Nut Allergy At Work
Discussion
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 will be everyone elses fault, and the whole world will have to revolve around the lady with the nut allergy.
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.
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.
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 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.
I'm an oldish git and suffer from a peanut allergy. I've had it before it was even a 'thing'.
It was first diagnosed after much effort in the early 70's when I was a toddler. My parents inform me that at that time the medical profession had harldy heard of it and had difficulty in deciding what it was. My Mum tells me that the docs had no clue and that it was actually a nurse who came up with the idea that it was peanuts. Maybe she too was a sufferer.
To those that question or doubt it, it is a very real and extremely unpleasant experience, that is if it doesn't kill you!
I've learned to live with it and after nearly 50 years of doing so, I'm quite tuned in to what works. Saying that I'm quite lucky and think my allergy is a milder version to that some suffer.
There are a lot of foods that are on the NO list, including many that a normal person would have no idea have peanuts in them. I've been caught out a few times despite obviously being very careful. What is frustrating though is that food manurfacturers, afraid of finding themselves in court, simply slap the "May contain nuts or traces of nuts" label on virtually everything! Doesn't help me much though as I do actually like and eat other nuts! Call me nuts for having a peanut allergy and eating other nuts but through trial and error when I was a nipper it was established it was only peanuts. A bit harsh I know and I would have avoided all and any for obvious reasons, but it was the 70's and it was the medical equivalent of trial by combat. I love pistacios.
By far the biggest nemisis are dry roasted peanuts. When someone opens a pack, the air gets contaminated with the dust and in a confined space that can be interesting, the pub was always a challenge but I still went. That dust also gets everywhere, door handles mainly and other things that are similarly touched. If I unknowingly get some on my hand that is fine but if I then go on and rub my eye(s) or touch my lips I am effected, that from what must be a tiny amount of dust residue.
It is a horrible horrible thing but I count myself lucky in so far as my reaction has never proved life threatening, it does, if I injest peanuts they completely dibilitate me for a few days but breathing side effects are thankfully limited.
I cringe whenever I read about yet another fatality, which seem to happen about every six months or so, although in very recent years it seems to have slowed down, it seems that public knowledge and awareness has increased and for the unlucky few, the world is a slighty safer place.
What used to really cheese me off were the types that simply didn't believe it was a thing and deliberately made things difficult by their consumption habits. Thankfully this behaviour has also diminished also in very recent years. Sounds like that employer and some employees are stuck in 1983 though, b
ds.
I'm also very encouraged by the attitude of all that have so far replied to this thread, you are an enlightend bunch.
To the OP, if the Woman needs or wants to have a chat with someone who has lived with it for a long time I'd be more than happy to do so.
It was first diagnosed after much effort in the early 70's when I was a toddler. My parents inform me that at that time the medical profession had harldy heard of it and had difficulty in deciding what it was. My Mum tells me that the docs had no clue and that it was actually a nurse who came up with the idea that it was peanuts. Maybe she too was a sufferer.
To those that question or doubt it, it is a very real and extremely unpleasant experience, that is if it doesn't kill you!
I've learned to live with it and after nearly 50 years of doing so, I'm quite tuned in to what works. Saying that I'm quite lucky and think my allergy is a milder version to that some suffer.
There are a lot of foods that are on the NO list, including many that a normal person would have no idea have peanuts in them. I've been caught out a few times despite obviously being very careful. What is frustrating though is that food manurfacturers, afraid of finding themselves in court, simply slap the "May contain nuts or traces of nuts" label on virtually everything! Doesn't help me much though as I do actually like and eat other nuts! Call me nuts for having a peanut allergy and eating other nuts but through trial and error when I was a nipper it was established it was only peanuts. A bit harsh I know and I would have avoided all and any for obvious reasons, but it was the 70's and it was the medical equivalent of trial by combat. I love pistacios.
By far the biggest nemisis are dry roasted peanuts. When someone opens a pack, the air gets contaminated with the dust and in a confined space that can be interesting, the pub was always a challenge but I still went. That dust also gets everywhere, door handles mainly and other things that are similarly touched. If I unknowingly get some on my hand that is fine but if I then go on and rub my eye(s) or touch my lips I am effected, that from what must be a tiny amount of dust residue.
