[bippihippi1]

I think it's valid to still hold people to a certain standard, but the standard is adjusted to match your disability while focusing on executing the core job functions.

* Don't you think we would be on time if we could? * It's not a matter of trying harder.

Yes we still have to do our core job functions the same as anyone else, but it's not fair to measure us on a quality the disability affects.

We don't get to ask a partially blind person to just look harder. We give them accommodations that let them do their job without relying on seeing.

It's called accommodation, not shielding from consequences.

I get to be late because I am not able to be always punctual. So my job has to accommodate me to help me do my job without relying on being on time. Just because I can sometimes try hard and be on time doesn't mean it's not a disability.

[yardstick]

Depending on the job, being punctual can be critical to keeping customers happy.

If I’ve got a major customer complaining about a critical issue and has scheduled a call with various stakeholders (including us) to discuss/resolve it, then we can’t miss that call. Nor can we reschedule without extremely good cause.

[bippihippi1]

If the disability affects a core job role then there are no reasonable accommodations. A blind person can't be a fire lookout, but they can be a host/greeter even though most customers would like to be acknowledged when they enter. the workplace just needs to make some changes to help the person.

also I'm not sure if 'customer wants the person not to do something' is undue hardship. If the employer says my customer wants to work with someone who can see my face when I talk, does that mean that employer doesn't need to accommodate blind people?

Like maybe the accommodation in your example could be to have another person on the team join meetings with you to provide a few minutes of coverage if you're late. If the job role really needs only one person to be exactly punctual all the time (does it really though?) then the eeoc advises to place the person in a different role with similar functions that aren't affected by the disability. read the guidance at eeoc.gov

Most of the time there are reasonable accommodations. It varies by person and the accommodations are specific to the role and person.

My point is that asking someone to just try harder is not the answer, and kind of ablist as it denies the reality of disability. Especially when you frame it as an accusation of laziness or an excuse to slack off.

[throwup238]

Almost anyone can diagnose if a person is blind if they’re acting in good faith but ADHD is far harder to pin down. At the moment the layman standard seems to be “can you convince a doctor/nurse practitioner to prescribe you amphetamines?”

The ADA covers mental disabilities like ADHD so anyone who actually needs accommodations can receive them if they follow the proper channels and get a legitimate doctor specializing in ADHD to diagnose them. In a career spanning nearly two decades I’ve only ever met one other person who followed the proper ADA accommodation route with HR (as opposed to accommodations for blindness, deafness, or chronic pain which were legion).

Speaking for myself, even with a legit diagnosis it was little more than a cover and self justification for drug abuse (yay NP who prescribed both Vyvanse and Adderall).

[Ancapistani]

I asked for accommodations once. I was fired a week later. Never again.

That said, I’m extremely happy with where I work today. I’ve been here almost four years and am still going strong.

[bippihippi1]

how does you thinking some people fake disabilities and that you have a substance problem have anything to do with my comment on people framing accommodations as an excuse to slack off?

Are you suggesting that you think your diagnosis is invalid and that should be taken as a data point in our discussion?

I think the answer is for you to stop taking drugs, not that there aren't people woth ADHD who need accommodations to do their job well.

It's also not anyone else's job to diagnose you but your doctor.

[throwup238]

If they cant or wont get ADA accommodations officially through HR, I don’t care what their doctor says (I don’t have access to their real medical records for obvious privacy reasons). They might as well have a diagnosis from a food truck chef.

It’s not my place to tell anyone whether they actually have a disability, especially one as pernicious as ADHD, but it’s also not anyone’s job to accommodate slackers who doesn’t follow the proper ADA process.

Next time someone uses their ADHD as an excuse to slack off, go talk to HR about what accommodations they requested and whether or not they’re reasonable. Forcing coworkers to pick up the slack for an existing assignment isn’t reasonable - ADHD accommodations are taken care of at the management and planning levels, not during standups. Stuff like flexible work schedules and office environments that minimize distractions are reasonable, but it’s not a get out of jail free card for one’s duties.

[bippihippi1]

who are you talking about and how does that pertain to this discussion? The fact that someone could lie or not do procedure properly is not relevant to the people who do. It's kind of insulting to bring that up in a good faith discussion to imply that we're all fakers. If you'd like to reply to anything I said instead of calling people names I'd be happy to discuss.