# No-scent policy not being enforced in workplace (at a HOSPITAL!)



## Addy

I have a sensitivity to scents. I have asked coworkers to not wear scented perfumes (deoderants are fine as long as they are not stinky like Old Spice etc) but they ignore me, in fact a few of the younger ones I'm sure have slathered it on even more since I've asked them not to.

I have complained to a supervisor who said she would take care of it, but from what I've seen she only casually mentioned it once in a staff meeting by reminding staff of the "Scent Policy" we have.

Now the supervisor I mentioned it to is clearly wearing perfume and I am getting a migraine. It's to the point where it's not worth the amount of migraines I get from working here. I don't want to seem like a complete old *****, but would like the hospital to take their policy seriously.

Any suggestions for tactfully handling this?


----------



## Just a Guy

Quit and go find a job elsewhere.

It's a free country, you can do it. If enough people quit, and they have a hard time finding people to work in such a harsh environment, they'll change the policy. If, however, it only affects one person, I'm sure the entire world doesn't need to change...

Personally, I'm getting tired of one person has an issue so the world has to change attitude. If I don't like something I change, I don't expect the world to bend to me. If my kid has a peanut allergy, I teach them what to do and how to live with it, I don't expect the world to stop eating peanuts...

Let me spin this to the other extreme, if you were racist, should you have the "right" to work in a racist environment?

What if you are now "sensitive" to someone's natural odour, should they be fired?

You work in a hospital with sick people who could make you sick...maybe we should get rid of them too...

If you want your job, get nose filters.


----------



## Beaver101

Addy said:


> ...
> 
> Now the supervisor I mentioned it to is clearly wearing perfume and I am getting a migraine. It's to the point where it's not worth the amount of migraines I get from working here. I don't want to seem like a complete old *****, *but would like the hospital to take their policy seriously.*
> 
> Any suggestions for tactfully handling this?


 ... maybe remind them of the Occupational Health and Safety Act or point this out to the Director, responsible for your department (or the boss of your boss)?


----------



## Addy

Fair enough. I don't need my job anyway, I just do it because there's hardly any jobs in the small town I work and it keeps my resume up to date working two days a week. So I'll quit.

But maybe before I do that, I'll start investing in some of that "farts in a can" and spraying it all over me. It may make me sick, but then maybe it will help get the point across.




Just a Guy said:


> Quit and go find a job elsewhere.
> 
> It's a free country, you can do it. If enough people quit, and they have a hard time finding people to work in such a harsh environment, they'll change the policy. If, however, it only affects one person, I'm sure the entire world doesn't need to change...
> 
> Personally, I'm getting tired of one person has an issue so the world has to change attitude. If I don't like something I change, I don't expect the world to bend to me. If my kid has a peanut allergy, I teach them what to do and how to live with it, I don't expect the world to stop eating peanuts...
> 
> Let me spin this to the other extreme, if you were racist, should you have the "right" to work in a racist environment?
> 
> What if you are now "sensitive" to someone's natural odour, should they be fired?
> 
> You work in a hospital with sick people who could make you sick...maybe we should get rid of them too...
> 
> If you want your job, get nose filters.


----------



## sags

Maybe the problem is that some people just lather the stuff on...........to the point it is overwhelming.

Perfume is supposed to "hint" at an attractive aroma............not smother everyone in it.

Whatever happened to just a tiny dab behind the ear ?

And...some people use scented hair wash, scented body wash, and then add perfume.......for an obnoxious blend of smells.


----------



## Just a Guy

Addy said:


> Fair enough. I don't need my job anyway, I just do it because there's hardly any jobs in the small town I work and it keeps my resume up to date working two days a week. So I'll quit.
> 
> But maybe before I do that, I'll start investing in some of that "farts in a can" and spraying it all over me. It may make me sick, but then maybe it will help get the point across.


So, your taking a job from someone who possibly needs it...

As for your "statement" it was probably someone like that that decided to "make a point" by going to an extreme that caused the issue in the first place...


----------



## wendi1

Come on, you know what you have to do.

Go to your supervisor. Ask her why she started wearing perfume. Tell her about the migraines. Calmly. Remind her about the no-scents policy. Ask her if there is another issue of which you are unaware (maybe she wants you out of there).

If nothing changes, go to her supervisor (or your union rep, or the next person up the chain). Calmly, but stand your ground. Remember, some of your patients might have the same problem, and they are in less of a position to object than you are.

This is not going to be solved with hints and head-holding. You will have to be a bit aggressive and and persistent. We call this " being a grown-up" or "learning how to stand up for yourself".


----------



## Just a Guy

Funny, I always taught that expecting the world to revolve around your wants and needs was childish. Accepting the world for how it works and not getting your way all the time was "being grown up". 

I'd say it was a generational thing, but I'm not that old...maybe it was a parenting thing.


----------



## marina628

My sister has serious allergies to scents as welll so I can relate to OP condition.What gets me is this is a HOSPITAL!I spent over 2 months there last year with my brother who died from cancer and can't imagine people who care for sick people not following these rules.Don't quit your job just go to the top guy if your immediate co-workers won't respect your rights and most importantly the rights of the sick patients they are tending to.


----------



## wendi1

There is a difference between not liking someone's perfume and having a sensitivity. 

One of my old bosses once developed hives on her arms (while I was watching!) simply by coming into my cubicle where I had happened to put some daffodils. I still like daffodils, and grow them, and put them into my house, but I would not send anyone home so that I would be able to put them in my cubicle. Nor would I insist on some sort of bizarre "right to wear perfume, no matter how it affects anyone else". 

Fortunately, the OP does not have to fight this fight, because there is already a policy in place. It is just being ignored, so she needs to step up.

There are an increasing number of people with sensitivites to latex, perfume, peanuts and other serious allergies. Some of them end up in the hospital - they don't need to have that stuff waiting for them there.


----------



## humble_pie

Addy please don't quit, i'm sure they need you. A good nurse is impossible to replace.

no-scents policies are fairly new, people don't seem to have understood or accepted them yet. 

think how long it took for social disapproval to weigh in on all the other arguments to stop smoking. Something like 40 years?

now in my burg office workers can't smoke just outside their buildings, they have to walk many metres away ... which is actually an excellent requirement because the air spaces outside entries to major buildings used to be suffocating little hiroshimas ... 

wendi has some great suggestions, i'm sure you can take this up with the supervisor or turn to her superior if that would become necessary. I'm also sure you have allies among your co-workers, although you may not yet know who these allies are. Find your allies! a united campaign will speed things up.

(aside to JAG) give it up now, you've lost this one each:


----------



## Just a Guy

So, where does this stop? I'm sure I can pull out someone who's allergic to nearly everything...in fact I've know many people who are...should the government eradicate daffodils? We don't ban latex, we supply an alternative. The people I know with allergies take precautions and avoid situations, they don't expect the world to circle around them.

Nose plugs for one, or force an entire workforce to find scent free shampoo, soap, deodorant, hair spray, cleaning products, laundry detergent, etc.

How many "good nurses" may quit because of such a policy being enforced?

Humble, according to your arguements, I must have lost this one because one person disagrees...that's all it would take to lose. If I lose, I must represent the majority, the "winner" here is the one whiner...

Personally, I too am sensitive to perfumes, I avoid department stores because of it, and I have a job that doesn't put me in contact with it...unfortunately, I also have kids who bath in the stuff at times...I haven't put them up for adoption yet.


