Nut Allergy At Work
Discussion
OldGermanHeaps said:
All the better reason for her to f
k off somewhere more suitable for her then.
Are you really that obtuse?k off somewhere more suitable for her then.If she was working in a peanut shelling factory or making peanut butter then yes, I would consider perhaps she ought to work elsewhere.
But that is not what we are talking about, the ignorance and arrogance shown on this thread is why disabled people have such a hard time getting jobs and keeping them.
Jasandjules said:
Are you really that obtuse?
If she was working in a peanut shelling factory or making peanut butter then yes, I would consider perhaps she ought to work elsewhere.
But that is not what we are talking about, the ignorance and arrogance shown on this thread is why disabled people have such a hard time getting jobs and keeping them.
I have to agree, there have been some surprisingly intolerant replies on here. If she was working in a peanut shelling factory or making peanut butter then yes, I would consider perhaps she ought to work elsewhere.
But that is not what we are talking about, the ignorance and arrogance shown on this thread is why disabled people have such a hard time getting jobs and keeping them.
I'd understand if she was working with food or with the general public. She's on a normal workplace where it doesn't take an enormous change in culture to prevent someone being seriously ill or potentially dying. It's not exactly a hardship to not have peanuts in such a workplace.
Based on some of the comments in here, what would those people suggest she does? Any other work place has food in it in some way or other, offices, factories, shops etc. There's as much likelihood of someone bringing peanuts into any other workplace as there is where she works!
It's an odd one as like I say, if she was sitting there refusing to get a job because of the allergy she'd be berated. Instead she does a pretty noble job, works hard in a sector she is qualified.
Oddly when she trained in child care, I'm sure (like many would) she didn't think, "ooh that's not the career for me, children are a peanut magnet!".
Jasandjules said:
Are you really that obtuse?
If she was working in a peanut shelling factory or making peanut butter then yes, I would consider perhaps she ought to work elsewhere.
But that is not what we are talking about, the ignorance and arrogance shown on this thread is why disabled people have such a hard time getting jobs and keeping them.
I see you only refer to the abbreviated post not the several others i made articulating exactly my viewpoint. Tell me again why the service users should be denied 1/3-1/2 of food types when there are other alternatives. Look at the labes on food and see what may contain nuts.If she was working in a peanut shelling factory or making peanut butter then yes, I would consider perhaps she ought to work elsewhere.
But that is not what we are talking about, the ignorance and arrogance shown on this thread is why disabled people have such a hard time getting jobs and keeping them.
OldGermanHeaps said:
I see you only refer to the abbreviated post not the several others i made articulating exactly my viewpoint. Tell me again why the service users should be denied 1/3-1/2 of food types when there are other alternatives. Look at the labes on food and see what may contain nuts.
Because there is a person who is at serious risk of injury or death. It is not a necessity to eat peanut butter, as you say, there are alternatives. So they can use them can't they.If someone has no legs do you think they ought not to be permitted to live in houses because there are bungalows available?
From the OP,she is hardly asking for a major change, just not to have peanut butter & not to roast chestnuts(I mean,who the fk HAS to roast bloody chestnuts!!!) Seems like a deliberate refusal on the employers part to make any kind of reasonable adjustments, and victim blaming is just appalling.
k HAS to roast bloody chestnuts!!!) Seems like a deliberate refusal on the employers part to make any kind of reasonable adjustments, and victim blaming is just appalling.There really is some outstanding responses. The lady has the right to be protected, as do consumers. At all of the food sites I have worked this is a high expectation. No nuts and a list as long as your arm on other potential allergens are allowed on site, this covers the allergic and consumers. I was shocked how low the level was to become a risk.
I don't see a problem, the workplace should adapt, it isn't hard. Sounds like her colleagues need a talking to as well
I don't see a problem, the workplace should adapt, it isn't hard. Sounds like her colleagues need a talking to as well
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.
Absolutely spot on; this coming from a man who's own Sister has a nut allergy.It will be everyone elses fault, and the whole world will have to revolve around the lady with the nut allergy.
People who have nut allergies (caveat: and are old enough/able to make sensible the decisions themselves) fall into a number of brackets, from what I have seen.
1, They have a nut allergy and do whatever they can to mitigate risk and look after their own safety where this is possible and with the minimalist disruption to others around them.
2, They have a nut allergy and the whole world is about them and everyone else should bend and capitulate to their needs and wishes. A prime example of this sort of selfish imbecile is below...
3, Others...
