeeping).

fair enough, my uncles condition is more complicated, however over the 40 years his feet have adapted well. He has thicker soles on his feet and can comfortably walk over rough surfaces without issue etc.

no not at all, however I don't use AI for my responses, but I did re use some of what I have said to previous people which may speed up the response times to be fair.

Yes I thought this too.

I wonder if ChatGPT will start requesting reasonable adjustments

Some of your responses are clearly written by a human. However, the vast majority are AI, and it's frankly laughable and an insult to my intelligence to lie about it.

Surely a reasonable adjustment for a person with a foot problem that means they can’t wear formal shoes would be to wear dark coloured trainers?
Why are people walking barefoot around an office? That’s not a reasonable adjustment. That’s a health and safety risk.

How would dark coloured trainers help his feet? he hasn't worn shoes for 40 years!

So @coffeeandmycats would a demoted role and less pay be OK then?

Bet his feet are minging, OP 🤢😂

I take it he attends any interviews barefoot then so surely he would be asked by the interviewer why. So how does he answer the question, is he truthful about his condition and that he would need to work barefoot?

My difficulty with all this is that the point of access to work and the law surrounding reasonable adjustments was put in place for those who find it difficult to get any employment at all because of their disability.

To use a PPs example, there is a wealth of difference between someone with say, 2% vision struggling to find any work at all despite ability and the availability of technical adjustments and someone who simply needs to work in a less stressful, fast paced environment.

A good example is the PP talking about a co-worker in the police force that doesn't do conflict and can't work nights. There are plenty of jobs out there where you don't have to work nights and won't have to deal with conflict at that level. There aren't plenty of jobs for somebody with 2% vision without support.

I have anxiety and dyscalculia. For that reason, I am not applying for high stress jobs which state 'good numeracy required' in the job description. I am not without any other options (obviously, as I have managed to be employed for over 30 years). I don't have as much choice as people who CAN do those things, but honestly it's no different to most average people seeking employment who have differing strengths.

I am not suited to certain types of work, just like 90% of the population. I'm not going to apply for a job I know I can't do without support from the get go. I have other options available to me.

Some people cannot access any type of employment without support. Even with support, their options may still be limited. Nobody with very low vision is going to be applying to be a truck driver. Hopefully one day, technology might enable this, but not at the moment.

These are the people for whom access to work and adjustments are vital. Not somebody who could simply work in a sector more suitable.

His feet are hardened by having not worn shoes for 40 years, but also he needs cushioned flooring… for his hardened feet that can withstand the pavement.

Right. Okay.

yes if he attends in person he is. However for the current role he was interviewed on teams only.

What so he didn’t say “my name’s Dave and I don’t wear shoes”?

Seems a fairly large thing to leave out!

It's crazy isn't it.

An idiot's guide on how to take the piss out of employers without any recognition on how this awful entitled behaviour makes life so much harder for genuinely disabled people needing adjustments at work.

His previous role that required his employer to fit new flooring… was he barefoot at that interview or was that also conveniently on teams?

Reasonable adjustments aren’t about handing out perks or demotions they’re about keeping disabled people in work, safely and fairly. If someone can no longer do their original job due to a disability, the employer has a legal duty to explore alternatives. That includes suitable vacancies even if they’re at a different level—because forcing someone into a demotion and pay cut because they’re disabled would likely be classed as discrimination under the Equality Act.
So no, moving someone down a pay grade isn’t an acceptable default solution, especially if there’s a role available that matches their skills and doesn’t worsen their financial position. This isn’t about gaming the system it’s about making sure disabled people don’t get punished for something outside their control.
If that bothers you more than the idea of someone being pushed out of work entirely, maybe ask yourself why that is.

Read the below examples where this has been upheld in law:

Mrs A D Wade v Sheffield Hallam University: UKEAT/0194/12/LA - GOV.UK

Pay protection: the cost of reasonable adjustments | Womble Bond Dickinson

Like I said earlier - one of my previous employees could at one stage sit on chairs in all other locations apart from the office.

The sofa at home - fine. The one in the office, absolutely not.

Some people make taking a lend their life’s work.

Did the op mention the 2010 Equality act?

this role was during the pandemic, he then returned to the office bare foot.

I can't comment on that example but my uncle has worked his whole life and only ever used the employment tribunal process 2 times so far.

He isn't legally required to disclose this in the interview.