----------



## the-royal-mail

Yes, I think I need to side with the OP and wendi1 on this one.

Remember this is not just about perfume, cologne etc. It also applies to those hand lotions that people like to crack open in the office. I used to sit beside somebody who used that on a daily basis and the scent was not pleasant to me at all. Fortunately I was able to move elsewhere and those around me now are all scent-free.

No, I will not break out in hives but scents are a personal thing like music. Keep them to yourself and don't bring them to work or other places with large indoor gatherings.


----------



## wendi1

My bogus "right to wear perfume" should not impinge on your "right to be treated in a hospital" or your "right to work". There are hard questions out there, but this is not one of them.

Not wearing scented products is easy. Having a migraine or hives or difficulty breathing is hard, especially when you are already sick in hospital. 

By all means, permit anything you like in your own house (I don't imagine your kids are wearing Hi Karate, which was what teenaged boys wore when I was young, and I remember as smelling like flea shampoo).


----------



## humble_pie

Just a Guy said:


> ... Humble, according to your arguements, I must have lost this one because one person disagrees...that's all it would take to lose. If I lose, I must represent the majority, the "winner" here is the one whiner...



maybe try lightening up? there is not "one whiner" as you so gracefully put it, surely you can observe that everybody on the thread is taking her side. The "one" complainer seems to be yourself. As the down-under said in the bar, I think the only man in the wild without an accent is a striiiyan.

the fact that the setting is a hospital makes the situation more acute. In fact, it's surprising that a hospital would be so lax.


----------



## My Own Advisor

I'm a big believe in 'carrots' and 'consequences'.

Sometimes one or the other is needed to change behaviour, sometimes both.

I like the idea of talking to your Supervisor (again?), the OH&S staff, filing any report you can, and even talking to the folks that are supposed to the enforce the policy in your workplace. 

Short of somebody being accountable to enforce the policy and help you in this matter, sadly, you're left to respond to people directly on a case-by-case basis that aren't respectful or sensitive to your issue and others that might have it.


----------



## rikk

wendi1 said:


> Come on, you know what you have to do. Go to your supervisor. Ask her why she started wearing perfume. Tell her about the migraines. Calmly. Remind her about the no-scents policy. Ask her if there is another issue of which you are unaware (maybe she wants you out of there). If nothing changes, go to her supervisor (or your union rep, or the next person up the chain). Calmly, but stand your ground. Remember, some of your patients might have the same problem, and they are in less of a position to object than you are. This is not going to be solved with hints and head-holding. You will have to be a bit aggressive and and persistent. We call this " being a grown-up" or "learning how to stand up for yourself".


Agree completely, except for the asking the supervisor why she wears perfume part ... never ask questions, stay in the logical state (versus emotional), and simply refer to the policy which was deemed necessary and I assume posted with management approval ... geez, what is wrong with those hopefully few bozos you are working with ...


----------



## HaroldCrump

Chalk me down as scent/perfume sensitive as well.
I haven't used perfume in like, umm, 15 years.
I don't use deodorants, body sprays, hair gel, etc.
Instead, I make sure I shower every day so that I don't need to use those ;o)
During summer, I often shower twice - morning and evening, after returning from work.

But seriously, it is not "one whiner" at all.
This is a real physiological issue and is gradually getting recognized mainstream.


----------



## heyjude

I'm with the OP on this, but quitting is a bit drastic. 

Read the policy. Talk to your doctor. Can he/she give you a letter documenting how exposure to scents is affecting your health? Then draft a polite letter to your boss outlining the problem and indicate that you expect the policy to be enforced. At the end, state that you look forward to having a more healthy work environment in the immediate future. State that you enjoy your job and the opportunity to contribute to patient care at X Hospital over Y years, and you look forward to having this quickly resolved. Say you hope you will not need to take this further. Show your draft to someone you trust (or post it here) to ensure that it strikes the right collaborative tone. When it is finalized, mail it to your boss by Canada Post. Include a copy of the policy with the relevant paragraphs highlighted, and a copy of your doctor's letter. Copy it to your union representative and your doctor. 

If that doesn't work, your next step is to talk to the union.


----------



## Sprucegum

I would normally side with JAG on the general behavior in society issue - BUT - the location in this case is a hospital !?! The no-scent policy should be enforced at all levels 24/7. Please take up the crusade and fight until you win.


----------



## Just a Guy

While your at it, see if you can ban antiseptics...the smell of that in hospitals always makes me feel sick too...way more than perfume.

I just heard about a study where patients who had a view of nature, as opposed to no view or a city view, recovered on average a day faster from hospital (it was an interview for a book called vitamin N).

Some basic math # of patients times days of recovery saved...

Better to ban flowers though.


----------



## 6811

HaroldCrump said:


> Chalk me down as scent/perfume sensitive as well.
> I haven't used perfume in like, umm, 15 years.
> I don't use deodorants, body sprays, hair gel, etc.
> Instead, I make sure I shower every day so that I don't need to use those ;o)
> During summer, I often shower twice - morning and evening, after returning from work.
> 
> But seriously, it is not "one whiner" at all.
> This is a real physiological issue and is gradually getting recognized mainstream.


I have to agree with Harold on all points. 

Some years ago I tried to reason with a couple of heavy scent co-workers but to no avail. Their "I just wanna smell nice" seemed to trump anything I said to them - they just wouldn't understand that to some people they didn't smell "nice" at all. These days my sense of smell can no longer differentiate strong perfume scents, to me they're either sinus stinging RAID (kills em dead), or skunk.


----------



## donald

Don't go to the supervisor,you have already made your claim to your co-worker's(to no avail)
It's you versus a 'group' unless you want to alienate yourself even more(smell issue aside what do you think will happen if they get reprimanded and sorely oblige?)
I highly doubt it will make anything better.
If your low on the totem pole(New)suck it up or try to presuede them ala 'you catch more flies with honey'
I don't like a lot of **** about my job sometimes environment or otherwise but i deal with it like most people.
It's not your world and other people are in it.
let it go


----------



## m3s

You could wear one of those masks that doctors and nurses wear, or maybe a gas mask would get the point across and hide the frown.


----------



## wendi1

Oh boy. 

I do not recommend trying to deal with this passive-aggressively. Don't wear a mask, or a clothespin on your nose, or spray farty smells.

It's not really about you, it's about the policy being followed. Direct, logical, calm and persistent.


----------



## Just a Guy

Yes, always good to follow policies...sort of like the "whites only" policy in the southern USA right? 

We wouldn't want a part time employee to suffer when she's obviously representing the "silent majority"...the other employees are probably wearing scents as a passive agressive protest.


----------



## the-royal-mail

JAG, I admire your convictions and on a general basis I do actually agree with you that the 'tail wags the dog' in our society an awful lot these days. And at one time I used to feel differently about this issue. But after a few years of working in close proximity to other workers in an office setting I changed my tune. This is not on a same calibre as southern US racism. This issue boils down to all the reasons discussed here, that scents from other people are generally not welcome. What smells nice to one person, does not always smell nice to the other person. Our society is relatively peaceful one, but can only really stay this way as long as all of us are continually vigilant and aware of our impacts on others AND follow common rules. I am mindful of this where I live (ie. you will not hear noise or encounter problems from me, no music, no parties, yard full of junk cars etc) and where I work (I am also very quiet on the job and do my utmost not to bother other people). I personally see this as an issue of how we treat our fellow person. And yes, there are limits to that and everybody has a different definition of reasonable and common sense. I just think there are other issues I would rather battle and if someone is bothered by my scent I am happy to tone it down, and just request the same of them.