There was a thing on BBC Watchdog this week with one such a moron. She took offence to labeling these days on so many foods that stated "this product may contain traces of nuts" (someone will come along and tell us which foods they highlighted? They were, for the purposes of TV, very, very, very unlikely foods).
The manufacturers were asked and they generally stated very clearly, that in the same factory, nuts/nut products were present and so there may be nut traces as cross contamination does happen. It was just not possible (I guess from a time and money perspective) to clean the machinery to such a high standard that ensures that "traces of nuts" would 100% not be present or have different sites for nutty stuff!
If you're so worried about it, don't complain about it you ******* stupid ******, just avoid it.FACTORIES ARE NOT GOING TO BEND TO YOUR EVERY WHIM.
Rant over.
ETA...if it is simple, efforts should be made to accommodate specific allergies, especially ones that present such grave risk as nut allergies. There has to be a limit though...
Edited by 7795 on Friday 16th December 14:38
pork911 said:
OP please forgive my ignorance but is her allergy really so bad that she cannot enter an area where there is a jar of peanut butter? Used, opened or closed?
Yeah, my daughter is seriously allergic to nuts, and peanuts although it's not as extreme as it was. The reaction is usually her face swells to twice the size, difficulty breahing etc. She's been jabbed three times with an EpiPen. First time was at school, either the breakfast club had used peanut butter of the floor polish had nut oil in. Within 5 mins of sitting down on the hall floor at start of school she wasn't breathing was jabbed and taken to hospital.
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.
Last time, at Uni, eating a chinese meal. We think nut oil used in cooking.
It's really not funny
Terminator X said:
Whilst I have some sympathy for those with a nut allergy it seems a bit rough to me if the entire office etc have to walk on eggshells to compensate for this one individual. I understand that it does happen most of the time though in offices, schools etc #nuts
TX.
They don't have to walk on eggshells, just not bring something to work that might kill one of their colleagues, anyone willfully doing otherwise should be out on their ear. TX.
FredericRobinson said:
Terminator X said:
Whilst I have some sympathy for those with a nut allergy it seems a bit rough to me if the entire office etc have to walk on eggshells to compensate for this one individual. I understand that it does happen most of the time though in offices, schools etc #nuts
TX.
They don't have to walk on eggshells, just not bring something to work that might kill one of their colleagues, anyone willfully doing otherwise should be out on their ear. TX.
I think the H&S term is "reasonable safeguards".
Removing peanut butter might be reasonable. Removing all products that any any point in their cycle have come into contact with nuts is not. Ditto someone having a packet of peanuts on the way to work and leaving traces on the door handle by accident (despite having washed their hands - reasonable precautions), etc.
H&S is not binary, nor is it draconian.
edit to add: these are general examples, and I am over simplifying.
Removing peanut butter might be reasonable. Removing all products that any any point in their cycle have come into contact with nuts is not. Ditto someone having a packet of peanuts on the way to work and leaving traces on the door handle by accident (despite having washed their hands - reasonable precautions), etc.
H&S is not binary, nor is it draconian.
edit to add: these are general examples, and I am over simplifying.
7795 said:
There was a thing on BBC Watchdog this week with one such a moron. She took offence to labeling these days on so many foods that stated "this product may contain traces of nuts" (someone will come along and tell us which foods they highlighted? They were, for the purposes of TV, very, very, very unlikely foods).
The one that usually gets the not-too-bright ranters going is a packet of peanuts with the perfectly sensible "may contain traces of nuts" warning.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.
Incidentally, I spend a lot of time reading the ingredients labels and may contain warnings. My own problem is gluten, having been diagnosed with coeliac disease a few years ago. At least the choice of beer I have available is getting better
Samjeev said:
NUTella?...
Really?
Anyway there really are a lot of clueless people in this thread.
Yes. Yes you are. Peanuts are not actually nuts. They are legumes. They grow in the ground. Hazelnuts (as used in Nutella) are nuts. They grow on trees. Having a peanut allergy doesn't automatically make you allergic to tree nuts and visa versa. HTH Really?
Anyway there really are a lot of clueless people in this thread.
FredericRobinson said:
They don't have to walk on eggshells, just not bring something to work that might kill one of their colleagues, anyone willfully doing otherwise should be out on their ear.
I would more likely than not inform an employer that a final written warning could be issued for bringing such a product onto the premises after a warning had been given about another employee being at risk. I would consider possible Gross Misconduct and termination as the next step and potentially the first step subject to the facts.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.
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.
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 sitesGassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff