Nut Allergy At Work
Discussion
Nigel Worc's said:
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.
Nobody knows for sure what is causing the increase in peanut allergies, and the only real point of consensus is that the problem is getting worse. After barely meriting a word in medical literature before the 1980s, incidents of peanuts allergies began to creep up in the 1990s. "Allergy to peanuts and tree nuts is the leading cause of fatal allergic reactions in the United States, and the prevalence appears to be increasing," a 2010 study in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology reported. The study found the number of children with documented peanut allergies had increased from 0.4% in 1997 to 0.8% in 2002 to 1.4% in 2008.
https://mic.com/articles/125970/when-the-hell-did-...
Nigel Worc's said:
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.
Its not rocket science for an employer to manage it
Nigel Worc's said:
TwistingMyMelon said:
You cant and shouldn't discriminate "we all know that" you are just speaking for yourself
Its not rocket science for an employer to manage it
I still find it an odd concept that an entire workforce MUST change their behaviour to accommodate one person.Its not rocket science for an employer to manage it
Devil2575 said:
So you'd be happy for her, or anyone else, to never get a job then because of an allergy? Or at least not a job where in a shared working environment she could potentially come into contact with someone elses food? I work for a chemical company but we have kitchen facilities, as do a great many workplaces I'd imagine.
Nobody knows for sure what is causing the increase in peanut allergies, and the only real point of consensus is that the problem is getting worse. After barely meriting a word in medical literature before the 1980s, incidents of peanuts allergies began to creep up in the 1990s. "Allergy to peanuts and tree nuts is the leading cause of fatal allergic reactions in the United States, and the prevalence appears to be increasing," a 2010 study in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology reported. The study found the number of children with documented peanut allergies had increased from 0.4% in 1997 to 0.8% in 2002 to 1.4% in 2008.
https://mic.com/articles/125970/when-the-hell-did-...
As long as nobody deliberately exposes her to whatever causes her reaction, nuts in this case, I think it should be down to her to make sure she doesn't come into contact with it.Nobody knows for sure what is causing the increase in peanut allergies, and the only real point of consensus is that the problem is getting worse. After barely meriting a word in medical literature before the 1980s, incidents of peanuts allergies began to creep up in the 1990s. "Allergy to peanuts and tree nuts is the leading cause of fatal allergic reactions in the United States, and the prevalence appears to be increasing," a 2010 study in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology reported. The study found the number of children with documented peanut allergies had increased from 0.4% in 1997 to 0.8% in 2002 to 1.4% in 2008.
https://mic.com/articles/125970/when-the-hell-did-...
I think it is wrong to expect an entire workforce to change their eating habits just to suit her.
geeks said:
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.
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!
Acas may wish to read up on the law (as is often the case) - this may be discrimination arising from disability. There may also be an additional claim of a failure to make a reasonable adjustment. 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!
I should also add I recently secured a reasonable sum from an employer who felt they could ignore sciatica.....
OP, the question to my mind is what does she want to do about it?
Nigel Worc's said:
As long as nobody deliberately exposes her to whatever causes her reaction, nuts in this case, I think it should be down to her to make sure she doesn't come into contact with it.
I think it is wrong to expect an entire workforce to change their eating habits just to suit her.
Being told that someone might die if exposed to a very specific food type, and then still bringing that very specific food type into areas that she must use I'd suggest is deliberately exposing her. I think it is wrong to expect an entire workforce to change their eating habits just to suit her.
I love Peanut Butter. But if someone joined my office who had a nut allegy, I've got just about enough selflessness to keep my consumption of it well away from them.
Nigel Worc's said:
Devil2575 said:
So you'd be happy for her, or anyone else, to never get a job then because of an allergy? Or at least not a job where in a shared working environment she could potentially come into contact with someone elses food? I work for a chemical company but we have kitchen facilities, as do a great many workplaces I'd imagine.