That's all there really is to it. It might look good on you at this point if you consider changing your position. There is no harm in that.  We are always learning and our society is always changing.

Respectfully,


TRM


----------



## OhGreatGuru

Just a Guy said:


> Yes, always good to follow policies...sort of like the "whites only" policy in the southern USA right? ...


One cannot argue with such logic.

_Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him._ —Proverbs 26:4 (King James version)


----------



## Cdnwife

Isn't this what an HR Dept is for? If there is a violation of the hospital policy, speak to HR and let them know how this is impacting you.


----------



## Just a Guy

OhGreatGuru said:


> One cannot argue with such logic.
> 
> _Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him._ —Proverbs 26:4 (King James version)


My point was just because there is a policy, doesn't mean it's right...there are often policies which need to be changed. I thought choosing something so obviously wrong would make the point apparent...I guess I was wrong.


----------



## humble_pie

i can truly see how some guys might view the fragrance situation as a bunch of ninnies just (insert vulgar language here.)

but what's being described in this thread is something new. It's the stunningly increased allergy sensitivities of very many people compared to those we used to see even one short generation ago.

peanuts, pets, perfume, pollen, nobody knows why so many mass allergies & sensitivities are presently being triggered. But i believe the news. I believe increased allergic symptoms are plaguing the lives of people of every age, from newborns to seniors.

it's up to the epidemiologists & the allergists to figure out how come such a hyper-sensitive population has developed. But in the meantime, perhaps a civilized thing to do is try to minimize one's allergy-provoking footprint? encourage the healthiest possible workplace environment?

it's like not-smoking 20 years ago. It was rare, then, to find smoke-free homes, offices, cars, buildings, zones, even parks. Now it's rare to see someone lighting up.


----------



## Just a Guy

I think hypocondria plays a major role...my sister in law carries an epi pen because she thinks she's allergic to bees...she's been stung several times and swells up normally, never had a serious reaction, always forgets she's got the pen...funny part is, she's a nurse.

I know people who eat peanuts who swear they have a peanut allergy...but not always. This one is really bad, because I know people who have real allergies.

I know one person who swears they are allergic to celery...there's nothing in celery.

Could, of course, have something to do with crappy diets, and heavy use of chemical cleaners...and maybe not allowing yourself to be exposed to an uncontrolled environment.


----------



## donald

I am with you just a guy!
why was this scent issue not a issue 20 yrs ago?
My work is very different than a corporate environment (construction site)
when we have 'problems' it is direct one on one(no hr to run to)
I used to work with a guy that liked to eat onion sandwiches in the mourning with the windows rolled up(winter time)
'Hey john,knock it off i am going to puke'
'hey donald,yeah eh!' yeah john'
end of story.(and i would do the same if the roles were reversed)
I have seen the odd scrap(no we are not neanderthals)but maybe it is the male environment,where if 2 guys are having problems they deal with it(settle it,and move on and sometimes become friends again,no mention to the boss either.
Our cultural is such bs now.This is a direct result of the trophy generation where every kid gets recognition for showing up etc 
oh everything must be fair bullshit where grown-ups run to some hr person crying about this that and the other
the way these political correct work places sound makes me cringe
no wonder half the population is on anti-depressants 
i am i glad i don't work in such a environment


----------



## Cal

Cdnwife said:


> Isn't this what an HR Dept is for? If there is a violation of the hospital policy, speak to HR and let them know how this is impacting you.


I would formally complain about this. I too work in health care and find wearing scents unacceptable in the workplace. It is also requested at alot of my continuing education that people attend scent free.

It doesn't bother me, but I can understand how it really affects others.


----------



## Plugging Along

As a person who has a lot of allergies (but none life threatening), I think it is a two way street. 

Since I can manage my allergies through antihistamines, I try and take them when it gets bad or if now that I will be exposed. However, I also appreciate when people are considerate towards me. I am extremely allergic to cats and dogs, if people have a lot of cat or dog hair and I am near them or sit in their seat, I will break out in hive, stuff up, and on occasion wheeze for air. Knowing this, I try to avoid those that have a lot of pet hair, but people that I work with how know this try a little harder to to make sure they are not too hairy. If I am near them, then I really break out. 

We had a case where my coworker had a seeing eye dog I was extremely allergic too. He needed his dog, I needed to breath. We worked it out that his desk was furtherest away from me, and is move to the back if the office, and he was at the front of the office. We tried to stay away in the common area and took medication, he attempted to from the guide dog in the morning before work. 

In the case where one is really causing issues with someone (allergies), and the other person has an options (not to wear perfume). I think it is a common courtesy that the person refrain from wearing the perfume. My kids class in one year a someone had allergies to many common kids things, because the kids were young, and I could choose to pack different snacks, I did. The child couldn't control their allergies. 

Isn't this a question of courtesy and choice. If I was doing something that someone didn't like, that's their choice, and I would consider their request, however if I am doing something that could cause a reaction that isn't a choice, then I would stop.


----------



## Beaver101

donald said:


> ... i am i glad i don't work in such a environment


 ... Addy works in a hospital and a hospital as an employer should know there is an Occupational Health and Safety Act (of Ontario), no? 

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90o01_e.htm 

And specifically under that statute: 



> “occupational illness” means a condition that results from exposure in a workplace to a physical, chemical or biological agent to the extent that the normal physiological mechanisms are affected and the *health of the worker is impaired *thereby and includes an occupational disease for which a worker is entitled to benefits under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997; (“maladie professionnelle”)


... the perfume is making her ill so she has every right to let them know, no?


----------



## OhGreatGuru

donald said:


> I am with you just a guy!...the way these political correct work places sound makes me cringe...


Ah, for the good old days. Before there were any d**n rules. 
1. Nobody complained about smoking in the workplace, unless it was a bomb factory;
2. Only sissies wore hard hats;
3. Nobody "had" to wear seat belts ;
4. If you kept a bottle in your desk drawer to relieve the stress after a tough day that was OK;
5. It was OK to pay women half as much as a man for the doing the same job;
6. Sexual harassment was just "guys bein' guys" and besides, the gals liked the attention eh?


----------



## donald

My point is Oh great guru is running to someone(h.r)is a foreign concept to me!
Hey by all means if Addy want's to run to supervisor's about her co-workers wearing perfume she should go right ahead but if Addy had some foresight imo she should be prepared to not have a job much longer(her co-worker's will drive her out likely)
Hey Addy go ahead and 'take' one for the greater good for society but don't wonder in a month from now why your sitting by yourself in the lunch room and your co-workers can't stand being around you.
This isn't about the 'problem' at large this is about Mrs Addy finding a Solution to her problem and imo I would not be making a stink to my boss's boss.
Your problem has feel on deaf ears already(reporting it)TRY A DIFFERENT TACTIC.
The Main question should be why do you feel your co-worker's haven't responded to your compliant already?


----------



## Just a Guy

Perhaps people will enjoy a world where they

1) are told how to dress
2) told what to wear
3) told what to eat
4) told what to think
5) told who they can talk to

I'm sure it can all be justified as being for your and the public's well being...


This game can go on forever and be as ridiculous as you like.


