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.

Dave, put some shoes on or get out.

Problem solved.

He’s walked around outdoors, in public, for 40 years with no shoes? On gravel and stones and on public transport? Does he drive with no shoes?
Baffled!

I have ample experience based on decades of faking interviews and sneakily not mentioning my diagnosis or required adjustments, leaving that for the Occupational Health assessment after the job offer.

Several managers took on a nurse who said they could fulfil all aspects of the role only to be told they couldn't do nights. It's shitty however you frame it.

In hindsight I manipulated the system and it backfired in the end.

I’m reminded of Zola Budd. For the young’uns, she was an athlete who ran barefoot. Maybe the oddball/fictional uncle is a fan.

But then he will go to an employment tribunal, and hopefully win, are you going to cover the fee if and when he does?

If you say so.

Yes he'd maybe get 35k too. Kerrrching!

He doesn't drive as driving without shoes on is illegal, he takes public transport without shoes though.

What real purpose does it serve? Most offices have carpet anyway.
And foam flooring does not remove the hazards such as sharp items on the floor, chemicals spills etc.

So that's what it's about? Getting a tribunal and winning money obviously 🙄

He didn't ask for the flooring, they just did it (for the last time...)

What if he stands in a dog poo?

100%

Probably not.

Like most employers, I’d have found a way to encourage Dave to find a new job. Without making clear that his demands for flooring or toes are winding me up.

Dave ends up unemployed anyway, and there’s no tribunal to take me to.

Out here in Planet Real World, that’s what happens.

no, obviously not but why should he be told he has to "get out" without shoes on. Currently whilst the charity investigate my uncle has been suspended on full pay as the current employer doesn't want to allow no shoes in the office, they are dragging the process out and it has been around 5 months now. I hope he wins his case if it comes to it though.

That just sounds odd. Why would a charity spend £3k on flooring that was not asked for, never mind all the hassle of getting it installed.

Given the litigious nature it seems of him (and the rest of the family) I doubt they'd do something as dangerous as fitting flooring for his benefit without having his full involvement and approval (rubber stamped to infinity and in writing!)

He can't, as he is suspended whilst the company investigate the issue.

There's a 2010 act I think has been mentioned that you dont need to disclose something at interview, but then can mention it once in post and can ask for new flooring despite walking barefoot outdoors. It's lovely how employers support barefoot folk like this.

Because after a RA this is what was advised.

Sues the dog

Don’t you mean lose out on a possible payout?

Why didn't he say no no it's fine thanks?

He’s suspended, having done nothing wrong apart from have feet?

Are you sure that’s the terminology used?

Suspension sounds an awful lot like disciplinary procedure to me, when allegedly all Dave is done is exist with toes out.

Very specific company policy to have breached.

Maybe he should look for a job where does might not be necessary? Pool lifeguard?

Did he turn up to the job interview barefoot?? Apologies if I missed this bit, I’ve been at work.