To find it ridiculous that my work is encouraging those with neurodivergence to add details of their neurodivergence to their email signatures “so colleagues can accommodate your needs?”

[SnugShaker]

I get the intention behind it but it just feels like an uncomfortable and unnecessary step. Why should employees be expected to disclose their neurodivergence in a public way, especially when it could lead to unwanted assumptions or even stigma? There’s a line between creating an inclusive environment and putting the burden of disclosure on individuals, and it seems like this might be crossing that line. Shouldn’t accommodations be handled in a more private, respectful way without having to broadcast personal information?

This is rather good advice.

I am always telling my children that it’s best to find ways that allow them to address their issues than expecting other people to accommodate. Because this way they are in control.

I think many people don’t like answering phone calls or Teams calls when they don’t know what it’s about or who is calling?? In this case, not accepting the call, taking a minute to collect your thoughts and calling back or messaging asking what it’s about seems a really good coping mechanism.

Interesting that my earlier comment that people shouldn't have to endlessly accommodate the needs of people with disabilities in the workplace was reported and deleted. I've been diagnosed with BPD, my daughter has ADHD (and it's highly likely I do too), and I also suffer with chronic migraines. And I still don't think any of my colleagues should have to take any of that into account.

This is my main issue with this type of “policy” - some people expect that they will automatically be accounted for by everyone else who will need to change their behaviours. Sometimes these accommodations are reasonable and sometimes they are not.

Meanwhile, as you say, everyone is different and circumstances change frequently. Many people quietly find ways - or coping mechanisms - that allow them to do things. They should not always have to take the responsibility for doing their work differently to accommodate somebody else.

About 20 years ago, I hired a receptionist for a hospital department. The job role was primarily to answer patient queries, take messages and book appointments with some light filing. After a few weeks, it was apparent that she was never answering the phone. Or she would give the doctors a message with only the information the patient left on the machine (so there was not enough information to go on).

When I talked to her, she said she hated talking on the phone so would prefer not to do that part of the job! I’m sorry but…. The job is as a RECEPTIONIST - the whole job description is to answer phones and talk to patients. If you don’t like talking on the phone - this is not a job for you.

For what it’s worth, I agree with you.

Of course, some accommodations are reasonable and should be accommodated but not all are.

I can see that there are a lot of employees who are being shafted in the workplace because they are always the ones that are expected to accommodate, be kind and take on additional work that others don’t want to in the name of the company being inclusive and accommodating.

And I can see how this policy would claim to be about making things more inclusive and open, but actually acts as a means of discrimination and forcibly 'outing' people. Like pronouns - making them mandatory then puts people who may not want to disclose their identity or opinions about identity/gender in a position that they should not be forced to be in and could then enable discriminatory practices and behaviours.

Removing the right of privacy for disabled people is as unacceptable as removing the right for people who have a gender identity that differs from their biological sex and those who do not subscribe to the concept to keep their identity and/or sexuality private.

Because the bottom fell out of manufacturing several decades ago and if you can't get a paper pushing job you don't work?

It's not a hard and fast rule, but from speaking with colleagues over the years, and a little soupcon on personal experience, the more time a company starts to devote on activities that do nothing for the bottom line, the lower the profits become. Although I think it's actually a reverse observation. When sales are low, management start pronouning.

This is less apparent in the bigger organisations as they have a "wash" of funds to slosh over their inefficiencies.

The cynic in me would say that when HR departments (or department if it's only one person) have no hiring to do, they have to find something else to keep them busy.

This. And I think it highlights nicely the distinction between what is reasonable adjustment and what is not.

About 20 years ago, I hired a receptionist for a hospital department. The job role was primarily to answer patient queries, take messages and book appointments with some light filing. After a few weeks, it was apparent that she was never answering the phone. Or she would give the doctors a message with only the information the patient left on the machine (so there was not enough information to go on).

So how did this candidate sail past all the others ? What was your interview technique ?

Sorry to be blunt but it sounds like 50% of this problem started with your choice.

But that’s a personal decision. You may find a work around but many people don’t/can’t and with physical disability sometimes it’s impossible for someone to work without others being asked to accommodate. The law is there to protect them and the key word here is ‘reasonable’ - not endless.

Coming next year are a raft of cuts to disability and sickness benefits designed to get more disabled people into work. All of which are pointless and punishing if employers are not on board. There are so many benefit bashing threads on MN, many of them aimed specifically at sickness and disability benefits, and it’s so depressing to realise that on top of that so many don’t support legislation designed to get disabled people working.

I have ADHD and YANBU. I don't want to disclose my medical history and have everyone walking around on eggshells in case they upset me. Fwiw my bosses and close colleagues know and are aware of my accomodations and little weirdnesses, but that was my choice.

