disclosure to new employer

People with Asperger's are 'less able' and competent at picking up social cues and communicating with other people, therefore Asperger's can be considered to be a 'disability' ('dis'-'abled' at social skills). However, the disability covers a huge range and only those with significant needs are classed as officially disabled, meaning that they can access disability benefits and state support.

You could compare the issue  to that faced by people with Cerebral Palsy, another 'spectrum' condition. My brother's ex girlfriend has this condition, but the Palsy only affects one foot, giving her a limp. Unlike those at the 'severe' end of this spectrum, she is independent, works and attended University, and you would only notice something if you looked at her limp. I would say though that she is still disabled, even if she is currently not eligible for support.  She is disabled because she needs adaptations like a special car, and she cannot walk very far without experiencing pain and fatigue. I  therefore think that this could be a useful anology for this discussion.

This is a prolonged debate, with no sign of resolution in sight.

If NAS is true to their claim then yes - an autism diagnosis should amount to a disability.

However the uncertainty applies across most disabilities.

With autism what seems to happen is that you are only disabled if you need support - whether that's benefits or PPI, a carer, special housing etc. Often intervention is because of comorbid conditions - depression, anxiety, ocd - rather than the autism symptoms themselves.

There are many people out there with autistic spectrum conditions who are managing to earn a living whose 'disability' seems not to count.

Indeed we readily encounter on this forum debates about whether an NHS or a private diagnosis are equal (some people with private diagnosis don't seem able to access services). Some people cannot get a diagnosis (it is widely recognised to be a postcode lottery).

Then there's all this stuff about if you manage to struggle through life without intervention and able to be self sufficient you dont really have autism? Or the notion that there are people out there with "designer autism" - because it is supposedly 'cool' to have it?

So I guess the question might be: should NAS assert that a diagnosis means you have a disability. If so, why all the debates?

My feeling is NAS understates the issues at the abler end.

I am a little confused as on the NAS website it states:

Once you have a diagnosis of autism you are classed as having a disability under the Equality Act 2010, or the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in Northern Ireland. Under these laws, employers have a responsibility to make 'reasonable adjustments' for staff who need them. 

Surely that should include those with AS (if it still exists as a diagnosis- I think it is all under 'autistic spectrum condition' now if I am correct)?

In my opinion it shouldn't need to be a disability at all if people were educated (at least at the less severe end of the spectrum).  Just a difference.  But they're not currently so I do think it should be regarded as a disability.  I understand what you are saying about the affected/compromised category but then I suppose one could argue that this could apply to many of the general population in one way or another, whereas obviously 'aspergers' is more tricky than what most people experience?  Does this not open up a difficult area of how affected someone is/how severe their needs (which change over time or according to circumstance)?  Or perhaps I am misunderstanding the implications of such a category?  It's an interesting idea, it has just posed a few questions for me and excuse me if I'm missing the point.

When I got my diagnosis I asked if that meant I was disabled and was told not really - aspergers just explains difficulties. I already had good coping strategies and have much improved these with ';the knowledge'. Maybe it is like being blind versus partially sighted - at what point, with special glasses and other assistance - do sight issues amount to 'being disabled'.

Conversely the late departed Coalition Government created a website with biographies of disabled people describing their positive experiences of work. About half had no specified disability, and there were more people with a stammer than with autism. A stammer is disabling, but is it disability? 

I think part of the Coalition and new Conservative Government's game is to dilute the meaning of 'disabled' so they can fudge the employment figures.They can say lots of disabled people are happily employed (albeit it was only with a stammer) so why aren't you?

We urgently need a sub-category where a person is not 'disabled' per se, but is nevertheless affected/compromised. So able aspergers would fit into that category if it did not fully meet the definition of disabled.  BUT we have no legislation covering compromised or 'less' disabled, so that would create an unprotected underclass.

NAS needs to address this with regard to autism. Some of us are not strictly disabled, and seem to be below the NAS radar. But does that mean our experiences of autism don't count?

Thanks for your very interesting comments longman.  I agree with the perception of mental health and also of autism (actually I recently watched a video by Nick Walker on YouTube about 'neurodiversity' which talked about all of these developmental - or mental health???- differences as being neurodivergent).

Do you know, are all people with an ASC technically disabled?  I notice that 'severity' is part of the disability criteria.  Is someone with 'mild' aspergers technically disabled?  I am currently going for an assessment so I suppose this would make a difference if I were to be diagnosed (thanks for the very useful perspective).

re. the over-simplification of autism, on the NAS website at the following address re. AS:

www.autism.org.uk/.../what-is-asperger-syndrome.aspx

I think this is an ok overview of the triad...?  If a little brief as to how this manifests in people.  On the next page where it discusses characteristics, I agree that it does not go into enough detail here, particularly regarding girls/women.  For example the routines/rituals part for me was very subtle (and resulted in further heightening of internal anxiety rather than an obvious external expression) and I am only realising now how this affects me.  Whereas for some people this is much more marked, and so more obviously autistic.  This difficulty with change/routine is hard to understand myself in a rational way, let alone try to explain it to anyone.  This is an interesting subject for discussion too.  How do you measure severity?

The issue of being taken seriously if you seem fairly able seems to me to be a significant barrier.

Also, there is a lot of adverse impact from people's negative perception of mental ill health - and while we may argue that autism per se isn't a mental health problem, the fact is many people think that way.

Also their perception of a mental health issue is influenced by media (as is public perception of autism). Many people who disclose a mental health issue may simply be disclosing anxiety, depression, an eating disorder, bipolar etc., but the way things are presented with regard to workplace confidentiality, usually assumes "mental health issue" is more discrete. Colleagues may read mental health issue as an imminent attack by someone with an axe. Media presentations of autism aren't helpful either (I happened to see the eternal repeat of the Heartbeat programme this evening where the schoolboy with implied aspergers blows up the police station in revenge over a dog being run over).

So there are real considerations needed to disclosure if you appear to be only slightly affected, and indeed people may wonder why you are doing it.

Also Triad of Impairments based explanations, which management can access on line (or via well intended training courses) over-simplify autism into things like not having many friends, having trouble with metaphors, or being very obsessive or having narrow interests - is that really fully representative?

I think if you are managing, non disclosure is potentially valid. Are you technically "disabled" by it, or if able are you not considered eligible to think of yourself as disabled? If you don't strictly qualify as disabled some people take the view you aren't entitled to disability equality provision.

I wish NAS would be clearer on this. I think their focus is more about those less likely to be in work, rather than those who are in work long term but experiencing difficulty. Advice for someone in a supported work experience placement will likely not help someone in full time employment.