It is a horrible horrible thing but I count myself lucky in so far as my reaction has never proved life threatening, it does, if I injest peanuts they completely dibilitate me for a few days but breathing side effects are thankfully limited.
I cringe whenever I read about yet another fatality, which seem to happen about every six months or so, although in very recent years it seems to have slowed down, it seems that public knowledge and awareness has increased and for the unlucky few, the world is a slighty safer place.
What used to really cheese me off were the types that simply didn't believe it was a thing and deliberately made things difficult by their consumption habits. Thankfully this behaviour has also diminished also in very recent years. Sounds like that employer and some employees are stuck in 1983 though, b
ds.I'm also very encouraged by the attitude of all that have so far replied to this thread, you are an enlightend bunch.
To the OP, if the Woman needs or wants to have a chat with someone who has lived with it for a long time I'd be more than happy to do so.
colin_p said:
I'm an oldish git and suffer from a peanut allergy. I've had it before it was even a 'thing'.
It was first diagnosed after much effort in the early 70's when I was a toddler. My parents inform me that at that time the medical profession had harldy heard of it and had difficulty in deciding what it was. My Mum tells me that the docs had no clue and that it was actually a nurse who came up with the idea that it was peanuts. Maybe she too was a sufferer.
To those that question or doubt it, it is a very real and extremely unpleasant experience, that is if it doesn't kill you!
I've learned to live with it and after nearly 50 years of doing so, I'm quite tuned in to what works. Saying that I'm quite lucky and think my allergy is a milder version to that some suffer.
There are a lot of foods that are on the NO list, including many that a normal person would have no idea have peanuts in them. I've been caught out a few times despite obviously being very careful. What is frustrating though is that food manurfacturers, afraid of finding themselves in court, simply slap the "May contain nuts or traces of nuts" label on virtually everything! Doesn't help me much though as I do actually like and eat other nuts! Call me nuts for having a peanut allergy and eating other nuts but through trial and error when I was a nipper it was established it was only peanuts. A bit harsh I know and I would have avoided all and any for obvious reasons, but it was the 70's and it was the medical equivalent of trial by combat. I love pistacios.
By far the biggest nemisis are dry roasted peanuts. When someone opens a pack, the air gets contaminated with the dust and in a confined space that can be interesting, the pub was always a challenge but I still went. That dust also gets everywhere, door handles mainly and other things that are similarly touched. If I unknowingly get some on my hand that is fine but if I then go on and rub my eye(s) or touch my lips I am effected, that from what must be a tiny amount of dust residue.
It is a horrible horrible thing but I count myself lucky in so far as my reaction has never proved life threatening, it does, if I injest peanuts they completely dibilitate me for a few days but breathing side effects are thankfully limited.
I cringe whenever I read about yet another fatality, which seem to happen about every six months or so, although in very recent years it seems to have slowed down, it seems that public knowledge and awareness has increased and for the unlucky few, the world is a slighty safer place.
What used to really cheese me off were the types that simply didn't believe it was a thing and deliberately made things difficult by their consumption habits. Thankfully this behaviour has also diminished also in very recent years. Sounds like that employer and some employees are stuck in 1983 though, bds.
I'm also very encouraged by the attitude of all that have so far replied to this thread, you are an enlightend bunch.
To the OP, if the Woman needs or wants to have a chat with someone who has lived with it for a long time I'd be more than happy to do so.
I applaud you Sir, the world needs more people like you.It was first diagnosed after much effort in the early 70's when I was a toddler. My parents inform me that at that time the medical profession had harldy heard of it and had difficulty in deciding what it was. My Mum tells me that the docs had no clue and that it was actually a nurse who came up with the idea that it was peanuts. Maybe she too was a sufferer.
To those that question or doubt it, it is a very real and extremely unpleasant experience, that is if it doesn't kill you!
I've learned to live with it and after nearly 50 years of doing so, I'm quite tuned in to what works. Saying that I'm quite lucky and think my allergy is a milder version to that some suffer.
There are a lot of foods that are on the NO list, including many that a normal person would have no idea have peanuts in them. I've been caught out a few times despite obviously being very careful. What is frustrating though is that food manurfacturers, afraid of finding themselves in court, simply slap the "May contain nuts or traces of nuts" label on virtually everything! Doesn't help me much though as I do actually like and eat other nuts! Call me nuts for having a peanut allergy and eating other nuts but through trial and error when I was a nipper it was established it was only peanuts. A bit harsh I know and I would have avoided all and any for obvious reasons, but it was the 70's and it was the medical equivalent of trial by combat. I love pistacios.
