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.

Hi see the above post judges have upheld this before several times, yes it's the law

and if it doesn't done and they go to an employment tribunal the employer could (and should) lose and pay out big bucks

I think the landscape is becoming increasingly difficult to navigate to make sure you’re doing the right thing, and creating equity without unintended disadvantages for other colleagues and the business.

I am a manager and I am frequently finding that sometimes people have already decided exactly what reasonable adjustments they need and they’re not willing to consider anything else, even when this isn’t routed in experience or an occupational health assessment. In my organisation, this is usually things like not coming to the office, not putting camera on in meetings, not having to do certain tasks that are deemed stressful (presentations, answering phone calls, etc.). Whilst I absolutely think the person who knows their needs the best is the individual with the disability, sometimes there’s no willingness to work with the employer to try and find solutions that work for both. We are public sector and there is a large budget to support people with all kind of specialist equipment that can be provided both at home and in office and we can be really flexible with working patterns.

Likewise, some of the adjustments are not reasonable for someone in the respective role and grade. I had an employee who insisted they had to receive all questions in writing two days in advance of a meeting so they wouldn’t be caught off guard by questions in the meeting. Realistically, how can we expect all colleagues to know their respective questions until they’ve seen the presentation, heard the salient points and listened to the feedback from other colleagues? It would be perfectly acceptable to say ‘thanks for the question, but I need to take it away and get back to you’ if not able to answer in the moment but we can’t have a blanket ban on dialogue because one person found it stressful, particularly when they are in a senior position!

I agree to an extent but also think you’re being idealistic and unrealistic about what can be achieved.

I work in a role where I do a lot to employ, include and support employees with all manner of disabilities and additional needs. There is a real difference between supporting someone who genuinely needs and appreciates the support and in turn, gives the best they can and, I’m afraid, the utter piss takers who select out of the elements of work they just don’t wish to do.

i totally support your views that things should be fair and lawful but also feel that a side effect of the
tribunal culture is that employers, especially the smaller ones, will be put off from taking on disabled employees in the first place.

It is also the exact reason why employers don’t want to hire because they second they do, they demand every “adjustment” under the sun whilst exclaiming that they’re being discriminated against. If something, anything is above your capability then you shouldn’t be given the role above someone who is the better qualified person for the role. Just because it’s the law, it doesn’t make it right. It causes resentment in the workplace and a sense of entitlement. Why should you get paid more for a lower level of responsibilities than your colleague? It’s ridiculous.

I’ve voted YABU because not every job can be adjusted to be suitable for every person with every possible need, so it’s ridiculous to generalise like that.

Your comment about if a business can’t afford to make adjustments then shouldn’t be in business doesn’t really hold up either. Most small businesses couldn’t afford to pay two members of staff to do one role, and depending on the adjustment that is absolutely what is needed. Does that mean every small business should shut down? My employer for example could afford to do it, a big employer, large number of staff & big £, we can afford to pay 2 people to ultimately do 1 job to accommodate reasonable adjustments but lots smaller than us couldn’t.

There is also the fact that customers/clients/the general public,
sometimes even the same people who shout about how important reasonable adjustments are, tend to be far less understanding when their service or experience is negatively impacted as a result of a business employing someone with adjustments so they often feel they can’t win.

That is an absolute nonsense

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

But what happens when multiple people on a team require these types of adjustments?
call volumes will be set at a level to ensure productivity. Workloads ordered to ensure that a level of profitability can be reached. More senior roles will be banded at a level to reflect increased responsibilities within a pay structure.
Yes reasonable adjustments such be made where possible in appropriate roles. But owners/managers have a responsibility to all staff and the company to ensure that the operation is run to profit. Otherwise, they cease to exist.
I’ve been in a scenario within a highly targeted sales environment where adjustments were sought to reduce targets and workload because the targets exacerbated ADHD traits. That may be true, but the job is a highly stressful, highly paid sales job! It absolutely doesn’t suit everyone and I just think that person should have recognised that and sought a more suitable job within a less targeted environment.

Exactly. I am ND and find it much easier to work from home or in certain environments. I empathise with your son’s experience of being bullied in jobs!

I worked for a private PR company and they were one of those “you need to be a culture fit and join in” type companies, which basically meant they wanted us to swap decent pay and a reasonable workload for pool tables and free prosecco on Fridays .

The office was hellish for me to concentrate in - so loud, every day there would be music playing, so much chatter and there would be an expectation to go out for drinks a lot.

They piled on so much work on me, but I was subtly labelled as not being a team player because I chose to work late and get things finished and then go straight home as I was tired and it was like 7pm by the time I was done! . Had I detoured to the pub on my way home I’d have been shattered and unable to cope with the heavy workload the next day.

I asked to WFH a couple of times a week and they said no. That was reserved for more senior members apparently but those senior staff were piling all the workload on new/junior members of staff like me and living it up ‘working from home’ doing nothing .

Long story short I went to HR one day to raise various concerns and was fired due to “lack of client work” a few days later. The HR person clearly snitched on me and they decided to push me out asap.

I was so burnt out by the time they fired me and I could easily have just threw my hands up and claimed long term disability at that point but I persisted and glad I did.

My next job was SO much better. Although I still had to work in the office it was a quiet office with lots of space so we didn’t need to be all cooped up next to each other. And just a more pleasant environment. Some went out for drinks occasionally but there was no pressure to join.