----------



## m3s

If there is a policy it should be followed or changed. It does bother me that rules/regulations are bent or selectively followed in Canada.

The medical treatment for allergies is to inject you with increasing doses of the allergen itself.. Or to treat the symptoms (antihistamine) It's been studied that farm kids have less allergies. Immunity is hereditary so we are becoming more and more sensitive in the hyper sterile society.


----------



## donald

Guru number 6 is a good one reminds of a facebook post that showed up in my feed)2 30's something female teachers apparently were engaging in threesome with a 16 yr old boy on lunch break!
Hey guru whats with all these female teachers having sex with there students these days?Your right it aint like the old days lol


----------



## hystat

I got sprayed with diesel fuel the other day. I asked if I could go home per the no-scent policy. They said no.


----------



## Beaver101

hystat said:


> I got sprayed with diesel fuel the other day. I asked if I could go home per the no-scent policy. They said no.


 ... of course not, you would be sent to the hospital if someone lit up (hopefully not) ... and pray it won't be the one Addy is working at. :biggrin:

Come on guys, management at the hospital should know better to protect their employees.


----------



## donald

Not to derail but what percentage of women out there not know the protocol of applying perfume?
Most women i would think don't spray it on like a can of paint do they?
Only reason i say this(growing up with females)is women are very detailed when it comes to clothes and perfume and faux-pas!
Isn't the first article ever written in cosmo about not dousing oneself ?
What goes on in a hospital,does everyone hang out in a 9x9 room without ventilation lol


----------



## m3s

donald, south park did an episode on female teachers with students years ago


----------



## donald

In all serious here i have been suffering in my building!(family next door)They cook curry non-stop,every time i walk past Raj and his family's door my poor migraines start!
Doesn't Raj know this is Canada!Where is my landlord!and if that doesn't work i am going to my M.P
Raj you have not right to create any type of smell you got that
Ridiculous!


----------



## donald

Mode lol
Where were this teacher's when i went to high school??lol
My dad would prob have a grin ear to ear if i was a 'victim' these poor boys
Playboy was right after all these years...go figure


----------



## heyjude

I used to work in a hospital. We had a no-scent policy which most people respected. However there was one male physician who doused himself in large volumes of vile cologne, probably to cover up the fact that he was a closet smoker. When he would enter a room, people would start to sneeze. He got away with it for a while because he was doing essential work, but as the complaints mounted he was forced to change his behaviour.


----------



## OhGreatGuru

To Just a Guy and Donald, and others who believe rules are unnecessary. I have seen silly rules that defy common sense too. But generally speaking, such rules are made after years of experience with people who:
a) do not use common sense; or,
b) are deliberately inconsiderate of the rights/concerns of others.

OP told her coworkers about her problem, and asked them not to wear scents. 
When that didn't work, she complained to her supervisor, who did nothing.
By their actions, they have all effectively said "Up Yours". 

That's why the Hospital (employer) has a policy on the matter - because this has happened in other workplaces over and over again. 
OP shouldn't quit. It's all her co-workers who should be given notice.


----------



## Just a Guy

Better yet, fire them all and let the OP cover for them on her part time shifts. They broke the rules, it's only fair. We need to protect the workplace for the...umm...good of all?


----------



## andrewf

JAG, you could justify anything with that attitude...


----------



## Just a Guy

I do seem a bit grouchy this weekend...


----------



## rikk

I dunno, seems to me there are those that are team players and there are those that are not ... there's a time and place for both ... when a person joins a team, they're obliged to play by the rules.


----------



## HaroldCrump

As per JAG's logic, smokers should be allowed to smoke within the office, in the cafeteria, etc.
Non smokers' right to a smoke-free environment should not supersede a smoker's right to light-up.


----------



## Just a Guy

Not so Harold, my logic says one smoker does NOT have the right to smoke in a workplace where they work part time when everyone else is a non-smoker.

But they do have a right to work someplace else...maybe someplace full of smokers.

There's a big difference.


----------



## heyjude

Just a Guy said:


> Not so Harold, my logic says one smoker does NOT have the right to smoke in a workplace where they work part time when everyone else is a non-smoker.
> 
> But they do have a right to work someplace else...maybe someplace full of smokers.
> 
> There's a big difference.


Based on this logic, smokers could go to work in a hospital where both the staff and the patients were all smokers, and perfume users could go to work in a hospital where both the staff and the patients all used perfume. For anyone else, there would be a no smoking policy and a no scent policy.


----------



## Mortgage u/w

More and more workplaces are adopting a 'Scent Free' policy. My company has one as well and I have to say that I appreciate it. The Scent Free refers to ANY scent - whether it is perfume, food or body odor. When you stink, you stink! There is no reason why one would put on a strong perfume while working in a closed office environment. Same reason why you shouldn't be eating your fish or curry lunch at your desk.....and obviously you wouldn't go sit next to your work collegue if you haven't showered for days. I find its deplorable and a lack of respect for others if you behave otherwise.

Addy, you should be making your complaint with the HR dept directly. If you have others that share your displeasure, get them to make the same complaint so you can demonstrate that a policy change is required.


----------



## Plugging Along

Just a Guy said:


> Not so Harold, my logic says one smoker does NOT have the right to smoke in a workplace where they work part time when everyone else is a non-smoker.
> 
> But they do have a right to work someplace else...maybe someplace full of smokers.
> 
> There's a big difference.



I am just trying to understand, your argument is because the person is part time. If the person was full time, then it would be okay for them to complain. 

Or is it that if a majority group wants to break a policy, then it's okay to disregard the policy because that is what the majority wants. 

In your example, then it does not matter that there is a smoking policy, but rather if everyone wants to smoke, then that should supersede the policy.


----------



## humble_pie

psst ... nobody has noticed that the OP has never re-appeared, not even once?

maybe she wanted to ditch the job anyhow ... shhhh


----------



## Just a Guy

Plugging Along said:


> I am just trying to understand, your argument is because the person is part time. If the person was full time, then it would be okay for them to complain.
> 
> Or is it that if a majority group wants to break a policy, then it's okay to disregard the policy because that is what the majority wants.
> 
> In your example, then it does not matter that there is a smoking policy, but rather if everyone wants to smoke, then that should supersede the policy.


My point is, in this case, the policy is being ignored by 99.9+% of the people, so maybe it shouldn't be an issue.

I have the same reaction when I hear news stories about the 1 non-smoking waiter who complained about the smokers in a bar (are bars still smoking places?). If you don't want to work in a smoking environment go work somewhere else. If you don't want to go to a bar because of smoke, then don't. 

When enough people stop going, the bar would close...if they didn't stop, then there is obviously demand. I didn't feel a need to legislate it for adult only places.

My other point was that it's nearly impossible to go scent free in our society.

Regardless, this is a no-win arguement, I'm not trying to change society...I'm not debating what percentage is required to change it, I'm pointing out that, in this case, one person shouldn't have the right to complain when they can easily move on.


----------



## heyjude

Just a Guy said:


> I have the same reaction when I hear news stories about the 1 non-smoking waiter who complained about the smokers in a bar (are bars still smoking places?). If you don't want to work in a smoking environment go work somewhere else. If you don't want to go to a bar because of smoke, then don't.


You know, they said that about the pubs in Ireland. They were notoriously smoky places. A friend of my mother worked in her family's pub for decades, and despite never having been a smoker, she died in her 50s during the 1990s of vascular disease attributable to exposure to second hand smoke. She didn't really have a viable career alternative. 

