Any advice for getting an official AS diagnosis?

[Chen]

Agreed. Which is why you don't tell them in the interview process, you tell them after you've been hired.

Even then it seems it would be more detrimental than beneficial. You get the stigma added to you and Im not sure what actual benefits you get.

[Ninja_Prawn]

you probably don't want prospective employers to know that you may have a disability.

Sad but true.

Though there may be some cases nowadays where a disability or condition like AS isn't such a handicap. For example, I currently work for a public body (technically 3rd sector) and we can't escape from anti-discrimination law; there's even a drop down menu for disabilities on the application form.

[Peelee]

Even then it seems it would be more detrimental than beneficial. You get the stigma added to you and Im not sure what actual benefits you get.

Access to legally mandated accommodations.

[ve4grm]

Access to legally mandated accommodations.

And, if you work with decent people, consideration of your particular weaknesses, and hopefully understanding.

That said, it's probably only necessary to bring up (in an official capacity) if it is affecting your work and you need accommodations.

[dps]

Even then it seems it would be more detrimental than beneficial. You get the stigma added to you and Im not sure what actual benefits you get.

You definitely don't want to do that--then they'll fire you for lying on your application. The best bet would be to get diagnosed after you're hired--they'll have to provide reasonable accommodation for your disability, and they can't fire you for lying on your application because you didn't.

Part of the problem with mental or emotional disabilities as opposed to physical disabilities is that it often isn't clear what accommodations need to be provided. Generally, companies will require you to submit in writing what accommodations are necessary. For most physical disabilities, that's pretty straight-forward, and companies are usually willing to provide reasonable accommodation. For mental and emotional problems, not only is it often unclear exactly what accommodation can reasonably be provided, it's very common for such disabilities to involve behavior that employers are reluctant to put up with. For example, alcoholism is considered a disability, but there's not really any accommodation that an employer can reasonably provide (and for that reason, you don't really need to tell them during the hiring process that you're an alcoholic, because you only need to reveal disabilities that they need to provide accommodation for). They can't refuse to hire you or fire you for being an alcoholic, but they can fire you for showing up for work drunk, because being drunk isn't itself a disability, it's a behavior.

[Peelee]

You definitely don't want to do that--then they'll fire you for lying on your application.

It's legal to ask if you're a protected class now? Do I also have to inform them I'm pregnant, or black, or Jewish?

[dps]

It's legal to ask if you're a protected class now? Do I also have to inform them I'm pregnant, or black, or Jewish?

It's legal for them to ask if you have a disability to which they can make reasonable accommodation, yes, and to ask what accommodations are necessary. Otherwise, there isn't any way for them to determine if the accommodations the applicant requires are reasonable or not.

EDIT: Have you not applied for a job recently (like in the last 20-25 years)? Most employers have something right on the application form that reads something along the lines of "Do you have a disability which would impact your abilitiy to perform an essential function of the job for which you are applying but for which reasonable accommodation can be made? If so, what accommodations are needed?"

[Peelee]

It's legal for them to ask if you have a disability to which they can make reasonable accommodation, yes, and to ask what accommodations are necessary. Otherwise, there isn't any way for them to determine if the accommodations the applicant requires are reasonable or not.

EDIT: Have you not applied for a job recently (like in the last 20-25 years)? Most employers have something right on the application form that reads something along the lines of "Do you have a disability which would impact your abilitiy to perform an essential function of the job for which you are applying but for which reasonable accommodation can be made? If so, what accommodations are needed?"

Huh. Imean, I can see why they would ask, since it would prepare them to make the reasonable accommodations. At the same time, it seems like an easy way to discriminate while hiding it, like asking women if they will need to take an extended time off within the first 9 months.

Also, yeah, a few, but it's been a while and I don't have the best memory to begin with. Despite my snark earlier, I wasn't trying to be all "uh huh this is how it is," I was honestly asking if that's something they can ask. In hindsight, I wrote that poorly, so I'm sorry about that.

[dps]

Huh. Imean, I can see why they would ask, since it would prepare them to make the reasonable accommodations. At the same time, it seems like an easy way to discriminate while hiding it, like asking women if they will need to take an extended time off within the first 9 months.

Also, yeah, a few, but it's been a while and I don't have the best memory to begin with. Despite my snark earlier, I wasn't trying to be all "uh huh this is how it is," I was honestly asking if that's something they can ask. In hindsight, I wrote that poorly, so I'm sorry about that.

