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.

the Equality Act exists to stop people being unfairly excluded when jobs can be adjusted to suit someone’s needs. That’s not about bending the world — it’s about removing unnecessary barriers.

But in the case of a police officer who is triggered by conflict, the adjustments mentioned are bending the world! And very unfairly impacting colleagues.

Not all adjustments are reasonable.

It’s not a resourcing failure. We are funded for a certain number of officers. That’s all there is in the budget. This person counts within that number, whether they are fully operational or not. Because their reasonable adjustment is to take themselves off frontline duties AT ANY TIME, including mid shift, a day that may start with an adequate number of staff could very quickly turn into me getting my head kicked in with no back up. Because a job with violent offenders is 100% the sort of job that would trigger their anxiety.

It may sound like I’m being flippant. I’m not. They are not suited for front line policing, and their adjustments are absolutely not reasonable.

Thing is, some people use reasonable adjustments and their self diagnosed anxiety as a reason to avoid doing bits of a job they find stressful or difficult, meaning others have to do them instead. This rightly or wrongly annoys other people.

My friend for example works in an office where they have to go on the phones and deal with complaints. Someone there says it makes them anxious so they are allowed to stay off the phones and it pisses everyone else off.

I don't disagree but lots of employers will find these kind of requests unreasonable and it they were strictly enforced I'm not sure what impact that would have on hiring. I myself have health issues I couldn't get an employer to accommodate and so had to work for myself.

In my experience many employers regard reasonable adjustments to be things like a screen filter, or a special mouse not being able to step out every time you feel overwhelmed. It is probably reasonable to suggest that not all jobs are suitable for everyone. I did a wonderful job in my 20's very well paid and something many people want to do but when my health tanked I had to do something else, if my employer had accommodated me it would have held up work massively making projects totally unviable.

I think you have to do the job. Not everyone is suited to every job, disability or not. But yes, where adjustments can be made they should be.

“Promoting or transferring them to a better-suited role, even if that role comes with higher pay or more opportunities, if it helps remove a barrier”

😂This is just plain silly. No disability should trump the best qualified person getting promoted.

My DP is autistic and the reasonable adjustments he has, has meant he has managed to stay in his job. He can WFH, have a longer window in the day in which to get his 8 hours in, and can take longer and more breaks. He also has a weekly 1:1 with his line manager to check he is doing ok and not feeling overwhelmed. It has worked well for him as this is the longest he has been in a job.
Before then, he was bullied and managed out of every job he had been in.
He works in the public sector, and for him anyway, they seem more switched on when it comes to ND. They even have a group for ND employees that host talks etc, that he still gets paid for when he attends them.

The stats for autistic people in paid employment is pretty dire, so any adjustments that allows them to fulfil their potential should be embraced. But he could just not work and be on benefits, but people complain about that too.

@coffeeandmycats ,

‘This isn’t about one person getting what they want. It’s about making sure people with long-term health conditions aren’t excluded unfairly from jobs they’re capable of doing with support. That’s not horrible it’s basic fairness under the law.’

If the job includes night shifts and they won’t do night shifts, they aren’t doing the job! Allowing them to do a completely different job for the same salary is neither fairness nor ‘equity’, quite the opposite.

Of course, if it is a short term curable condition, I think employers should support, but if they point blank refuse even to work towards doing a night shift, they aren’t suitable for the job.

One of the biggest issues is that it is not reasonable to force a private company to become unprofitable in order to continue with someone's chosen employment. The law also doesn't allow you to force someone's colleagues to take on a disproportionate share of work to faciliate them doing less. A lot of the "reasonable" adjustments you specify could be accomodated for one employee in a hundred, they can't be afforded for twenty percent of the work force without the employer going bust or losing all their other staff.

I'd bet that the same people who are up in arms about reasonable adjustments are the same ones who slate benefit claimants and complain about paying tax. In a reasonable society we can't have it both ways, they either work or claim benefits. We can't have people living in absolute poverty because they are disabled. We also shouldn't be shutting disabled people out of society, they should be able to experience the benefits of employment, which go a lot further than a pay cheque.
I work with people who have reasonable adjustments. It's nothing to do with me. I'm not comparing myself to them. I'm doing my job to the best of my ability because I have a good work ethic and believe in giving 100% to everything I do.
Is it really so hard for people to accept that they may work in a different way to someone with a disability, they may even have a higher output than someone with a disability, but that doesn't mean the disabled person is putting in less effort or having an easy ride. They are working just as hard as others but they need some adjustments to manage the role. That's what equality is about, having equal opportunity to achieve, it's not everyone doing everything in exactly the same way at the same pace and in the same time frames.

I think the unsympathetic attitudes maybe come from staff who aren’t disabled feeling like they pick up the pieces. Our society in general is fast paced - some people start work at 7am and finish at 6pm, barely get time for lunch, have a long commute, limited time with family, won’t even get time to make a coffee at work etc.