But in 2004, legislation was passed in Ireland to make all workplaces nonsmoking. People said it wouldn't be possible to enforce. But they did enforce it, and here are the results. A drop of 13% in all cause mortality, a drop of 32% in stroke deaths, a drop of 26% in fatal heart attacks, and a drop of 38% in deaths from COPD (reference below). So don't ever assume that policy is useless.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0062063


----------



## Plugging Along

Just a Guy said:


> My point is, in this case, the policy is being ignored by 99.9+% of the people, so maybe it shouldn't be an issue.
> 
> I have the same reaction when I hear news stories about the 1 non-smoking waiter who complained about the smokers in a bar (are bars still smoking places?). If you don't want to work in a smoking environment go work somewhere else. If you don't want to go to a bar because of smoke, then don't.
> 
> When enough people stop going, the bar would close...if they didn't stop, then there is obviously demand. I didn't feel a need to legislate it for adult only places.
> 
> My other point was that it's nearly impossible to go scent free in our society.
> 
> Regardless, this is a no-win arguement, I'm not trying to change society...I'm not debating what percentage is required to change it, I'm pointing out that, in this case, one person shouldn't have the right to complain when they can easily move on.



The difference is in the case of a bar (when they were smoking), then there was no policy to be followed. In this case there is a non scent policy, and it should be followed. In the case of the OP, the OP is one of the few doing the right thing. A hospital was not meant to be a place where people went to wear scent. A used to be we here people go to smoke. 

Just because 99.9% of the population doesn't follow the law, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be followed. I remember a time where it was illegal for minor to buy cigarettes, however most stores would still sell to kids. That doesn't make it right, it took groups to enforce that store didn't sell to kids to make the change. 

At my kids school, they have some strict policies (in my opinion), they don't allow valentine or Christmas cards or treats, they don't allow kids to dress up for halloween, and there are many rules around celebrations. Sometimes I feel it takes out some of the fun, but the school outlined their policies, and choose to be a member of that community therefore I should abide by the rules. If I don't like them , I talk to administration and work on changing them (which some I have). What I don't think is fair is that when my child is following the rules to be a good citizen and others are not, it is challenging for me to explain why the rules can be broken because a parent doesn't agree with them. Fortunately, most of use realize that it is a community that we need to work it out for it to be a positive environment.


----------



## donald

Yeah but nobody is addressing the direct solution to the op.
When someone posts or asks a question relating to a problem you have to address it as it is(What's the use of talking about he subject matter broadly?who's gives a sam scratch about the broader issue)
The op has failed to get her point across(or the co-worker's have out right rejected her plea's)We know the op is new in said job so from a office politic stance she is likely 'outside'It is very reasonable that these co-worker's have had yr's of employment at this hospital.
Imo you don't enter a new job and then start campaigning issues with hr deparment,unless you welcome be the rouge of the group which is not very smart imo(why the hell do you want to start off on the foot?)who gives a **** about policies.
There is written rules in every office and then there are unwritten rules(usually these are more important)
Reminds me of a new worker that started at my old employment and was on one of the long term employees crew of the company,the new guy complained he didnt want to be exposed by this guys smoking while in the truck
Picture a 50 yr old polish man that has smoked for 30 yrs and is one of top earners from the company complying to a 22 yr old kid?
I would like to see how anyone generally acts when a new co-worker starts at your place of employment,flip it around and imagine a supervisor coming up to you saying so and so the new hire is causing waves about such and such of a issues,You got to think about **** from a human angle
Do you really think this is a effective route cause i don't
You don't piss off the 'regulars'


----------



## Just a Guy

Plugging, by your opinion, every law is right because it's a law (or rule). To me, it isn't. Each has their own case...each issue has different levels of seriousness. There were laws about segregation and slavery, it didn't make it right. Prohibition proved that outlawing liquor was stupid, but repeal didn't mean we should all be drunk. 

I'm sick of the intolerance the world isn't black and white, it's shades of grey.

The no scent policy has many implications, even seen here, including diet as well as products. In Vietnam, during the war, both sides could smell the other because of their diets. What isn't offensive to one, is not to another. 

I know people who, for medical reasons, have very bad body odour.

This is not a good policy to have as it can be turned very discriminatory.

This isn't an issue that's as simple as don't wear perfume...nearly everything is scented these days.

The whole "politically correct" movement is more than just being sensitive to others...it gets rid of traditions that build communities. It tries to make everything vanilla... It's a great idea in theory, but in practice it seems to be impractical. 

Heyjude, 

I really can't believe that the only job available for an entire lifetime was in a smoky pub. I often hear people complain about their job, but they are unwilling to quit and try something else...maybe they don't have the self confidence, but the majority of people I know who complain, rarely try to change their situation. I've even directed some to job openings, but they don't even apply (even though the pay and environment is better). 

It seems to be human nature to avoid change.

I don't smoke, am sensitive to it, but I avoided bars because of it. I chose places of work based on it. I have friends who smoke, I've got friends who've quit, but that's their choice. When they smoke I walk out of range for a bit most times, and I really don't like the smell of stale smoke, but I can live with it short term. The point is, I limit the exposure by choice. I don't try to dictate their life. 

All that being said, I think the no smoking outside rules are getting ridiculous now. This is a legal substance used by adults. Though I don't support it in any way, I can see where the rules are going too far...


----------



## lonewolf

The drug addicts (smokers) are very good @ poisoning the none smokers. It is amazing that the none smokers let the smokers kill them & take away their health/vitality for so many years. The drug addicts (smokers) have done a better job then Nazi Germany & the gas chambers for destroying human life.

The, TRUTH


----------



## donald

No.Philip Morris has done a good job and the ad's and hollywood and early family dynamic's and poverty
Nicotine is more addictive than crack cocaine,the industry hooks young people.
Once addicted good luck(we all no smoker's,most cases it is when their 14 yr old self made a decision their 40 yr self would of never made.
90% of smokers get addicted when they are kids and are afflicted till death jmo-


----------



## HaroldCrump

Just a Guy said:


> Not so Harold, my logic says one smoker does NOT have the right to smoke in a workplace where they work part time when everyone else is a non-smoker.
> But they do have a right to work someplace else...maybe someplace full of smokers.
> There's a big difference.


You are flipping the analogy on its head 

OP's workplace is a scent free zone.
One or more individuals are violating that policy.
You advised the OP to find a new job.

However in the case of a smoke free workplace, it is the smoker that has to find a new job?
No, per your logic, those that can't stand smoking should find a new job.


----------



## Just a Guy

What are you reading Harold, it's got nothing to do with the rule...it has to do with one person not dictating the lives of everyone else.

From the original posters information, she's the only one complaining...everyone one else is in violation of the "rule". I don't think there should be such "rules", but that is a side arguement. The issue is one person trying to make the rest of the world conform to their wants...

I even stated in a different example that one non-smoker in a smoke environment should look for a new job, just like one smoker in a non-smoking environment should find a new job.

I've also stated that non-smoking laws have gone too far...I'm not saying we should get rid of some of the laws, but when we get to "you can't smoke outside in an open area where someone can see you", especially when in places like vancouver they hand out seringes and give people places to shoot up illegal drugs, is rediculous.

I don't understand why you are consistently trying to twist what I'm saying...


