Published on 12, July, 2020
I was diagnosed 3 weeks ago with autism, something I wasn't surprised at and actually feel relieved at knowing.
I work in the civil service, always been office based, never worked from home but over the last few years I've been really struggling with the work and the environment I was in.
Currently on sick leave and spoken to manager about what I'd like going forward. I've said full time home working due to the issues I faced in the workplace (crowded, noisy, temperature too hot, no routine). I've been told that I'd have to put in a flexible working request first to leave the department then put in a reasonable adjustment request on my new team for home working.
I've explained my issue with this is if I get moved teams on the first request its to operations which is a big open plan floor with hundreds of people, I've sat there briefly last year and had to leave the building as it was too overwhelming (at this point not knowing I was autistic). If this was to happen and then my reasonable adjustment request for home working was rejected I'd be stuck in an environment far worse than the one I'm requesting to leave.
Does anyone have any pointers on what the best course of action is to request full time home working? I've read up on so many pages but again when I mention it to my manager I keep getting told 'the expectation is to be in the office 2-3 days a week as a minimum' which goes against the law which states each reasonable request should be treated on a case by case basis and not compared to other requests.
This sounds very much like myself. I think what we have to face from our managers is in most due to a lack of understanding about the challenges and effects that ASD has over time ie cumulative. Wish I could give you better advice. Can you work with occupational health as their input can help sway managers. Also is there an equality and diversity service in your area? Getting all available support can only strengthen you case and of course use your union fulltime officers.
My situation remains unresolved after over a year and I have been moved to a temporary placement in the meantime. However this I fear is just kicking the can further down the road.
Mr T said: I think what we have to face from our managers is in most due to a lack of understanding about the challenges and effects that ASD has over time ie cumulative.
I worked amongst that group of managers and it isn't lack of understanding or compassion, but the fact they have to deliver results typically with fewer staff than they are allocated and when one becomes a drag on productivity and the fix is going to cause wider problems (ie more staff seeing that person gets to work from home all the time and they want the same thing) then it is too big an overhead.
When this happens the response we are typically given is to be compassionate but not to give ground - ie make it so the person sees themselves out of the job. This comes from the HR team and senior management although they are smart enough to leave no paper trail.
This isn't just the Civil Service and not just for autism - it is the go-to response when a difficult situation arises.
From their side they can typically hire a replacement for less money (even allowing for training) and if you quit because you can't handle the environment then there is no pay out. Discrimination claims are unlikely to be successful as they have already made significant concessions and cover their backs well.
I think this will remain an issue for as far into the future as I can see - a simple case of economics for them as they don't typically worry about the individuals when there is a large pool of staff and finding replacement staff is easy.
It is a good point about the unions - deffo join up and use then for advice and possibly leverage but I expect they will give the same conclusion once initial attempts are made.
Sorry it isn't more positive but I wanted you to see the other side of the situation from a management perspective so you can understand what is happening.
Mr T said:the excuse of 'everyone else will want' does not stand up to judicial scrutiny.
The HR response that won't be put in writing is that it will create "undue pressure on us to provide a service we consider detrimental to the effective running of the organisation".
This stuff comes in conversations held quietly between HR and the manager(s), is not documented or confirmed in writing when asked and it is not just the civil service, it is big employers in general.
If one person can meaningfully perform their entire role from home then everybody else can too - this leads to a lot of unrest from the other staff because the original requestor is getting treatment that they should be fairly allowed access to as well.
In essence it becomes like a house of cards.
Most management hate remote working as it is so hard to get a team spirit going, to quickly and effectively get info disseminated through the team and means they don't get to keep an eye and ear on what is going on so they can manage performance and morale.
Big corporations will take a long time to evolve into the world of working from home with trust on both sides.
Mr T said:This is a minefield to manoeuvre around and would point the OP to sites like valla for advice.
I agree. The purpose of my info dump from the management perspective is to understand what they are facing, to manage their expectations and formulate a strategy that has a better chance of suceess.
With the greatest respect Iain I take your point of view from managements side but should we all not be fighting for what it is we need regarding adjustments. If the managers can justify it in writing you may well be right. However, the excuse of 'everyone else will want' does not stand up to judicial scrutiny. Every case is different. The EQA 2010 is very clear that you can be treated differently to others if it is a means of removing barriers that cause a significant disadvantage.
This is a minefield to manoeuvre around and would point the OP to sites like valla for advice.