Getting a Job

Isnt it really unfair that employers turn people away because they have HFA or Asperger syndrome?? 

I believe there isnt a lot of support from the UK government when it comes to tackling job employment for the disabled. Would i be right in saying that??

Who on here actually has a part-time or full-time job?

  • Hi Martin

    I'd be willing to give them a break - if they are accommodating of your needs, what more can they do?    At the same time, everyone has to pull together to make the business run.

    I was offered a job there many years ago looking after all the computers and automation systems and plant equipment - but the commute into that area every day is a total nightmare so I declined the offer.

  • I have a part time job working for [removed by Moderator] resort for 4 years, but i have difficulty following the seniors requests and make a lot of mistakes but the [removed by Moderator] does not turn away anyone but unfairly put disability people like me out of the public eye and have them doing jobs that means they do not talk/interact with gusts and if they are front of house job they are accompanied by other staff or a manger

    do you think the company is treating it workforce correctly ?

    if yes do you believe there are/was a equal and diverse company!!!

    [Edited by Moderator]

  • Same! Which is exactly why I'm only working two or three hours a week at the moment in a job with no-one else around. It pays peanuts but it'll do for now.

    I want to start working part-time later this year once I (hopefully) feel a bit healthier. I'd ideally prefer a job with no other people and no computers but that isn't going to happen I guess so I'm deciding which of the two I can bear to put up with   :)   In 44 years I haven't appeared to learn enough about people so I figure it's about time I learned more about computers instead, starting in April. 

  • I do not like working with people. People are totally unpredictable.

    I like rules and predictable things.

  • I know so little about computers, it's embarrassing   :(   I wouldn't even know where to start to find work like that. The work I'm qualified to do means working with people, which I very much enjoyed studying for, but I really do not enjoy working with people. All theory, no practice! 

    Sorry I can't offer any constructive suggestions.  

  • I am very interested in IT, computers and data analysis.

    I think I also would be a good forum moderator.

    I also could do e-mail and online chat support.

    I can also manage servers and databases.

  • What type of work would you like to do from home?

  • It is unfair that the job interviews are in person and not in writing.

    It is also unfair that I cannot work from home.

  • catwoman said:
    when I used to work in programming, almost every team I was on had that one person who never talks to anyone.  You just give them their work and they sit down quietly and concentratedly and carry it out.  They're a valuable member of the team;  you just don't ask them to talk to the users.  And with hindsight I suspect some of them did indeed have Aspergers.

    And that person may well have been me! :-)

  • True, but you need some in-between contexts between 1 and 2.

    People with ASD may be given a work opportunity, but is it adequately thought through and supported, or are they expected to just somehow muck in regardless? Fitting in to a social group at work is difficult for people on the spectrum.

    Employers have good intentions but may not have the best information on how to support effectively. People have images of what being on the autistic spectrum means that may not be applicable to the person concerned.

    People with ASD may be given a work opportunity with support, but not everybody in that work environment is happy having someone with autism around and makes things difficult and eggs others on to help get the person with autism to leave - constructive dismissal.

    Contrary to popular belief not all workplace discrimination or bullying is obvious. Indeed if there is a risk of dismissal for discrimination or harassment, the malpractice is likely to be discrete, out of sight of management.

    So many people with ASD aren't able to develop in the job because other people make sure they fail.

    OK sometimes people witrh ASD may see bullying that isn't really there or be over-sensitive.

    But your options 1 and 2 on their own don't reflect what usually happens. I agree that software teams are often more supportive. Some workplace situations can be grim for people with an ASD.

  • There seem to be two very different things we are discussing here.

    1:   Whether people are not being hired for jobs that they can in fact do perfectly well, purely because they have a label of ASD.

    2:    Whether people who have ASD are unable to hold down a job.  If you have acute anxiety, cannot concentrate, have no social skills, you will not be able to carry out a job satisfactorily.  If you go to an interview, and it is clear to the interviewer that you cannot concentrate, they will be absolutely right not to give you that job, just as they would be right not to give you a job you did not have the qualifications for.

    The more complicated question is whether some people with ASD can carry out some jobs with some support from the employer and with some specialised training to start with.  Obviously the short answer to this question is 'Yes'.  For instance, when I used to work in programming, almost every team I was on had that one person who never talks to anyone.  You just give them their work and they sit down quietly and concentratedly and carry it out.  They're a valuable member of the team;  you just don't ask them to talk to the users.  And with hindsight I suspect some of them did indeed have Aspergers.

    But, given that everyone with ASD is different and every job is different, how do we get all this to fit together - finding who can do what jobs and what support they need.

  • Slightly off-topic but the US government diplomatic corps have a way round this. When they are asked about references which are not very good ones - so they can't write anything down that can be construed as far too truthfully accurate - the conversation will go like this:

    Querent: "What's Bob like as an employee?"

    USG: "How about we talk about the weather, instead?"

    Querent: "Uh..okay. What's the weather like?"

    USG: "It's lazy, and has no sense of motivation. It also has a terrible attitude to its work."

  • I like the idea attributed to Temple Grandin that people should concentrate on the skilled services they could provide through their special interest rather than trying to be socially skilled when it isn't going to work.

    However Temple Grandin did have a narrow interest that had a clear industrial and commercial market. The more common experience is for the special interest to be in something you cannot get a job in or no-one takes seriously.

    But it does seem to me crazy that so much effort is being put into trying to make people on the spectrum into "normal" socialisers when it is clearly one of the biggest hurdles.

    If instead we concentrated on improving motivation and widening and diversifying special interests we might get more people into work.

    Employers might be more accepting of someone who doesn't fit in socially or into team work, if their specialisms have a practical application and their focus, and committment and aptitude for that activity make them a valuable employee.