----------



## lonewolf

Just a Guy said:


> What are you reading Harold, it's got nothing to do with the rule...it has to do with one person not dictating the lives of everyone else.
> 
> 
> I even stated in a different example that one non-smoker in a smoke environment should look for a new job, just like one smoker in a non-smoking environment should find a new job.
> .



So the drug addicts (smokers) that are murders should be allowed to commit murder on the non smoker & if the non smoker does not like the fact that the smokers should take away his life he should give into the drug addicts (smokers) & quite his job?

As for none smoking laws going to far maybe we should bring back smoking in the schools so the teachers can poison all the children.

@ least the smoking laws have gone far enough to protect the kids that come from none smoking families. @ least the drug addicts that smoke in their own homes can live with the pain of Karma that they are murdering their own kids. How are people suppose to enter the work place, stores etc when all the smokers are blocking the doors with their poison. Cant even walk down the side walk without smokers blocking the way.


----------



## Just a Guy

Lonewolf,

I, and the majority of my generation seemed to have survived the smoking in schools (I imagine you survived it as well). Do I like the fact that they've banned it in schools, yes I do...but at the same time, banning it in open parks is ridiculous. If they throw their butts down hit them with littering, we already have that law. 

Should we ban sugar, salt and fat too? They kill lots of people...and are quite addictive, probably moreso than nicotine. 

Where will it end? I want some choice in my life, something I can control. I can't help it most people are unwilling to take responsibility and control of their life, but I certainly don't want what I can consume, Wear, or do controlled by others who think they know best for society. I don't frequent places where there were smokers, at the same time, it's unfair to ban all public meeting places for smokers.

If I don't want to eat sugar, salt and fat or smoke, I am certainly able to control that without legislation. I can chose to avoid places that sell it, I'm not forced to buy it. It may not be as easy for me as it is for other, but I have no right to force society to make it easy for me to do, I just want to still have the option. Should I have the right to legislate McDonald's menu because it's my right to eat there, but they don't serve anything I'll eat? Or would it be better, because their sales aren't increasing, for them to change their menu on their own (which is what has happened, though personally I still won't eat there)?

Prohibition has been proven not to work. Personal choice, at least in my experience, seems to work quite well. I know many people who've chosen to quit smoking, so I know it can be done...I don't know anyone who's been legislated not to smoke successfully. People need to grow up and be responsible. I don't want people like you telling me how to live...of course, you guys will now try to twist that to say I don't believe in laws against murder or theft probably.


----------



## KaeJS

I'm all for what you are saying Just A Guy.

I have said multiple times on this forum that Canada has become such a push over. It seems like everyone is offended about something.

In terms of the thread and the no-scent policy, I would just like to say that most businesses/establishments/corps, etc rarely follow their policies. LOL.

If you have a problem with the scent of others, maybe you can wear a mask or a nose plug.

Everyone, please keep in mind that the most successful people adapt and make life better for themselves. They don't whine and ***** and try to change everything around them. Believing you can change other people (and their stupidity, actions, lack of common sense, religious beliefs, etc) is just a fool's game.

If you have a problem - fix it on your own. If you can't fix it, you didn't try hard enough. Try again.


----------



## lonewolf

Any policy that goes against the first rule of life (which is to stop from dying) is going to cause conflict from the first law of life. Any law or policy that supports the first law of life will gain support from the first law of life. It is just baked into the cake if laws & policy cause death & decay no one will be alive so we would not be here so those rules & laws would die also. If laws & policy promote health & vitality those laws & policy will stay in effect because we will still be alive so those rules will also be with us.


----------



## KaeJS

^ We should ban all cars above 100 horsepower then.

They aren't "safe".

Ban RWD and FWD cars, too.
We should all drive AWD cars because they are safer.


----------



## KaeJS

Hell..

We should ban cars altogether!

How can the laws be that we all drive on highways at 100km+ /hour? Those are outrageous laws! So unsafe..


----------



## Just a Guy

Stop having sex, by not creating new life, we can end death.


----------



## m3s

We need a Neutral Scent Policy that stipulates no one will emit any smellible smell, good nor bad. This would mean mandatory personal hygiene, obligatory bidets at work, enforced by random inspection by the smell police. Of course we need some kind of device to measure the smellibility of one's smell by the median person at a measured distance. Maybe the problem is English has no word for smellible, smellibility or insmellibility for that matter? Or is a neutral smell even possible?


----------



## lonewolf

Perhaps we should get ride of all laws, the police force, teachers we would save a bunch of money. The government is not efficient we could police our selves. If the neighbours dog is barking we can just shoot it. If someone smokes inside take a life for a life & shoot them. We could educate our kids a lot cheaper or we could chose not to educate @ all. We could then text, drink & drive as fast as we can. This might be the way to go ?


----------



## Just a Guy

Ahh lone wolf, thanks for proving my prediction true (last line of comment #70) I knew you'd come through...who says you can't predict the future?


----------



## Addy

Just a Guy said:


> Stop having sex, by not creating new life, we can end death.


God no, just get fixed. Modern conveniences, take advantage of them!


----------



## Addy

m3s said:


> We need a Neutral Scent Policy that stipulates no one will emit any smellible smell, good nor bad. This would mean mandatory personal hygiene, obligatory bidets at work, enforced by random inspection by the smell police. Of course we need some kind of device to measure the smellibility of one's smell by the median person at a measured distance. Maybe the problem is English has no word for smellible, smellibility or insmellibility for that matter?  Or is a neutral smell even possible?



Interestingly enough, I would rather smell human **** than heavy amounts of chemical laden perfumes. And I don't even mind a light scent of said chemical mixtures... in fact there's a manly scent that I adore, very much. But only in modest amounts, not when someone marinades one self in it.


----------



## Addy

I left my work at noon last Thursday due to a migraine. I vomited in my truck on the way home. Oh joy. I told my VP that I was going home due to a migraine from someone wearing perfume. VP could care less, which is fair she has a hospital to run. I will be resigning in the spring once I've saved up more towards my f-u fund.


----------



## lonewolf

Addy
A lot of people on here are confusing rights with freedom. I would contact the labor board it is your right to work the workers @ work are not free to cause death & decay to those around them. Stand up to the bullies


----------



## lonewolf

This is a no brainer not wearing perfume does not really effects ones life. It does not really matter how many wear the perfume because if they stop wearing perfume is no big deal. The workers are being paid to look after the patents not to wear perfume, The workers are not doing their job because wearing perfume is not in the patents best interest & some of the patients could be effected. A worker whos life is being effected by the actions of other workers is a problem that should be easy to fix without destroying the lifes of others who are wearing perfume.


----------



## heyjude

Addy said:


> I left my work at noon last Thursday due to a migraine. I vomited in my truck on the way home. Oh joy. I told my VP that I was going home due to a migraine from someone wearing perfume. VP could care less, which is fair she has a hospital to run. I will be resigning in the spring once I've saved up more towards my f-u fund.


You shouldn't have to resign, Addy. Please get advice from your union and talk to Workers' Compensation.


----------



## Addy

heyjude said:


> You shouldn't have to resign, Addy. Please get advice from your union and talk to Workers' Compensation.


I'm in a non union position.


----------



## lonewolf

It would not hurt to talk to the head of the union or write the union a letter even though your not a member. A good union wants its members to be good workers.


----------



## Addy

I agree in part with both sides to this, but when it comes down to it, I really don't want to work for an employer who clearly doesn't give a crap about their employees. I have worked for major hospitals in the past and they were so awesome compared to this place. Maybe I need to start looking for a new job... no harm in applying and seeing what happens.