I don't see anything you need to apologize about. It was a reasonable question IMO.

There are a few key things to know here. First, not all protected classes are equally protected, at least in the US. Partly this is because in some cases the legal protections for certain protected classes are set forth in different laws which have different provisions. Also, it's legal to discriminate against someone in a protected class if the fact that they are a member of that class would make them unable to perform the essential functions of the job. For some classes, such as race, there are very, very few things--almost nothing, really--that would make someone unable to perform the essential function of the job, whereas for disabilities, there are going to be essential functions of some jobs which people with certain disabilities might not be able to perform. For example, a construction company might very well, and completely legally, refuse to hire anyone confined to a wheelchair as a roofer, because it's likely that no reasonable accommodation would allow them to do the job, but the same construction company couldn't legally refuse to hire anyone confined to a wheelchair as an accountant.

[Peelee]

I don't see anything you need to apologize about. It was a reasonable question IMO.

There are a few key things to know here. First, not all protected classes are equally protected, at least in the US. Partly this is because in some cases the legal protections for certain protected classes are set forth in different laws which have different provisions. Also, it's legal to discriminate against someone in a protected class if the fact that they are a member of that class would make them unable to perform the essential functions of the job. For some classes, such as race, there are very, very few things--almost nothing, really--that would make someone unable to perform the essential function of the job, whereas for disabilities, there are going to be essential functions of some jobs which people with certain disabilities might not be able to perform. For example, a construction company might very well, and completely legally, refuse to hire anyone confined to a wheelchair as a roofer, because it's likely that no reasonable accommodation would allow them to do the job, but the same construction company couldn't legally refuse to hire anyone confined to a wheelchair as an accountant.

On re-reading I read it as snarky, but hey, I wont complain if you didnt take it that way.

Also, I totally get all that, and it all makes sense. It's just, even after hiring, if a newly hired roofer didn't disclose they were in a wheelchair, sure, that's cause for immediate dismissal because as you said, there's no reasonable accommodation what can be made. But the whole point of reasonable accommodations is, well, that they're reasonable. Which means that the only reason to ask for it before hiring would be to screen out people who could potentially incur additional costs on the employer, which seems to significantly weaken the whole "you can't not hire for this" thing.

[Anonymouswizard]

There's also the possiblity of reasonable adjustments to be made during the recruitment process (I tend to ask for interviewers to be told I have ASD and may emote abnormally).

[Chen]

Access to legally mandated accommodations.

I was talking about the original AS diagnosis where accommodations are murky at best. I do realize now that what I replied to was sorta talking about generalized disabilities.

[Peelee]

I was talking about the original AS diagnosis where accommodations are murky at best. I do realize now that what I replied to was sorta talking about generalized disabilities.

Oh, no argument here about how vague that can be, but that's why companies have HR departments.

[dps]

On re-reading I read it as snarky, but hey, I wont complain if you didnt take it that way.

Also, I totally get all that, and it all makes sense. It's just, even after hiring, if a newly hired roofer didn't disclose they were in a wheelchair, sure, that's cause for immediate dismissal because as you said, there's no reasonable accommodation what can be made. But the whole point of reasonable accommodations is, well, that they're reasonable. Which means that the only reason to ask for it before hiring would be to screen out people who could potentially incur additional costs on the employer, which seems to significantly weaken the whole "you can't not hire for this" thing.

Well, yes, as a practical matter that can happen, but the idea is to screen out those who can't do the job even with reasonable accommodation. Costs to the employer generally aren't a significant issue, because generally only accommodations that don't require the employer to incur significant costs are considered "reasonable". For example, in my example of a construction company hiring an accountant in a wheelchair, there would likely be no cost to the construction company. True, they might have to do something to make their offices and restrooms wheelchair accessible, but they'd likely have already had to do that under other legal provisions regarding people with disabilities that don't involve employment.

[Peelee]

Well, yes, as a practical matter that can happen, but the idea is to screen out those who can't do the job even with reasonable accommodation. Costs to the employer generally aren't a significant issue, because generally only accommodations that don't require the employer to incur significant costs are considered "reasonable". For example, in my example of a construction company hiring an accountant in a wheelchair, there would likely be no cost to the construction company. True, they might have to do something to make their offices and restrooms wheelchair accessible, but they'd likely have already had to do that under other legal provisions regarding people with disabilities that don't involve employment.