    Indeed being forced to do all that social stories stuff drives more people into their special interests as an escape?

  • If you are in an office environment and you pick up a pen and play with it, that for most employers would be a pleasing indication that you are alert. Huge amounts of time are wasted in office environments by people not doing what they are supposed to be doing (known as "displacement activity" - doing anything other than the task in hand). It's not like school where teachers are paranoid about not having full attention.

    In "shop-floor" environments in factories and other production based contexts you may have to turn out so many units an hour, and be expected to keep up the rate to ensure everyone gets the monthly bonus, but its not a job to pick if your concentration or motivation is poor. But people with ADHD manage, and some AS difficulties of this kind may be resolvable with some effort. Socialising I agree is the mega impact on holding down a job, but that has nothing to do with doing the job.

    I "tune-out" a lot - I'm not day-dreaming and I'm not asleep, I look attentive and awake but my brain switches off for hours at a time. However when motivated my focus allows intense productivity, beyond the capacity of most NTs, so I probably survived on that basis. I had terrible guilt for years about the number of hours, even days, when I did nothing  The trouble is most of the NTs around me were skiving every bit as much in their own way.

    Most work environments are about productivity. If the output is not measured by repetitive tasks by the hour, it is most likely they are only interested in results. I recall one engineer years ago who read science fiction books at work. Management eventually conceded that as long as he provided solutions when asked to solve problems, they did not mind the blatent disregard for his duties at other times.

    The worst situation I've been in was three months in a job where there was no work, but management insisted we looked busy and went round reprimanding anyone who didn't. Several people had mental breakdowns trying so hard to look busy with nothing to do. So I would not worry about twiddling your pen - sign of a brain.

  • well in forms you need to be able to explain about how you are affected by having Aspergers or any other ASD. but it is hard to answer these questions because an employer can come up with reasonable answers to answers that you may give.

    If you are in an interview, you may lose interest quite easily. Unfortunately low attention span in common within the spectrum. If that happens in front of an employer who has no understand of an ASD then they will not employ you. If an employer has an understand of an ASD (in my case it would be aspergers) then there is a chance that you may get job.

    If you happen to get the job, keeping the job could turn out to be a problem due to the low attention span and repetitive behaviour interests. For example if someone with AS gets bored easily, the person may want to pick up a pen, play with it, therefore their mind will be focused on the pen and not the job. Then there is things like social communication problems as well as if you take a joke seriously then there is a chance will you get the sack (all this refers to having an employer who doesnt have any understanding of an ASD)

    Chances are an employer will pick a normal person over someone who needs special treatment because of they wont want to the extra work as they would have their own work to do. That is unfair but it is the world we live in.

  • Well professional integrity springs to mind. A reference is a signed and "permanent" record, a little chat on the phone is off the record. Also you can think about what you are saying in a written reference, but may say more than you ought to, or go so far and then retreat creating more lines to read between, in a verbal exchange on the phone.

    The same dilemma exists whether written or spoken, professionally speaking you are not supposed to divulge disability, for reasons arising from disability legislation and confidentiality. What I was trying to raise was the danger arising from what goes unsaid in a reference for a disabled person which might do more harm than good.

    Also it is well known that employers will phone people they know in a workplace, other than the referee and try to elicit clarification. We know that goes on widely. And in such informal conversations may be imparted "well between ourselves he's a bit strange you know, there's been rumours he may be autistic, and he is very difficult when asked to do some tasks - he could be a problem employee". But that happens in any context, and as you say, who's to know what was imparted in a phonecall.

    What I'm trying to highlight here are possible vulnerabilities in formal documentation. Under the counter, stealth and plain lack of discretion and unprofessional conduct not-withstanding.

  • But who is  going to know what you say in a telephone conversation? 

    I guess it all depends on which side of the barrier you are standing.  Obviously the job applicant doesn't want anything said about him/her that might affect chances of getting the job, while the potential employer wants to appoint the best person for the situation on offer and doesn't want problems to emerge later.

     

  • Interesting that you have seen phone calls to follow up on references to help read between the lines. In my experience there are no follow ups. However the same dilemma applies - what are you allowed to say in a telephone conversation following up on a reference?

  • When a reference is received from previous employers it's often followed up by a telephone call to clarify what is written "between the lines".  

  • There's another issue - references - which need looking into. To some extent references have gone out of fashion, as legal constraints make it so difficult to say anything. Often companies and organisations have to add a caveat saying there is no legal responsibility for the content. They end up saying so little and people start "reading between the lines" - what is said or not said.

    This "reading between the lines" is difficult with autistic spectrum/aspergers. A referee cannot mention the disability, but may be faced with making accurate statements that do not look good if there isn't some accommodation of the disability being a factor.

    A lot of work agencies insist on getting references before going on the list. These are standard forms with tick boxes against a number of criteria like integrity, good time-keeping, social ability, ability to self-direct etc. The same form will go to past empoyers as teachers/lecturers. You get questions like "would you employ this person again?" - not a lot of use if you were his/her teacher.

    A lot of employer references now are also checklists sometimes filled in on-line which make it difficult to qualify. These are designed around the job specification. They ask the referee to tick grading boxes - strongly think, just think, don't think, don't know. A lot of weight hangs on reading between the lines of what is ticked and not ticked.

    There seems to be nothing in disability legislation covering these. The only ruling is not to comment on disability. So referees find themselves in the frustrating position of making bland answers without qualification, often knowing the references are doing more harm than good.

    Has NAS looked into this? At times I wish the moderators would pick up on questions like this. Parents also need to explore this one. Don't assume references are being helpful.

    References are a real pitfall for people on the spectrum especially if they have had lots of short term jobs. You have to have several referees - so will they be for the most recent or one five or six jobs back where you think you'll get a more sympathetic response?