----------



## lonewolf

From my experience as well as talking to other people the hardest part of most jobs is not the job but dealing with people weather it be other employees, the employer or the customer


----------



## m3s

You could probably sue for loss of wages, but the irony is you would need a doctor's note?


----------



## OhGreatGuru

Addy said:


> I left my work at noon last Thursday due to a migraine. I vomited in my truck on the way home.... I told my VP that I was going home due to a migraine from someone wearing perfume. VP could care less, which is fair she has a hospital to run....


Did you simply tell the VP "I had a migraine", which VP might dismiss as just another wimpy whiner? Or did you tell VP "FYI - scents give me migraines so bad I vomited in my truck on the way home."

I don't wish to make excuses for VP, but it could be a case of an ignorant VP not being aware of how serious the sensitivity can be for some people.


----------



## OhGreatGuru

Addy said:


> I agree in part with both sides to this, but when it comes down to it, I really don't want to work for an employer who clearly doesn't give a crap about their employees. I have worked for major hospitals in the past and they were so awesome compared to this place. Maybe I need to start looking for a new job... no harm in applying and seeing what happens.


PS. I did a quick review of all your posts, and maybe that would be the best choice (even though you are "in the right"). This sounds like a toxic workplace; you don't have much vested in it at 2 days/week; and you say you don't need the work. It's a shame, but you don't have enough at stake to make it worth the fight. You can dream about writing a nasty resignation letter, but they have a way of coming back to bite you in the a**.


----------



## Davis

Just came across this thread. I am amazed at the bizarre arguments being thrown around here. At the core of this is that it is a very real health issue. The oiringal poster has made that very clear. My husband has the same condition, and I have seen him being physically ill from exposure to perfumes. A migraine is not something he would fake. It is not him being a hypochondriac or a ninny. He is not faking his need to be in a dark room under the covers for five hours in severe pain after exposure. there is lots of documentation on scent allergies being real. Is there any evidence that they are not? Or is it just personal prejudice? "I didn't hear about the 20 years ago, so it can't exist." The world changes - get used to it. 

Why anyone would be so cruel as to choose to make a co-worker severely ill is beyond me. I understand that section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to wear perfume and cologne -- oh, wait a minute, it doesn't. There is no such right anywhere. There are, however, rights to reasonable accomodations for disabilities, which this is.

As a manager, I do not understand why any manager would allow staff to choose to wear perfume and make other staff sick. Sick time is lost time to the employer. Furthermore, in a public environment like a hospital, the needs of patients and visitors have to be considered. "Sorry, you can't come to our hospital in our small town because some of our staff like to smell pretty - you have to go to the next town."

Just a Guy's bizarre slippery-slope arguments show a lack of understand that this is a real health issue. Instead of dealing with teh reality of scent allergies, he seems to want to talk about telling people what to wear, what their political opinions should be, etc. If those things cause co-workers to be sick, sure, let's have rules about those, but if not, then we're talking about a completely different issue. Let's stick to the subject at hand.

If the OP's manager won't deal with the issue, then she should go to HR and/or the manager's superior. Or hire a lawyer. The hospital is in the wrong here.


----------



## andrewf

You would think that in a hospital, concern for patients alone would be enough justification to enforce this rule. Perhaps staff can choose to work elsewhere. Patients have very little to no choice.


----------



## Just a Guy

I never said the issue wasn't real, and I'm always amazed at how judgemental people can be (assuming I don't know the issue because I don't agree with your opinion). As I believe I stated, I too have a sensitivity to scents, though not as extreme, I've got relatives with extreme allergies that are life threatening...however none of us try to get the world to revolve around us or our needs. We were brought up tone responsible for ourselves, we avoid situations, prepare ourselves and deal with life as it comes...we don't expect the world to change for us since we are in the minority. 

I'm sure I can find someone who has some issue with every situation you could possibly imagine, probably health related...where do we draw the line? 

For the no scent policy, what happens to the people who have a medical disorder which makes them smell naturally (I know some of them personally too) even with showering multiple times a day. Should they be banned from working?

Maybe it's people affected who "show a lack of understanding" that there are more real (health) issues than just their own.

Btw, has your husband ever looked into nose filters? One person solutions are available for his condition.


----------



## Davis

Let's deal with the real issue first. What it comes down to is whether you prioritize someones wish to smell pretty over the health of a fellow employee. I don't understand the selfishness of the perfume-wearer who would create this situation. I have no clue what the manager is thinking here -- as a manager, i would never tolerate behaviour that puts another employee's health at risk because that impacts the ability to get the work done.

With regard to your latest hypothetical scenario, let's be clear that what really matters is what is real. Slippery-slope arguments are so tedious because they can go in both directions and prevent finding solutions to real problems. If I want to play the radio full blast in my office and it distracts all of my co-workers from their work, should I assert my right to do so? (I don't want an answer, i am just showing why slippery-slope arguments don't lead anywhere.)

The OP did not indicate that any of her co-workers have a medical body odour condition, and my husband has not heard that in his workplace either. If someone has a medical body odour condition, it would be their responsibility to bring that forward in the dsicussion. We don't have to imagine the possible scenarios for them.

But I'll indulge you in the hypothetical discussion, even though it has no bearing on the real situations we are dealing with. If someone has a medical problem, they should find solutions to it that do not involve making their co-workers sick. there are deodorants, anti-perspirants and "clinical strength" body odour products available in pharmacies. A doctor may be able to prescribe something stronger, or identify the cause of the problem. A doctor would not say "just wear perfume to work", especially where there is a scent allergy problem. That person's health propblem should not be transferred to somone else. 

I had a good laugh about your comment that "I'm always amazed at how judgemental people can be". Let's review some of the many statements that you've made in this discussion that trivialize the real health problem being discussion, or belittle those with these problems:

_"if you were racist, should you have the "right" to work in a racist environment? ... What if you are now "sensitive" to someone's natural odour, should they be fired? ... You work in a hospital with sick people who could make you sick...maybe we should get rid of them too... Funny, I always taught that expecting the world to revolve around your wants and needs was childish.... should the government eradicate daffodils?... see if you can ban antiseptics... I think hypocondria plays a major role...."_

So let's focus on the real issue, which is people choosing to smell pretty and make their co-workers sick, and not get sidetracked by imaginary scenarios.


----------



## Davis

On the question of nose filters, we are going to look into those. They seem to be effective for pollen and dust -- there doesn't seem to be much indication that they work for scents, but they are worth a try for enclosed spaces were we've had problems -- theatres and airplanes. As far as wearing them everyday to work, that would get expensive, and it is still bizarre to think that one person's ability to breathe would be consciously impaired by somone choosing to wear perfume. The serious health problem can be resolved by not wearing perfume, so why wouldn't the perfume-wearer just do that, unless they are just being an *******. I suppose there are people who will contend that it is their right to be an *******. I wouldn't waste my energy on that fight.


----------



## m3s

So ban scents in all public places? Like how wheelchair access is regulated now? Has anybody looked into what chemicals or allergens in these scents make people sick? I don't think modern shampoo is very healthy either


----------



## Davis

The topic is scents in the workplace. Banning them in public places is a separate issue. Smoking was banned in workplaces a long time before the bans were extended to other places.


----------



## Just a Guy

You seem to miss the point I've been trying to make, and insist on twisting my words, so I'll try to be clear.