Nobody knows for sure what is causing the increase in peanut allergies, and the only real point of consensus is that the problem is getting worse. After barely meriting a word in medical literature before the 1980s, incidents of peanuts allergies began to creep up in the 1990s. "Allergy to peanuts and tree nuts is the leading cause of fatal allergic reactions in the United States, and the prevalence appears to be increasing," a 2010 study in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology reported. The study found the number of children with documented peanut allergies had increased from 0.4% in 1997 to 0.8% in 2002 to 1.4% in 2008.
https://mic.com/articles/125970/when-the-hell-did-...
As long as nobody deliberately exposes her to whatever causes her reaction, nuts in this case, I think it should be down to her to make sure she doesn't come into contact with it.Nobody knows for sure what is causing the increase in peanut allergies, and the only real point of consensus is that the problem is getting worse. After barely meriting a word in medical literature before the 1980s, incidents of peanuts allergies began to creep up in the 1990s. "Allergy to peanuts and tree nuts is the leading cause of fatal allergic reactions in the United States, and the prevalence appears to be increasing," a 2010 study in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology reported. The study found the number of children with documented peanut allergies had increased from 0.4% in 1997 to 0.8% in 2002 to 1.4% in 2008.
https://mic.com/articles/125970/when-the-hell-did-...
I think it is wrong to expect an entire workforce to change their eating habits just to suit her.
As an employer who may have such an allergy I'm sure they'd make sure that the risks of their own exposure were mitigated as far as possible so why not for an employee that you are legally responsible for.
Nigel Worc's said:
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.
What do you consider a 'nut free zone' though? I can understand if she's in a restaurant, pub, supermarket and other places where there's likely to be food or dealing with general members of the public. 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 don't consider working in a home for children with brain injuries to be a place that couldn't be made 'nut free' with a couple of fairly simple steps? Don't bring any bloody nuts onto the premises!!
I work in offices which have kitchens people make their lunches in and if it said, to refrain from bringing in nut based products (peanut butter, Peanuts etc), you know obvious stuff I don't think that's unreasonable.
I'd agree if she was putting herself in the firing line but it's not expecting a great deal for this to be considered.
One thing to add to this. This particular person is not overly expectant of the work place, she's not caused a huge fuss after having her allergies triggered. Her employers are making her life difficult because they fail to manager the situation. For example there are different houses to work in, others which refuse point blank to remove jars or peanut butter so she can't work there. In the house she works in the staff adhere to it and she's generally ok but it's the employer punishing the employee for reacting to it in their environment, then making her fearful of her job that I don't agree with.
Edited by Alex_225 on Thursday 15th December 17:44
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.
There has been a truly massive increase in asthma and allergies in the last 15 years - the graph looks like a hockey stick. Quite amazing. Why? Mostly because of the truly dreadful WHO advice to pregnant mothers about avoiding certain foods and partly due to the 'must kill all germs in the house' obsession present in many households now following years and years of advertising by providers of such products.Re: this thread. Employer clearly doesn't know how much trouble they can get in for this. Idiots and hope they get a slap.
Devil2575 said:
Nigel Worc's said:
TwistingMyMelon said:
You cant and shouldn't discriminate "we all know that" you are just speaking for yourself
Its not rocket science for an employer to manage it
I still find it an odd concept that an entire workforce MUST change their behaviour to accommodate one person.Its not rocket science for an employer to manage it
I am and always have been in the "fit in or f
k off" camp that was all the rage when I was an apprentice.It seemed to work well, why change it ?
CanAm said:
rampageturke said:
Asthma can be developed because of environmental factors such as air pollution.
When I was a kid the air was a damn site more polluted than it is these days.I often walked to school in the 50's and 60's in thick smog, there were paraffin lamps by the side of the road and you couldn't see more than 6 foot in front of you.
Stalybridge where I grew up....
Nightmare said:
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.
There has been a truly massive increase in asthma and allergies in the last 15 years - the graph looks like a hockey stick. Quite amazing. Why? Mostly because of the truly dreadful WHO advice to pregnant mothers about avoiding certain foods and partly due to the 'must kill all germs in the house' obsession present in many households now following years and years of advertising by providers of such products.Also we probably picked up quite a few "trace elements" as there wasn't the same mania for hygiene in those days. My sister in law on the other hand is erring towards OCD and things were sterilised left right and centre in her house. Coincidence or not, both of her children suffered from asthma and one has a peanut allergy.