By far the biggest nemisis are dry roasted peanuts. When someone opens a pack, the air gets contaminated with the dust and in a confined space that can be interesting, the pub was always a challenge but I still went. That dust also gets everywhere, door handles mainly and other things that are similarly touched. If I unknowingly get some on my hand that is fine but if I then go on and rub my eye(s) or touch my lips I am effected, that from what must be a tiny amount of dust residue.
It is a horrible horrible thing but I count myself lucky in so far as my reaction has never proved life threatening, it does, if I injest peanuts they completely dibilitate me for a few days but breathing side effects are thankfully limited.
I cringe whenever I read about yet another fatality, which seem to happen about every six months or so, although in very recent years it seems to have slowed down, it seems that public knowledge and awareness has increased and for the unlucky few, the world is a slighty safer place.
What used to really cheese me off were the types that simply didn't believe it was a thing and deliberately made things difficult by their consumption habits. Thankfully this behaviour has also diminished also in very recent years. Sounds like that employer and some employees are stuck in 1983 though, b
ds.I'm also very encouraged by the attitude of all that have so far replied to this thread, you are an enlightend bunch.
To the OP, if the Woman needs or wants to have a chat with someone who has lived with it for a long time I'd be more than happy to do so.
Foliage said:
You can pretty much no longer discipline someone for being ill, the place of work needs to manage it and make reasonable adjustments. These meetings about illness/absence shouldn't be a blame session they should be to try and address the challenges. Its also worth noting that the employee also needs to look after their own health and use any relevant PPE and such but im sure she does.
I assure you, you very much can be disciplined for being ill. My wife had sciatica, upon return was given a formal warning for her sickness record as she had already had a day or two off earlier in the year. Edited by Foliage on Thursday 15th December 13:11
She is also disabled (CHD) and in the doctors note was mentioned the sciatica was probably related, employer still went down the disciplinary route and when we spoke to ACAS were told that they were within their rights to!
CanAm said:
Not wishing to make light of this lady's genuine condition, but why did nobody have nut allergies when I was a kid? Likewise asthma; in all my years at school I only had one classmate who suffered from this yet it seems to be quite common these days.
I don't know when you were a kid, however my bro is about to turn 40 and his peanut allergy was identified when he ate a marathon bar aged 2 in 1979 . He is also asthmatic:-)Were peanuts consumed by British children as frequently in decades past? I remember PB being an exotic thing that only my American friends had back in the mid-80s.
donkmeister said:
I don't know when you were a kid, however my bro is about to turn 40 and his peanut allergy was identified when he ate a marathon bar aged 2 in 1979 . He is also asthmatic:-)
Were peanuts consumed by British children as frequently in decades past? I remember PB being an exotic thing that only my American friends had back in the mid-80s.
I was born in the early 60s, I ate peanuts frequently as a child, both covered in chocolate, and bought "loose" by my mother, in their shells.Were peanuts consumed by British children as frequently in decades past? I remember PB being an exotic thing that only my American friends had back in the mid-80s.
What I don't remember is a great intake of salted ones, and I don't recall dry roasted from that era.
Walnuts & Brazil nuts are also a common memory from those times.
CanAm said:
Not wishing to make light of this lady's genuine condition, but why did nobody have nut allergies when I was a kid? Likewise asthma; in all my years at school I only had one classmate who suffered from this yet it seems to be quite common these days.
.
I think when you think about it; you might come to the conclusion that better communication of knowledge, brought about by the internet, has led to case notes that previously would have sat gathering dust in some clinicians filing cabinet, being made available for other doctors to search through and read. .
Just because there was no name for it, doesn't mean it didn't kill.