True. My main point (which is coming off very poorly, I'll admit) is that mandatory reporting of it in the hiring process means that it's easier for some people to be ****ty people and not hire based on that while hiding it. Your exemplary accountant, for instance, likely wouldn't try to be going for the job of roofer because they would know it wouldn't work out, and even if they did, first day on the job would all what's required for "well we can't reasonably accommodate you for this."

[darkrose50]

Let me let you in on something. Most potential employers won't give a rat's ass about whether or not you have a note from your doctor about being autistic--and frankly, to the extent that they do care, you probably don't want prospective employers to know that you may have a disability--they'll not want to hire you (yes, legally they can't do that if they can make reasonable accommodation for your disability, but in practice, they won't want to hire you. After all, they are going to be rejecting a bunch of other applicants who aren't on the AS spectrum, so there's not really any way to prove they've discriminated against you.)

What prospective employers want to know is if you can perform the job tasks, and function as part of a team. In most workplaces, the latter is actually more important. If that's a problem for you, look for jobs in which it's not as important a consideration. Look for jobs in which your temperament is an asset. You're detail oriented and like routine, but socially awkward? Engineering and accounting sound like good choices for you, while sales or marketing would probably be bad choices.

Not looking one in the eye, having unusual body language, having an impairment in reading body language, and acting odd in social situations . . . this can make people think that you are lying, cheating and/or stealing. Explaining the behavior can offer an alternative explanation. I pointed out my ASD at work after once such occurrence as an effort to not get into trouble and perhaps get fired.

Working over the phone is quite restful. I have been an insurance agent for ~4-5 years now. I am 43 now and I had a job working in an insurance company when I was 19 (scanning documents). I always thought that being an underwriter would be a good fit. Sit alone, and do paperwork.

I never thought that I would be good at sales. Frankly I don’t trust salesmen. I do quite well selling health insurance, because (1) I think people should have it, (2) I use logic to troubleshoot the right policy, and (3) I am polite.

Science, engineering, and math are great places to be!

[Random Sanity]

But the doctor I wound up asking for a diagnosis from didn't seem to care that much- he made us wait 3 hours for him, and spent less than 30 minutes talking to me. And he spent 5 of those minutes asking me a small handful of questions regarding my ability to make friends in grade school. He reasoned that because I had a couple people I actually considered "friends", I couldn't be autistic.

This is a "doctor" who doesn't deserve his degree. My Asperger's Syndrome diagnosis came from a long and involved interview, a day's worth of assorted psych tests, and a followup appointment to actually make the diagnosis after crunching the data from said tests.

My advice? Find someone who actually cares enough to do the science and warn people away from this hack. You could have autism-spectrum something, you could have something else entirely - you don't know until you've gone through some bonafide testing.

[Anonymouswizard]

Not looking one in the eye, having unusual body language, having an impairment in reading body language, and acting odd in social situations . . . this can make people think that you are lying, cheating and/or stealing. Explaining the behavior can offer an alternative explanation. I pointed out my ASD at work after once such occurrence as an effort to not get into trouble and perhaps get fired.

This. I'm very open with my autism at my work and mentioned it when I applied, and people habve discovered that while I might act strangely at times and will disappear when it gets noisy (which thankfully is rare where I work, you'd think a kitchen would be noisy but it turns out no), and other people at work have both worked out when to not bug me when working and when to get me to take a break. But I've never had a complaint about my working because of how efficient I am.

This is a "doctor" who doesn't deserve his degree. My Asperger's Syndrome diagnosis came from a long and involved interview, a day's worth of assorted psych tests, and a followup appointment to actually make the diagnosis after crunching the data from said tests.

My advice? Find someone who actually cares enough to do the science and warn people away from this hack. You could have autism-spectrum something, you could have something else entirely - you don't know until you've gone through some bonafide testing.

I got diagnosed at about 14 via a morning with a child psychologist that involved several tests and checking over records.

I actually have a second diagnosis I got just to make sure it was up to date, which involved about thirty minutes of chatting to a doctor, but that was just to confirm it wasn't a misdiagnosis and that the information in the previous report still applied. Still got all the records, which was a blessing when it turned out they were no longer on my NHS file