I can see why, if you’re that person, the prospect of someone being given protected breaks, early finishes and a smaller workload would rub them up the wrong way.

It’s not the disabled person’s fault, of course, but many people are at breaking point with their day to day life and (particularly in the cases where someone self-IDs as autistic or similar) feel like the piss is being taken out of them.

I get where you're coming from, and it's a question that comes up a lot. But the law doesn't define "doing the job" as ticking every single box in the same way as everyone else it defines it in terms of whether the essential functions of the job can be carried out with reasonable adjustments in place.
If night shifts are absolutely essential and no adjustment can be made without serious operational issues, then yes an employer might lawfully say no. But often, especially in large or 24/7 organisations, some flexibility can be built in. And adjustments don’t have to be “short-term” many disabilities are long-term or fluctuating, and the Equality Act protects people for as long as the disadvantage continues.
As for salary, tribunals have found that in certain cases, retaining someone in a modified role at the same pay can be a reasonable adjustment especially where redeployment avoids dismissal. It’s not about creating inequality; it’s about preventing exclusion and recognising the reality of living and working with a disability.

I think, unfortunately, there is a limit to how much flexibility the world has and/or offers for disabled people - particularly the ND. The world just is the world, you can either engage in it or you can’t, and it’s our responsibility to help people work out where they fit in it or how they can. Telling people that you’ll change the world for them does them no favours, you won’t.

I see it from an employer perspective too.

Last year I had a member of staff, with a registered disability, on long term sick. She very specifically couldn’t sit on any of the chairs available in the office, or look at a PC screen. She could however sit on all the chairs at home, and watch TV/play on her games console. With her ongoing back issues, she went to a fairground and put photos of herself on social media on the waltzers. She also moved house, and dismantled a kitchen. By herself.

Whether you like it or not, some people take the mick, and use disability as a means to do that. Which puts employers off and is a nightmare to deal with.

Reassigning certain duties or tasks, even if this means the person is doing less than others Reducing workload or output targets, such as call volumes or deadlines

These would not be considered reasonable in my workplace because of the additional cost (ultimately to taxpayers). I have two disabilities which require reasonable adjustments. However if I decided that I could only do part of the job, the 20% I like the best, other people in the team would have to pick up the rest of it and there is not enough capacity to be able to do that. The costs would be astronomical to get the job done. That’s where reasonable becomes unreasonable.

That’s exactly why the legal test is whether the adjustment is reasonable in the context of the role, the organisation, and its resources. No one’s saying an employer has to accept any request without question but they do have a legal duty to explore whether an adjustment can remove or reduce the disadvantage. That might mean shifting duties, adjusting targets, or even redeploying someone and courts have repeatedly upheld all of these as lawful adjustments, depending on the facts.
Working in the public sector doesn’t exempt an organisation from these duties in fact, it often strengthens them because larger employers are expected to have more flexibility and resources than a small business. The cost alone doesn’t make an adjustment unreasonable unless it’s truly disproportionate.
Having disabilities yourself doesn’t mean others with different conditions won’t need different support. Reasonable doesn’t mean perfect or convenient for everyone it means lawful and fair under the Equality Act.

too right sister!

I couldn’t be cabin crew because I’m too short
I couldn’t be a fighter jet pilot because my eye sight is shit
I couldn’t be an HGV driver because I have epilepsy
I couldn’t work as a police offer because I have PTSD

Luckily there are many jobs that I can do well - it’s my responsibility to find one.

All good points but don't lose sight of what the poster was saying - while reasonable adjustments are fine, why should 1 receptionist be doing their job plus a bit of someone else's who for whatever reason cannot do the full job described while the other person gets paid the same for doing a lesser version? Why is it fair that the able receptionist does more work than the disabled receptionist for the same pay? Or is it the case that what you are saying is that disabled people should be assisted to work in the workforce but their pay should be reduced accordingly to compensate for not doing the "full" job? I'm all for team work but equally I'm not for one person slogging away while another person in the same role doesn't and gets paid the same. It's no different from a man being paid more than a woman for the same job - it just shouldn't happen.

I agree with employers making adjustments, being disabled isn’t somehow a privilege because you get an additional break at work. We need to support people to be in the workplace, especially those who are vulnerable by reason of disability.

But there are limits; one of those is that the adjustment has to be reasonable. The other is who ought to be considered disabled and entitled to the adjustment in the first place. The threshold for disability under the Equality Act is low, and too low in my opinion (nearly 20 years working as a discrimination lawyer so I’m not shooting from the hip in saying that).

and sorry OP but, especially in our struggling economy where we need small business to thrive, this is just so far divorced from reality that I don’t know where to start:

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

It’s not just employers actually - it’s recruitment agencies. for the last 15+ years Ive been a manager of a finance team, in different companies in London and the SE. I have a lot of roles that could easily be chopped into chunks and I could create a lot of small jobs for people who are differently abled and can’t commit to fully time work; job share would also work well. Over and over again, I’m told by recruitment agencies that it is “basically impossible” to find candidates looking for permanent part time work. I have challenged this over and over, but Im told “no, the only people who want part time are mums, and that won’t work for you because they will want loads of time off in the school holidays.” I suggested maybe there could be someone with a disability who might prefer only working mornings, or only working a few days a month - I’m always told I’m being naive and there is “no one looking for that kind of job, even if it’s working from home 100%”

Once, I luckily sourced my own candidate (a lady recovering from cancer who needed a gentle, no stress, low hours job a few days a week). Once I found someone with MS who was scaling back due to ill health - highly competent but couldn’t do the standard 50 hours + per week expected of the FT people.

I am really, really disappointed that legislation doesn’t force employers to actively consider if a job could be done in a more flexible way. And that recruiters don’t have a Code of Professional Conduct to support that.

On the other hand: I do not want to hire someone in a FT role and then discover I’m obliged to ask the rest of the team to cover some of the shittier tasks because employee has discovered that they now have a disability and can’t do the job. I need people who can deliver - im nearly always chronically understaffed so there truly isn’t any wiggle room to let some people just do less. And if one person is paid more to do less, then literally everyone else will lose out- because if that person takes a bigger share of the pie, the pie doesn’t magically get bigger.

To take another example: in many departments I’ve worked in/with, when someone goes on mat leave the budget isn’t increased, so that team has to “find” the money to cover the gap - either by not hiring a replacement, or by making cuts elsewhere. I worked in one team where we had two out of four people on mat leave so I simply couldn’t make the budget work - I had to email the Chief Of department in the US and request a Special Exception - I was basically made to feel like a piece of shit for letting half my team get pregnant simultaneously!

This idea of yours Op that “if you can’t afford adjustments, maybe you shouldn’t be in business” is utterly ludicrous. You can have no idea of the budget pressures many private companies constantly operate under - hiring freezes, cut backs, pay freezes, pushing people to do more work in less time … it is endless. It has been that way on and off my entire career. We are always tasked with cutting costs, driving up productivity, introducing efficiencies.

So the reason you aren’t seeing positive change is structural and economical. The law doesn’t recognise the extent to which hiring differently abled people and making reasonable adjustments is often awfully hard for the manager/team/ company.

I'm all for courtesy, but the colleague who does the picking up - kind though they are - may have interrupted their own work to do so, hence my comment about efficiency. Less 'interruption' time if each floor has its own copier, and the colleague with mobility issues doesn't have to ask favours just to get their own work done, they can carry out the full role just like their colleagues can. Making them use a copier on a floor they can't access isn't clever.

It’s not silly at all — this has already been established in law. In Archibald v Fife Council (2004), the House of Lords ruled that a disabled employee could be promoted into a higher-level vacancy without needing to go through the usual competitive process. The court made it clear that the duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act can include waiving normal selection procedures if that’s what’s needed to remove a disadvantage caused by disability.
So yes, in some cases, giving a disabled person a higher-paid role is a lawful and reasonable adjustment even if they’re not the “best qualified” in the usual sense. It’s not about giving handouts it’s about removing unfair barriers. That’s not a loophole, it’s the law.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldjudgmt/jd040701/arch-2.htm?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Depending on the situation, they can also include:
Redeploying someone to a different role if their original job can’t be adjusted
Promoting or transferring them to a better-suited role, even if that role comes with higher pay or more opportunities, if it helps remove a barrier
Reassigning certain duties or tasks, even if this means the person is doing less than others
Reducing workload or output targets, such as call volumes or deadlines
Allowing home working, even if the original role was office-based
Offering a less senior or less stressful position but keeping the original pay, if it prevents the person from being pushed out entirely

So for you reasonable adjustments are basically to get paid at a higher level than the tasks they are capable of doing, doing less than others, taking more breaks at the expense of others and picking and choosing what they do or don’t want to do. I can see the line of employers queuing up round the block to bite your hand off with such an attractive offer.

I think that reasonable adjustments should be made.

When I had an operation on my feet (for a genetic defect) Occupational Therapy said that I was allowed to put my feet up when I returned to work. (I didn't do this all the time - I was teaching.)

However, I'm also on the spectrum. This won't go down well in some quarters, but at work I used to mask for the most part. (When I got tired, my eye contact would slip.)

It wouldn't have been possible for me to teach and to have frequent small breaks - so masking it was. (Yes, I know that not everyone can do that.)

Yes, it could, but that also may not be
an option.* *