Allergies are on the increase and its complex reasons why:
More sensitive immune systems
Better Recording of Allergies
More widespread knowledge and education
Etc
You often get the old "well know one had allergies when i was a kid" as some kind of anecdotal put down to everyone who suffers
More sensitive immune systems
Better Recording of Allergies
More widespread knowledge and education
Etc
You often get the old "well know one had allergies when i was a kid" as some kind of anecdotal put down to everyone who suffers
TwistingMyMelon said:
Allergies are on the increase and its complex reasons why:
More sensitive immune systems
Better Recording of Allergies
More widespread knowledge and education
Etc
You often get the old "well know one had allergies when i was a kid" as some kind of anecdotal put down to everyone who suffers
I'm more intrigued by it.More sensitive immune systems
Better Recording of Allergies
More widespread knowledge and education
Etc
You often get the old "well know one had allergies when i was a kid" as some kind of anecdotal put down to everyone who suffers
Both of my now adult daughters (one a biologist the other a chemist) have a lactose intolerance. My son doesn't.
They were all brought up together, in the same space,went to the same school, had the same diet, and to the best of our knowledge there is no family history of it on either side of the family.
I accept the better diagnoses route to a point.
But ....... something must be happening, maybe we are too clean these days, or something like that, maybe there is something in the air that wasn't there decades ago, whatever, but I am of the opinion that there are more allergies now.
Nigel Worc's said:
but I am of the opinion that there are more allergies now.
There probably aren't but many people are now able to survive with them and live normal lives, whereby say 50 or so years ago they would not have made it past infancy now they make it to breeding age and pass the genetics on.Modern medicine is a wonderful thing!
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 will be everyone elses fault, and the whole world will have to revolve around the lady with the nut allergy.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
TwistingMyMelon said:
Allergies are on the increase and its complex reasons why:
More sensitive immune systems
Better Recording of Allergies
More widespread knowledge and education
Etc
You often get the old "well know one had allergies when i was a kid" as some kind of anecdotal put down to everyone who suffers
I also think that the cult of a 99% bactera free home has a part to play in all this. Plus when I was a young kid the thing was to go out and play in whatever new dangerous place we could. We got dirty and our immune systems built up a tolerance to a lot of things commonplace these days.More sensitive immune systems
Better Recording of Allergies
More widespread knowledge and education
Etc
You often get the old "well know one had allergies when i was a kid" as some kind of anecdotal put down to everyone who suffers
Echo66 said:
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.
And, in my opinion, there is the problem, and why people make themselves more unemployable, her problem, she should manage it.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.
I have a recognised "condition" (it is no disability whatsoever in my opinion), but I find myself restricted in what I can and can't do just because others play on the condition and/or miss-manage it.
My condition, I need to fit in, not everyone else alter what they do to accommodate me.
Nigel Worc's said:
Echo66 said:
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.
And, in my opinion, there is the problem, and why people make themselves more unemployable, her problem, she should manage it.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.
I have a recognised "condition" (it is no disability whatsoever in my opinion), but I find myself restricted in what I can and can't do just because others play on the condition and/or miss-manage it.
My condition, I need to fit in, not everyone else alter what they do to accommodate me.
Nigel Worc's said:
Echo66 said:
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.
And, in my opinion, there is the problem, and why people make themselves more unemployable, her problem, she should manage it.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.
I have a recognised "condition" (it is no disability whatsoever in my opinion), but I find myself restricted in what I can and can't do just because others play on the condition and/or miss-manage it.
My condition, I need to fit in, not everyone else alter what they do to accommodate me.
Problem is for her & people like her she cannot necessarily control when she will be exposed to fumes from nuts, it can happen potentially anywhere. She manages it as best she can. When she has protection under the law she should be able to work anywhere within reason & the employer make arrangements. Its their problem & rightly so.
Echo66 said:
Which is fine, you choose to do that. However, she has a right to expect her condition to be accommodated & rightly so under the law. Does that make her less employable? Well obviously yes, but an employer isn't allowed to discriminate on that basis. Its the law that matters, not personal opinion & in this case the employer needs to step up & sort themselves out or they're likely in for a rifting & rightly so.
Problem is for her & people like her she cannot necessarily control when she will be exposed to fumes from nuts, it can happen potentially anywhere. She manages it as best she can. When she has protection under the law she should be able to work anywhere within reason & the employer make arrangements. Its their problem & rightly so.
Which is why I think they were daft to take her on in the first place, regardless of what the law says, you employ who you want, we all know that.Problem is for her & people like her she cannot necessarily control when she will be exposed to fumes from nuts, it can happen potentially anywhere. She manages it as best she can. When she has protection under the law she should be able to work anywhere within reason & the employer make arrangements. Its their problem & rightly so.
Like I said earlier, because of all these rules and regulations, I wouldn't employ myself.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff