Nut Allergy At Work

[frisbee]

I would fire anyone who roasts chestnuts at work instantly, nut allergy or not.

[GSalt]

FredericRobinson said:

GSalt said:

The one I've genuinely not figured out is "may contain traces of fish" on salmon. I can't figure out what's going on with that one.

Either the factory where the salmon is being produced handles nuts for other products, or they're unable to guarantee that all other ingredients they buy in are from nut-free sites

Whut? You may have misread my post..

[FredericRobinson]

D'oh

Anyway, a label for salmon declaring 'may contain traces of fish' is illegal, the correct dec is salmon (Fish), with the fish in bold.

Don't get many hours off at this time of year working in the food industry and I'm spending the time I do get discussing labelling law on the internet. There must be more to life.

[rscott]

oldcynic said:

It's a pretty poor show if these colleagues are in the caring profession yet show such contempt for each other.

I'm also shocked by the selfish and entitled replies from posters who absolutely must have their peanuts and roasted chestnuts regardless of the consequences. I just hope none of the children in the care home have a nut allergy because 90% of the staff will be able to comply with the simple rules.

If staff aren't following the clearly signed rules regarding nuts, makes me wonder what else they're not doing by the book too...

[zappahey]

Nigel Worc's said:

I wouldn't employ myself.

On that, at least, we agree.

[rxe]

So how does it work in any role involving contact with the public? You have some vague chance of persuading your immediate colleagues to lay off the dry roasted, but the public won't have a clue. Surely everytime someone with a severe allergy goes on public transport they end up in hospital because on the average bus someone is bound to have eaten some nuts in the last 10 minutes?

[Nigel Worc's]

rxe said:

So how does it work in any role involving contact with the public? You have some vague chance of persuading your immediate colleagues to lay off the dry roasted, but the public won't have a clue. Surely everytime someone with a severe allergy goes on public transport they end up in hospital because on the average bus someone is bound to have eaten some nuts in the last 10 minutes?

Exactly.

How do you control visitors to whatever site someone with such an allergy works on ?

I visit different factories everyday, for the last few years they have smoking policies you are usually made aware of (I haven't smoked for a couple of years now but that one is usually pointed out to visitors), I have sat through some pretty indepth safety briefings on larger sites, never in my entire working life has anyone ever mentioned what you may or may not eat on site, where you may or may not eat is sometimes covered, but not the contents of your lunch.

[jan8p]

Byker28i said:

Second time was on a flight to Florida, Disneyland etc. Announced on the plane, severe nut allergy on board, no nuts will be served, please don't eat any or open packets as the child is very allergic. Selfish muppet three rows back opens and starts eating his own pack of dry roasted not long after takeoff, my 8 year old girl has huge reaction, gets jabbed and the plane is diverted to Dublin. Stewardess makes sure everyone knows who's to blame for the divert whilst trying to keep me away from him.

To be honest that's probably easily done. If you fly often all announcements just become background noise so you could quite easily miss such an important announcement, and then 10 minutes later open your pre-packed snack without thinking.

Or he could have been a selfish . Who knows.

[simoid]

Nigel Worc's said:

rxe said:

So how does it work in any role involving contact with the public? You have some vague chance of persuading your immediate colleagues to lay off the dry roasted, but the public won't have a clue. Surely everytime someone with a severe allergy goes on public transport they end up in hospital because on the average bus someone is bound to have eaten some nuts in the last 10 minutes?

Exactly.

How do you control visitors to whatever site someone with such an allergy works on ?

I visit different factories everyday, for the last few years they have smoking policies you are usually made aware of (I haven't smoked for a couple of years now but that one is usually pointed out to visitors), I have sat through some pretty indepth safety briefings on larger sites, never in my entire working life has anyone ever mentioned what you may or may not eat on site, where you may or may not eat is sometimes covered, but not the contents of your lunch.

"Reasonable" or "proportionate" will be in the answer somewhere.

I'm disappointed at some attitudes in here - looks to me like this person is being bullied at work if they're being deliberately excluded from areas by peanut users.

[Nigel Worc's]

simoid said:

"Reasonable" or "proportionate" will be in the answer somewhere.

I'm disappointed at some attitudes in here - looks to me like this person is being bullied at work if they're being deliberately excluded from areas by peanut users.

I think it all comes down to if you think the one individual should dictate to the majority.

I am of the opinion that the norm wins, or at least should win.

[simoid]

Nigel Worc's said:

I think it all comes down to if you think the one individual should dictate to the majority.

I am of the opinion that the norm wins, or at least should win.

fk me. It's not the individual dictating. It's nature. Peanuts could kill her. It won't kill anyone to forgo peanuts.

[Nigel Worc's]

simoid said:

Nigel Worc's said:

I think it all comes down to if you think the one individual should dictate to the majority.

I am of the opinion that the norm wins, or at least should win.

fk me. It's not the individual dictating. It's nature. Peanuts could kill her. It won't kill anyone to forgo peanuts.

I would imagine that is someone has a serious allergy whatever they are allergic to could kill them.

You and others seem to be suggesting that it is everyone elses problem, I am of the opinion it is the sufferers problem to manage their allergy.

[simoid]

Nigel Worc's said:

I would imagine that is someone has a serious allergy whatever they are allergic to could kill them.

You and others seem to be suggesting that it is everyone elses problem, I am of the opinion it is the sufferers problem to manage their allergy.

Would it also be your opinion that a wheelchair user should learn to bounce up flights of stairs?

[Nigel Worc's]

simoid said:

Nigel Worc's said:

I would imagine that is someone has a serious allergy whatever they are allergic to could kill them.

You and others seem to be suggesting that it is everyone elses problem, I am of the opinion it is the sufferers problem to manage their allergy.

Would it also be your opinion that a wheelchair user should learn to bounce up flights of stairs?

No, but in the same vein I dislike the rule that makes everywhere have disabled access for such people.

[simoid]

Nigel Worc's said:

No, but in the same vein I dislike the rule that makes everywhere have disabled access for such people.

Might I ask why?

If I'm being honest, I'm struggling to believe anyone really thinks like you. I thought it was an almost universally accepted principle that we don't exclude anyone from public society or contributing to our economy unless they commit a crime.

[Nigel Worc's]

simoid said:

Nigel Worc's said:

No, but in the same vein I dislike the rule that makes everywhere have disabled access for such people.

Might I ask why?

If I'm being honest, I'm struggling to believe anyone really thinks like you. I thought it was an almost universally accepted principle that we don't exclude anyone from public society or contributing to our economy unless they commit a crime.

I dislike being compelled to do things !

If you run a business (which I do but mine isn't a public access thing), then I run it to make money for me.

So, if for example I run a cafe, or a shop, I think it should be my choice to adapt it for disabled access, not dictated to me just in case a wheelchair user should wish to visit.

My accountant had to move premises because he didn't have disabled access, he doesn't actually have any disabled customers, but rules are rules.

Do you see where I'm coming from ?

[simoid]

Nigel Worc's said:

I dislike being compelled to do things !

If you run a business (which I do but mine isn't a public access thing), then I run it to make money for me.

So, if for example I run a cafe, or a shop, I think it should be my choice to adapt it for disabled access, not dictated to me just in case a wheelchair user should wish to visit.

My accountant had to move premises because he didn't have disabled access, he doesn't actually have any disabled customers, but rules are rules.

Do you see where I'm coming from ?

Yes I know what you're saying, but I agree with the laws and their purpose. I was chatting with a guy who owns a small cafe and must have a disabled toilet now, despite it not having one before a refit (or something like that, so he could reopen). It was costing him 4 seats, so probably a few grand per seat per year. I had a similar discussion with him.

Generally I'm a live and let live sort of guy, preferring minimal laws. I see the laws in this regard as a good thing for our society as the alternative is wheelchair users can't work, shop travel or visit anywhere as they're a PITA to accommodate. So they live in their houses. And that's not a society I want to live in.

Similar, those with manageable allergies to easily avoidable substances should,in my humble be penalised for this.

[Nigel Worc's]

simoid said:

Nigel Worc's said:

I dislike being compelled to do things !

If you run a business (which I do but mine isn't a public access thing), then I run it to make money for me.

So, if for example I run a cafe, or a shop, I think it should be my choice to adapt it for disabled access, not dictated to me just in case a wheelchair user should wish to visit.

My accountant had to move premises because he didn't have disabled access, he doesn't actually have any disabled customers, but rules are rules.

Do you see where I'm coming from ?

Yes I know what you're saying, but I agree with the laws and their purpose. I was chatting with a guy who owns a small cafe and must have a disabled toilet now, despite it not having one before a refit (or something like that, so he could reopen). It was costing him 4 seats, so probably a few grand per seat per year. I had a similar discussion with him.

Generally I'm a live and let live sort of guy, preferring minimal laws. I see the laws in this regard as a good thing for our society as the alternative is wheelchair users can't work, shop travel or visit anywhere as they're a PITA to accommodate. So they live in their houses. And that's not a society I want to live in.

Similar, those with manageable allergies to easily avoidable substances should,in my humble be penalised for this.

I think we almost agree apart from I think it is the allergy sufferers problem to keep themselves away from what causes their allergy.

If people were throwing them at her, rubbing peanut butter on her, sneaking them into her food, whatever, then I'd agree she is being abused or bullied.

Expecting whatever you are allergic to to be removed from a workplace just because you want to work there is a step too far in my opinion.

And has been shown by the posts on here, nut traces do seem to be in a lot of stuff, much more than I'd ever thought of.

[zygalski]

Echo66 said:

Nigel Worc's said:

AndrewEH1 said:

Nigel Worc's said:

Kateg28 said:

Nigel Worc's said:

In answer to the OPs question.

It will be everyone elses fault, and the whole world will have to revolve around the lady with the nut allergy.

But it isn't anyone's fault and it is easy for us to adapt slightly to accommodate people who suffer. It is life threatening, it isn't like us giving up meat to please a vegetarian or similar.

It obviously isn't easy to adapt for her, or she wouldn't be getting issues, assuming nobody is forcing her into "nut contact".

I realise it can be life threatening, so SHE needs to manage that.

Being allergic to something as common as nuts must be a pita, so rather than expect everyone else to accommodate her, maybe she needs to stay away from food preparation areas etc.

Maybe read OP again:

Alex_225 said:

This post is mainly out of intrigue as I'm sure there are people on here who'd know about this kind of thing.

My other half works with children with brain injuries and in a specific house with their age range. One of her colleagues who works with her has a severe nut allergy and on four separate occasions has ended up either signed off or hospitalised due to people not adhering to the signage around the building. One particularly bad episode ended up with her signed off for two weeks due to the severity of it.

It would seem that because of this, this girl has been getting quite a hard time about things. Other parts of the workplace refusing to remove jars of peanut butter from kitchens meaning she cannot enter those parts of the building etc. She is also being told that she may be hauled up for her sickness records due to the two weeks off, which were caused from the incident at work.

i just wondered where someone stands in terms of this? It's clearly a severe allergy but one she declared before joining the job. I believe the last incident was that she advised them she would react to roasting chestnuts and people were advised not to cook them until she'd done her bit and left, that was ignored and she ended up unwell again.

It seems these incidents are being blamed on her rather than their lack of care. I understood a workplace has an obligation to their employee for things like this rather than taking it out on the employee.

I read it.

I think SHE needs to go and work in a nut free zone, not rely on everyone else, especially as it obviously affects her health so much.

She doesn't need to, its a recognised disability that an employer must make reasonable adjustments to accommodate. That will include a risk assessment that should (in this case) include signage around the workplace banning nut based items from the premises. Simples.
The employer made a decision to employ her knowing the condition existed. Its their job to police their staff & workplace environent. No different to employing a physically disabled person wrt to reasonable adjustments.

Someone at my workplace has an orange allergy. On the door outside that department there is a note that says "no oranges". Absolutely ingenious!

[stuartmmcfc]

Nigel Worc's said:

No, but in the same vein I dislike the rule that makes everywhere have disabled access for such people.

Thanks for your compassion. As "such a person" I agree I should be excluded from going places where my betters can easily go.
I'd give up my seat on the bus for you.... but hang on.....

Edit to add, no business has to move premises if they can't make reasonable adaptions to the building to allow disabled access. I can give numerous examples of this here in Leicester where this is the case.

Anyway, back the difficult problem of peanuts.

Edited by stuartmmcfc on Sunday 18th December 08:07