Nigel Worc's said:
No, my family often point this out.
I am and always have been in the "fit in or fk off" camp that was all the rage when I was an apprentice.
It seemed to work well, why change it ?
Because it doesn't work well. I am and always have been in the "fit in or f
k off" camp that was all the rage when I was an apprentice.It seemed to work well, why change it ?
Where, exactly, do you think a person with a nut allergy would fit in well?
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 can't speak for all ashtma sufferers, however without more 'modern' diagnosis and mediaction, I have little doubt in my mind I would have died as a child, such was the severity of my asthma (thankfully it is well under control now and abated slightly with age). I suspect this may be true of people with severe nut allergies - 100 years ago they would probably have died as an infant (kids did tend to die quite a lot back then!).
Skodasupercar said:
I can't speak for all ashtma sufferers, however without more 'modern' diagnosis and mediaction, I have little doubt in my mind I would have died as a child, such was the severity of my asthma (thankfully it is well under control now and abated slightly with age).
I suspect this may be true of people with severe nut allergies - 100 years ago they would probably have died as an infant (kids did tend to die quite a lot back then!).
Wait... what? Surely not. Then golden old days where everything was perfect weren't so golden or perfect? Say it's not so. I suspect this may be true of people with severe nut allergies - 100 years ago they would probably have died as an infant (kids did tend to die quite a lot back then!).
Alex_225 said:
Nigel Worc's said:
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.
What do you consider a 'nut free zone' though? I can understand if she's in a restaurant, pub, supermarket and other places where there's likely to be food or dealing with general members of the public. 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 don't consider working in a home for children with brain injuries to be a place that couldn't be made 'nut free' with a couple of fairly simple steps? Don't bring any bloody nuts onto the premises!!
I work in offices which have kitchens people make their lunches in and if it said, to refrain from bringing in nut based products (peanut butter, Peanuts etc), you know obvious stuff I don't think that's unreasonable.
I'd agree if she was putting herself in the firing line but it's not expecting a great deal for this to be considered.
One thing to add to this. This particular person is not overly expectant of the work place, she's not caused a huge fuss after having her allergies triggered. Her employers are making her life difficult because they fail to manager the situation. For example there are different houses to work in, others which refuse point blank to remove jars or peanut butter so she can't work there. In the house she works in the staff adhere to it and she's generally ok but it's the employer punishing the employee for reacting to it in their environment, then making her fearful of her job that I don't agree with.
Edited by Alex_225 on Thursday 15th December 17:44
What do you think will happen when another person comes for an interview with this employer and they have an allergy, a medical problem etc ?
If it is just the food preparation area, then perhaps she should think about not using that area. If just being near a person that has recently eaten nuts that causes her issues (like the other chap posted, door handles etc), then she is buggared and perhaps that job isn't for her.
Nigel Worc's said:
I agree that it does seem a bad situation, and the employer is going to get lots of grief if they don't sort something out, because the law is like that now, one persons rights or entitlements seems to be more important than the common good.
What do you think will happen when another person comes for an interview with this employer and they have an allergy, a medical problem etc ?
If it is just the food preparation area, then perhaps she should think about not using that area. If just being near a person that has recently eaten nuts that causes her issues (like the other chap posted, door handles etc), then she is buggared and perhaps that job isn't for her.
So... take it to the next logical step. She can't find work because she can't work anywhere that might expose her to the allergen that could kill her. What should she do for a living?What do you think will happen when another person comes for an interview with this employer and they have an allergy, a medical problem etc ?
If it is just the food preparation area, then perhaps she should think about not using that area. If just being near a person that has recently eaten nuts that causes her issues (like the other chap posted, door handles etc), then she is buggared and perhaps that job isn't for her.
You'd condemn this lady to live a sad, restricted life. And all because you think its too much for people to not eat peanuts at work.
Then you've got the gall to suggest she's the special snowflake.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff