Manager saying I was combative and rude

I agree with you about people in positions of power who misuse that power, it's neither right nor fair. OK we have to accept that bosses are human too, but that dosen't give them the right have higher "human power" along with their higher salary.

Yes, I agree. Wonderful you have it that way too.

That could have been her attitude given that she chose to look at the email from that perspective instead like you and I do and realize on her own it was not directed towards her. 

Also how can one not get that if you loose money like that you react on it ? But then again I know some people who make lots and lots of money and they seriously do not understand at times when others who really depend on the small income coming in reacts when there are delays. Like they just don't care or just don't wish to think of the others perspective. 

I dislike it when people that are already in a authorized position use that power in the wrong way. 

I can get so surprised when people all of a sudden take a jump at me. First of all they are prepared. I am not. That's not playing it fair. And they know it. So already there they have an advantage. Second of all because of my empathy it has been abused to manipulate me those times. Too when they demand an answer straight away when I need time to think it through. To me that is very important .That I get my time. All of these things are ugly tactics. Because I get startled, because I have too much empathy, because I feel quilt but not knowing why, because the other one is pointing the blaming finger at me I have been manipulated to have an apologetic response to it. I have learned to hold that back. I remember particularly one time an ex boyfriend of mine did this to me. The moment I stood up for myself. That was the very moment I set myself free from the relationship and from his ugly ways. I believe I came to appreciate my husband more than I would have otherwise done if I had not had that bad experience with the ex boyfriend. Now I found someone who they say were like me. Things the ex boyfriend complained about he thought were great qualities to have. 

Thank you all for your input, I really do appreciate it.

I can confirm HR are going to honour the policy and stated it was simple oversight from there part.

My work environment is awful and getting worse, so if anyone knows of an employment agency that focuses on fully remote roles I would appreciate it you could share the details/website.

My line manager told HR the reasons for my absence and she was the one who highlighted the policy and the exact section which states about pay.

I get people doing that to me too, it's like I'm a safe place, I've learned over the years to not take it personally, to make the right noises in the right places and at the end ask if they feel better now? I try and treat it as an honour that people feel able to do this around me, whatever faults I may have in other areas people feel emotionally safe around me.

I forgot this last part when I wrote here earlier. It is quite a common thing in my experience that people come to me when they are upset at something and simply let it all out. If anyone was to interrupt at this point they would mistake it for the one releasing everything to be yelling at me. They always too do the same thing afterwards, when they're done, they say it's not my fault, sorry if it comes across that way. it just feels so good for them to let it out, they trust me, it is them doing that that is a sign of trust. This is people who are not autistic (in my book) who do this. 

To be fair, the most conflicts at work that I have seen taking place are not between autistic and  NTs it is between NTs. 

One of the reasons my husband thinks it is a good idea I shut up about being autistic is that he says the wrong kind of people can abuse that knowing and turn it into something they will earn from. 

I think there is so much misunderstanding, so much blur between NT when they communicate through text (and real life) that lets so much go wrong and then no one is ready to take responsibility for it. Nobody knows how it happened. I know how it happened. But who's listening, right? 

Your daughter’s hardline, resolute, uncompromising and militant response is exactly the kind of utterly determined response that is most needed for abusive and discriminatory supermarket employers, who then cowardly try to defend bullying managers and colleagues by weasel denial of said bullying and discriminatory attitudes and behaviour - especially when they say things like “you do not have any right to make any comments on any issues, because it might be seen as potentially slanderous and libellous” or “you do not understand that you are wrong” and “you are clearly given to understand because it is deemed by us on a common sense basis that you do not have any rights in this situation” - if all of the above is true, then what’s the big problem with allowing this to be heard in a court of law in front of a judge and jury 

This is how I see it: (I'm autistic). You answer was not really directed to her - it was directed to the HR. It is as if she got in the way.

You have already explained your reasons. But what has happened here is that you don't understand her perspective. 

You have told her that was never your intention. 

I would next time write her something in line with "Could you please tell them...", or "I remember reading something about... and here's what I found (and present the source) to support it . Could you please tell them...". 

Perhaps too she felt stupid for not knowing that because had she known it she should have been the one presenting the facts to  them and you should not have to be the one to point it out to her, so she should own her part in this, she should have been the protector. but she too had no ill intention. She did not know what you knew. She sort of got away with it by only blaming you for this and saying you were rude. You would not have gotten to that place had she known and had she protected you. 

Then you had a frustrated response as in revealing you could not take baths/shower, about the fridge. They're really not interested in that. They only care about job related stuff, I suppose. I have learned not to mix the two together. It then comes across as less professional. Just saying. However she had too an emotional response as in declaring you were rude and how she has protected you in the past. What she's really saying is she's not the enemy here, but actually in my opinion she sort of is when you knew something that important that she should have known. Instead it was as if she just got out of the way so the enemy had a good shot at you, she was passing it on, she shouldn't have. She was too weak in that particular situation. 

Usually when these sort of things happen it is never just one's fault, it takes two to tango. It's about you having done something wrong and she having done something wrong. But it's not that bad that you can't sort it out. But both has to do their part. 

I'm thinking too that women's way of communicating is different than how men do it. Had you written it to a guy I don't think he would have had that kind of response she had, to be fair (don't tell her that). I am female myself and I know I sort of "stand out" at times as I lean more towards a guy's way of communicating, always been that way, had more friends that were boys when growing up, found it more easier.   

Literal_Joe said:

The Equality Act is at play, and relevant here, as the law requires an employer to make reasonable adjustments for a disabled employee

And my point remains that there are no reasonable adjustments you can make for something that is not governed or controlled such as "the Social Rules of Life" that you refer to.