My current job allows WFH. Most people have to attend the office 3 times a week, I only have to go in once a month but try to go a bit more. These are the things that can keep ND in full time work.

The problem isn’t people applying for jobs they aren’t realistically able to do.

The real issue arises when individuals with disabilities, who are capable, qualified, and trained, are denied job opportunities simply because they use a wheelchair or assistive devices, leaving them with no options.

I work in local government and think we are extremely generous with RA and have a process for redeployment when the RA become too much for the service to continue with.

Like with anything, some people do absolutely take the piss, but I don't think that is common. Most of our staff with physical disabilities are excellent workers, good attendance and are completely understanding and realistic in what RA they require and they want to be in work

I will admit I find neurodivergence related adjustments quite a bit harder to manage as these seems to impact colleagues far more or people expect key elements of the role to be removed which is just not bloody reasonable

Business exists for ONE reason, that's to make money for the owners and shareholders.

Business is NOT a social club or support group. If you can't do the work, for whatever reason, someone else can and THEY get hired instead.

Allowing breaks for overwhelmed staff only makes sense if that staff member is vital to the business. Not the position, but that individual staff member. Otherwise they are costing the business money.

@coffeeandmycats Well said OP.

And for the ignoramuses in this thread- there are a lot of jobs that don't involve starring at a computer screen all day. Not everyone works in the legal or financial sectors.

Then you’d be slated as a benefit claimant who is capable of work but lazy.

Yes and that is where reasonable adjustments come in.

It isn't reasonable to allow employees more breaks, less work demands or being able to 'step back'.

I have issues with the idea that staff can simply opt out of certain tasks due to a disability. When a job description is created, it is generally a coherent set of requirements relating to qualifications, experience and duties or tasks, and will be a coherent package which has been assessed by HR to warrant a particular salary grade (OP, this certainly applies in the public sector). It will dovetail with other roles above and below that grade, and will relate to roles the person will interact with. To have a person with a disability seeming to cherry-pick bits of the job description cuts right across the delicate balance of job families and job levels. It may be the law, but it's a minefield for managers and employers.

And yes, I have managed people with disabilities, and used Access to Work to support them.

@Chiseltip Business exists for ONE reason, that's to make money for the owners and shareholders. Business is NOT a social club or support group.

It's not about being a social club or support group. OP already explained that those reasonable adjustments are legally mandated.

If you can't do the work, for whatever reason, someone else can and THEY get hired instead. Allowing breaks for overwhelmed staff only makes sense if that staff member is vital to the business. Not the position, but that individual staff member. Otherwise they are costing the business money.

You are categorically wrong on this. Not making reasonable adjustments increases staff turnover, which costs the business a lot of money through having to hire and train new staff. In addition, not having reasonable adjustments means that staff are less cost-effective, and having less cost-effective staff means that more money is wasted.

I hope you are not in a management position, because your attitudes would cost any business a lot of money. Certainly, I would not trust your leadership.

I have reasonable adjustments. I didn’t know I had this health condition when I took the role and the delay in treatment meant I spent a long time in uncontrollable pain waiting for an operation
I was allowed to WFH, and also to take time off to take morphine and allow it to kick in so I could then return to work (unpaid or I worked it back) and my absences due to the condition didn’t trigger anything

At my children’s school the headteacher’s favourite parrot line is EHCP’s are not a golden ticket you know. He’s right they are not - they a legal obligation placed on the school to support the child and they often come with resources to help with this. But suffice to say that’s not what he means! Every time he says it as a justification for inaction it appalls me.

What happens in the case of the police officer where, perhaps due to what they have experienced on the night shift, leads to 3 more colleagues no longer able to work nightshift? So now half the required team no longer can do what they are employed to. In your utopia I assume all remaining employees take on all the night shifts as a reasonable adjustment for the others?

I am not ableist but some of your comments and suggestions are ridiculous. I quite fancy being an astronaught but I'm not very good at physics. Should I just be given the role anyway?

This is so tough because philosophically I agree with you 💯.
The problem comes because most reasonable adjustments either cost money, put more work/pressure on others or both.
Then if you factor in that an awful lot of places are running on tight budgets and struggling to stay afloat, plus the fact that more and more people are needing these adjustments for a variety of reasons.

It becomes a perfect storm, work places can’t keep extending breaks, reducing work load, reducing responsibility on the same pay, allowing people to go home early etc without it impacting negatively on their budget and therefore their clients and all of their employees.

There’s a utopian world out there where every person can work in exactly the way they feel most comfortable enabling the vast majority of people to work and contribute as far as they are able to…but how to get there from where we are now, I’m not sure.

I read the other thread and the premise of it (didn’t read all the comments) was that it’s not fair for a reasonable adjustment to simply pile additional work onto that person’s direct colleagues and I do agree with that.

But that's not what the poster said. They meant that adjustments for one person often lead to more work, less flexibility etc for another. Their role will change too.

I have been in the situation myself that one co-worker went part time and this increased the workload (without recognising hours worked and pay didn't change either) for others. So unless a law is created that addresses that it's not going to work. Do you give the work to a woman, a man, a black person, a parent. with increased pay, same pay. It will remain a minefield.

If it's been less than 6 months since you were fired go to an employment tribunal. Nothing to lose!

Realsitically it should be distributed out fairly. For example a team of 5 and one person does less client meetings.

The extra workload could be given to the other 4 members and then the person doing less meetings could pick up on some admin for the rest of the team

It is a fine balance I do agree. I just feel like some people (not you to be clear) are very ableist.