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.

This is the problem with the OP’s position. Able bodied people are expected apply for jobs they can do and not what they can’t do. If it turns out they can’t do it they can be let go.

the OP is suggesting that disabled people have the right to apply for jobs they can’t do, either physically or mentally, refuse to divulge this to their employer and then cause issues when they join expecting all manner of ‘reasonable’ adjustments that hadn’t been budgeted for when they hired the person. I don’t think that is reasonable at all. The idea you can present yourself as able to do a high stress job in an interview and then turn up and say you can’t but hey you can just rejig all the responsibilities or allow me to wfh or give me time off makes a mockery of the whole system. As a disabled person you still should only be applying for roles you can do either physically or mentally and adjustments should therefore only need to be minor and well within the ability of a company to put in place cheaply and easily.

Whys it then OK to expect other employees to pick up this work without pay then?

So take this job you can't/won't do but get extra money is fine..... be offered another job you can do but being offered the relevant pay for this job is discrimination? Riiiight, thought that would be perfect OP! A golden opportunity to SUE!!! 😆

Yes and it is just horrible. We see disabled people struggling all the time to get support at work yet here we have an op with a DIY diagnosis, an uncle who got a load of new flooring at work despite walking barefoot on pavements allegedly. It's like reading a copy of Take A Break.

<takes a swig>

I miss the 😄 reaction

I don't understand your position here, you can see the tribunal decisions right?

he didn't ask for the flooring though!

🥃is it too early for this game?...😆

I’m sorry but this is bordering on hilarity.

As IF you’d just rock up at work, shoeless. No warning, no heads up that actually you might need some support with your lack of shoes, no discussion, just “welcome back, here’s my feet.”

It might be legal, but people don’t live like this 😂.

Are your family incapable of independant, intelligent thought? Do you outsource all your decision-making to others who you can then blame and sue if it doesn’t work out?

No, but starting a job with dishonesty won't endear you to anyone.

Maybe not legally but morally it would be right to mention it.

I'm in

But each tribunal decision will be specific to the facts of the case. There isn’t necessarily a legal precedent to be used in another case.

It’s not dishonesty it’s a legal right. The Equality Act 2010 protects disabled applicants from being forced to disclose their condition during recruitment precisely because of the very real risk of discrimination.
Choosing not to disclose upfront isn't deceitful it’s self-protection. And frankly, if an employer holds that against someone once they do disclose and ask for reasonable adjustments, that’s the red flag, not the person asserting their rights.
Starting a job with boundaries and legal awareness isn't dishonest. It’s smart and sometimes, necessary.

Some disability charities advise people to do this infact!

I will admit, I am baffled about the uncle who goes barefoot.

I know someone from my early clubbing days who was always barefoot (over 20 years ago). No neuropathy or anything like that. He just could not stand anything on his feet. He still wears nothing on his feet now. Out on the street, in shops, at work, in night clubs (the bouncers are aware) etc.

He must have soles of steel (like OP's uncle). Why would OP's uncle need foam flooring, and why sue if it not provided as a reasonable adjustment when the rest of the world does not have foam flooring and he seemingly does not need it then?

and then be discriminated against?

Careful I was about to get sued by OP for discrimination and disability hate speech due to saying that 🙄

🍺

he didn't ask for flooring, the company put it in, he just asked to be barefoot or work from home.

🥃

I find that ridiculously hard to beleive.

yes but this shows how far adjustments SHOULD be going!

he didn't, he asked for barefoot or work from home, once he started the process of going to an employment tribunal the charity put the flooring in so he could be barefoot in the office after conducting a RA. My uncle was happy to be barefoot without the flooring.