You may as well try to herd cats - it will not happen as what you are trying to make everyone do is not within your control to do so.

Literal_Joe said:

It's not about "forcing the will" of the 2% onto the 98% ... It's about the 98% accepting, and indeed understanding, the differences in the 2%

You are trying to force them to accept/understand - exactly what I said. You can ask them to do this but to force them to do so is folly.

I think we are reaching the point where I am saying one thing and you are misunderstanding it - repeatedly.

I lack the patience to correct you any further. I'm out.

You're missing the point again Iain ...

It's not about "forcing the will" of the 2% onto the 98% ... It's about the 98% accepting, and indeed understanding, the differences in the 2%

The Equality Act is at play, and relevant here, as the law requires an employer to make reasonable adjustments for a disabled employee (of which I'm sure you're aware), and ASD fits within that category.

We're all different. Just like you wouldn't tell someone in a wheelchair to get up and walk up the stairs, there needs to be far more understanding of 'hidden disabilities', and the impacts and struggles that brings with it (hence the Equality Act being part of our laws)

Literal_Joe said:

It is not okay, to use your example, for 'us' to have to do something that 98% of people say we should do/or in a way that they say

I'm sorry you feel this way.

There is no chance it will change however as there is no central body controlling the rules or governing them. It is an organic system that evolves as the majority evolves so wanting to force the will of the 2% onto the 98% will never happen.

And it is worth noting that the 2% who are autistic are not all the same. Some never had  problem with the social rules, some (like myself) have come to accept them so you end up with a dwindeling percentage trying to enforce their will on the vast majority.

The Equality Act has no jurisdiction here.

Reasonable Adjustments is most likely to take the form of auditory or visual adjustments or perhaps a change in how instructions are passed to the individual. I don't see it being relevant here.

My view is that you may as well shout at the wind for all the impact it will have.

Sorry Iain, but I think you're missing the point!! It is not okay, to use your example, for 'us' to have to do something that 98% of people say we should do/or in a way that they say ... This is precisely why we have the Equality Act, and reasonable adjustments.

Social rules are not laws, they simply establish the parameters as in those with whom we 'roll', and those we just don't - Like any relationship actually 

Cloud44 said:

they are socially constructed, so why are they right and we are wrong?

Who said they were right? They are simply the will of the majority (the 98% non autistic majority that is).

You may as well take exception the language having irregular verbs as it doesn't make sense to you. They should all be regular.

In essence, the rules exist, they are pretty well signposted in books if you are interested to study them and are not going to change because you don't understand it.

You can either deal with it by learning or you can remain ignorant and complain - that is my approach.

I don't see any point in thinking "if only" as it will never happen and is just a waste of thinking power.

Totally agree 

I always think, everyone is born is a blank slate, no one is born knowing social rules. Some people can learn them, some people cannot. But they are socially constructed, so why are they right and we are wrong? The autistic way is much simpler, every one knows where they stand, things get sorted, no one is making things over compilated.

The social 'rules' of life are something I've never understood ... Say what you mean, and mean what you say, that's the rules I follow ... I cannot ever fathom why telling someone what they want to hear/changing what you say because you're considering their feelings, is the right way to go about it. Boggles me

Ah this just explains why my manager was annoyed when I once sent a very similar e-mail. It was about sick leave, they weren't going to pay so I noted a rule in the contract but she hated that I'd pointed it out. I think she felt I was undermining her. I guess I was supposed to be more subtle in my response.

I've been told many times that I don't 'play the game'. The game sounds too complicated to me, the NT world is a confusing place :-(

I’m quite matter of fact and straightforward in email comms too and I’ve found this AI tool to be really helpful when either sending emails or judging emails I receive especially in the workplace Hope it helps you too: goblin.tools/Formalizer

I totally get this, as similar things happen to me all the time (hence why I've named myself 'literal_Joe'!!)

To me, I'm just saying what I need to say, asking the question/s I need to ask, and pointing out any errors in the approach of others (rules - need I say more?!?). But often the response from neuro typical people is exactly as you describe - In that you're blunt and challenging 

IrishInManchesterUK said:

I would see any other attempts at resolution as being nothing more than formalities and hoops that one would have to go through in the corrupt legal process that sides with abusive employers

Surprisingly most legal systems are not biassed in my experience, but the process of using the in tricky - you need good, experienced advice to build your case and make it unappealing for an employer to want to go down this route.

At the end of the day the company really doesn't care about you as an individual and it is likely to be a numbers game for them when deciding if any legal process is worth persuing. If they (ie the managers) have messed up and there is a chance a sympathetic judge would side with you then they are much better off either trying to rehabilitate you into the workplace and let the manager push you out using a process of attrition (ie making you want to leave) or if it is too far gone, to just pay you out.

The only people who win at the end of the day are the solicitors / lawyers.

IrishInManchesterUK said:

I would refuse all offers of out of court settlement and proceed direct to court hearing and would relentlessly pursue it all the way to the highest courts possible, if I considered that the principles involved were sufficiently and fundamentally serious 

If you won your first court battle then that is as far as it goes - but if you loose (such as you refer to taking it to a higher court) then you need deep, deep pockets to pay lawyers to do it and of course if you loose then you have to pay the other sides legal costs as well as your own, and quite possible any fines that they counter sue for.

This can run into hundreds of thousands of pounds very quickly, so while it is a noble idea, not many could ever hope to do it.

I'm just offering some experience to temper the fine sentiments you voice here.