Because to be successful at tribunal you need to have evidence of the disability for which you are claiming protected characteristics. You don’t need a formal diagnosis but you’d need to show that your employer was aware of your difficulties and had acted unreasonably or you have no case.

The post also demonstrates nicely what disabled people are up against in the workplace. How hard is it to find a few minutes in your working day to help a disabled colleague out ? I do wonder how many of the posters who don’t support reasonable accommodation are also active on benefit bashing posts, because the mindset seems to be the same for both circumstances - disabled = lazy and workshy.

I do wonder how many of the posters who don’t support reasonable accommodation are also active on benefit bashing posts, because the mindset seems to be the same for both circumstances - disabled = lazy and workshy.

Before you can not support reasonable adjustments you'd have to be in employment ....

I responded to this a few pages ago but would be interested in your thoughts:

“Tbh though, whilst I agree with you (all good meetings should have an agenda and follow up notes etc)
it’s really pushing work upwards.
I’m senior, I will be in 6 meetings today. Many of these are organised by me with people who work for me to communicate information and expectations, request work, discuss projects or get updates.
who would do the agenda and notes? Me. Who would be the one logging in at 7pm to send out today’s action points (in the right format- ie bullet points, at the right time ie whatever their email says about working hours etc etc) and to send out agendas for tomorrows 4 meetings? I don’t have a dedicated EA, I would have to do all of this.
extra admin work to support people who have been recruited to support me, as in work towards a common purpose in the directorate and provide an internal service. Yet they can have agendas and notes made for them… by me.
can you see that this might sound simple to the person who wants it, but snowballs to the person providing it?”

I’m senior, I will be in 6 meetings today. Many of these are organised by me with people who work for me to communicate information and expectations, request work, discuss projects or get updates.
who would do the agenda and notes? Me. Who would be the one logging in at 7pm to send out today’s action points (in the right format- ie bullet points, at the right time ie whatever their email says about working hours etc etc) and to send out agendas for tomorrows 4 meetings? I don’t have a dedicated EA, I would have to do all of this.

I’m also senior, and in a lot of meetings. Of If I call the meeting I create and send an agenda with the meeting invitation. I ask someone in the meeting to do an action note in bullet points, and send them within 24 hours of the meeting. Regular meetings have a standard format for notes and a rotating note taker.

I don’t schedule to send things according to someone else’s working hours, I’m clear I don’t expect a response out with their normal working hours. It’s really not difficult or time consuming.

I've been told one major company starts it's meetings at 5 past so that their meetings can finish on the hour and you can have a quick break between meetings.

You’re right that I made the wrong hiring choice. No excuse other than I was young, naive and not experienced in hiring people. Eventually, her employment was terminated as there was no way going forward.

It never occurred to me to ask directly if she was happy to answer the phones and talk to patients! It seemed like such an obvious and essential part of the job.

But this is also a problem - people don’t interview and say that they don’t want to do X part of the job or they don’t like Y - or rather that they will NOT do a job responsibility. They wait until they’ve gotten the job and started which makes it uncomfortable (and expensive and timely) to correct the problem.

By default, ours end at 5 to, so people have time for the loo/get a coffee in between meetings.

None of which excuses my colleague who often turns up 10 minutes late because he was making coffee. (He has improved since mid-year reviews, which makes me suspect I was not the only one getting pissed off by it.)

We don’t have people in our teams who would be willing to take notes, neither is it part of their jobs. Neither would they be any good at taking notes, actions points maybe.

I don’t sent out agendas for catch ups, check ins or update meetings. I don’t know what the content will be in advance

We don’t have people in our teams who would be willing to take notes, neither is it part of their jobs. Neither would they be any good at taking notes, actions points maybe.

I don’t sent out agendas for catch ups, check ins or update meetings. I don’t know what the content will be in advance

I'd personally be uncomfortable with this. In practice how would this even pan out, since neuro diverse needs are so variable?

It’s offensive and othering. Are they asking people with mental or physical health conditions that might require accommodations at work to disclose these in their email signatures? Doubt it.

Yep. Agree.

Yes. Agree. And that’s where ‘reasonable’ comes in. DWP are supposed to support and work with employers in finding adjustments and engaging with other employees to find solutions - paying for things like equipment, software, etc, to allow the person to do the job. Problem is that there are always delays - especially with funding. As a support worker, more than once l saw a disabled person lose the job offer because it took too long to get the adjustments in place.

My point is that there are major changes to the benefit system on the way designed to compel disabled people to engage with work. Pretty pointless exercise if employers aren’t on board with it and government support for them isn’t there. We either want disabled people off benefits and into work or we don’t. If we do then we need to provide support where it’s needed. Can’t have it both ways.