?
The concept of "accommodations" originally referred to identifying jobs that only required movements, postures, and activities that the disabled person was capable of, or establishing new jobs that only required such, and assigning the disabled employee to such positions, in preference over more-abled employees. It was never intended to imply less effort for the same pay.
That original concept has run into difficulties because many workplaces don't offer a job that requires less able-ness than is already required. That is, employees are already performing the minimum-acceptable amount of effort or endurance. Anything short of that would be regarded as unequal effort and would therefore only merit unequal pay, or be regarded as "unfair".
Other "accommodations" that have been attempted to fit into such a workplace - such as longer breaks or full-time employment for part-time effort, or more liberal attendance and leave policy towards people with disabilities - have all ended up being regarded as unfair, and as creating a 2nd class of workers. Managements now often avoid that development by simply adopting the view that their workplace cannot offer any accommodations - that the employees are all performing at the minimally-acceptable level.
Anonymous
THE 2nd answer is bigoted NON SENSE..sure 'accommodations' have been misused, but there are many accommodations that allow the disabled employee to do the SAME or MORE work as others.
often none in the US, EEOC is a joke, staffed by clowns......so unless you have a lot of money for a lawyer or media connections, the employer doesn't have to do anything..
it can be a simple as adding a ramp over 1 step for someone in a wheelchair, allowing the foundation for the blind to install adaptive software on a computer for a blind worker, assigning someone to day or night hours only if needed for their disability, writing instructions for a deaf worker..