If you are in the minority or, even worse, a SINGLE individual, you should not have the right to dictate how the rest of society has to behave around you. 

If you read my comments properly, you'll see I use something called sarcasm to emphasize some ridiculous scenarios where other individuals could make similar demands.

I understand health issues, and how serious they are, however (as I said before) you can always find someone who will have a very valid reason to demand society kowtow to them...i, however, don't support that.

You want people to stop wearing perfumes for the sake of your husband, but you want someone with extreme body scents to do something about it himself (how hypocritical can you be?). According to your standards, he should be allowed to smell as bad as he does and everyone has to put up with it because it's medically related, but you wouldn't support that.

As for the loud radio, again you twist my words, I wouldn't allow *one* person to get away with something, your arguement actually supports the loud radio as their right...especially if they were hard of hearing since its a real medical problem.

The fact that your husband has reached his age, yet never looked for a solution like nose plugs, but would rather have society change, seems extremely selfish to me. Oh, and by the way, the are several different levels of filtration available, some block everything (called plugs), they are not comfortable, but they can work. Of course, you'd probably prefer others suffer. Maybe we should set a policy that everyone except him should wear fully contained body suits. (Sarcasm again in case you missed it).


----------



## Davis

Suffer by not wearing perfume? You have no sense of proportion. By wearing perfume, these people inflict debilitating migraines on a co-worker. They force the OP and my husband out of the workplace. That is real suffering. Not wearing perfume is not suffering. Accommodating my husband's disability does not impose suffering on anyone. If there is a person with extreme body odour, he or she should explore the many options for dealing with it that do not make other people sick (please read my post again since you just skipped over that - when youclaim that by my standards he should be allowed to smell ad, you are not just twisting my words, you are fabricating stuff completely). Perfume is not a medically-advised solution to body odour. I didn't suggest that I am hard of hearing. only that I like loud music. Again, the difference between preference and health. My husband's scent allergy emerged in the last three years. He's been to his doctor, who said there is nothing he can do but take pills for his migraines. His migraines that force him out of the workplace because someone wants to smell pretty. That is the issue. Only a sick f*** would choose to makes a co-worker ill so he/she can smell pretty. But you go aahead and defend the rights of the sick f***s who do this.


----------



## Just a Guy

I agree you didn't state that other individuals who have problems (even if they are medical) should have the same rights as your husband. That's why I said your a hypocrite. 

Why should a person (I didn't say you) who is hard of hearing not be allowed loud music in the workplace?

Why should a person who smells for a medical reason be forced to do something about it?

We seem to agree, they shouldn't be allowed. 

But, when that single person is your husband, well then we all need to take his needs into consideration. 

If we need to stop wearing scents for your husband's health then we need to allow loud music for the hard of hearing and smelly people to go about the halls, and make sure we don't bring in anything with milk for the lactose intolerant, or wheat products for the cilliac, or anything with nuts for those with nut allergies, or...

Better yet, let's have the government pay everyone to stay home so we can all be safe.

Btw, how do you know the only solution is pills for the migraine when you admit you haven't tried at least one other (I suspect you haven't tried any other) solution?


----------



## Davis

Governments, businesses and people can always imagine problems that could arise from any action to solve a problem, and use that as an excuse to never do anything at all. Fortunately, they don't do that. 

Here we have a real medical problem that causes suffering. It can be fixed by a real solution (a no-perfune policy) that causes no suffering for the people involved. 

You imagine that maybe 
a. someone in the place has a medical body odour condition that they haven't revealed, 
b. they are unwilling to use over-the-counter or medical remedies to this problem, and
c. they are so unreasonable that the only remedy they are willing to use is one that makes other people sick.
I think you have painted a picture of a cave troll. Cave trolls may exist, but until one shows up in the workplace, it is entirely reasonable for governments and business and people to fix real problems without worrying about the imaginary ones.


----------



## Just a Guy

Simple solution to your husband, have him start his own company. He can get his own office, install any air filtration system he wants, hire staff who don't wear scents, and make money on his own. This is a real solution where no one suffers, or has to change. It's also the solution I took for my issues with the workplace and my health, so it can be done.

Where does it say 100's of people have to change their lifestyles because one person suffers a medical issue? It doesn't. 

Where does it say you have the right to work in the exact job you want, on your own terms? It doesn't. 

as I said, right at the beginning, don't like the environment, you're free to leave...you have that right. No one is forcing him to stay. It's not like he's being tied to a chair and sprayed. 

We live in a free country, where people have rights...but that doesn't mean you get to have the world revolve around you and your needs. You have the right to adapt and make a living.

Heck, your husband and the original poster could team up
And offer scent free services to all the people in need.


----------



## Davis

No one is being asked to change their lifestyle, just stop wearing perfume so someone else doesn't get sick. I don't understand what kind of human being wouldn't agree to such a simple request. Fortunately, you're on the wrong side of society and history and the law on this. The world changes, and I understand that many people don't like change. But it wll hap[pen anyway, and you'lll have to get used to it.


----------



## Just a Guy

Well, I know way more cilliacs than scent sensitive people...in fact, my sister has lost most of her stomach lining to the disease. She can't even come into skin contact with wheat anymore, and the pain is very debilitating. 

I suppose we should legislate a no wheat policy for people who she works with (that includes things like many shampoos of course, which most people don't know), so that she doesn't need to suffer unduly. You can, of course eat all the wheat you want at home, as long as you wash properly before coming to work...and be carefule about what you eat or bring as well.

Where do you work, I'll see if she can get a job there. It'll be nice for her to be in such a sensitive environment where no one will mind...in fact, I'll recommend all my friends with special needs goes to work there (I know several who go anaphylactic at several hundred different substances), you can accommodate everyone I'm sure, it won't become a problem...and your so enlightened, it should be easy for you, and no bother.

To think, all this time in my (and my friends/family) Neanderthalish thinking, tried to take responsibility for my own special needs by adapting my lifestyle to society's needs...how primitive. All I really needed to do was compile a list of my needs and submit them to Harper for legislation. I'm certainly glad you enlightend my thinking, we've got a lot of work to do compiling our needs, so I'll leave this discussion now...

I look forward to the changes, it'll make our lives much easier...to think we spent all these years taking care of ourselves...what a waste.


----------



## Davis

If your sister came to work here, I would not eat wheat in the office because I would not want to make your sister sick. I am amazed that you would not extend her the same courtesy.


----------



## Just a Guy

I do when I visit her, but she doesn't expect all of society to stop eating wheat publicly to accommodate her needs, she's not that selfish. When she comes over, I make gluten free foods and make sure I practice safe food handling to avoid cross contamination. 

If she comes over, she does not expect my kids to eat a gluten free diet. Kids are very picky eaters and she understands that. In fact, if we visit her, she'll make them food they would eat which contains gluten (she'll wear gloves and be extra cautious). Her family is not chillac, she doesn't force them to eat gluten free (it is an acquired taste). 

We were raised to think of others, not just ourselves.

Of course, that was such primitive thinking...soon there will be no wheat in public, also no nuts, spices, strawberries, celery (did you know people could be allergic to celery, my son's girlfriend is), tomatoes, milk products...

Enlightened thinking will save us all...though I wonder what my kids will eat...


----------



## Toronto.gal

Changes that would make more sense, would be for stricter regulations by gov. agencies restricting the toxic ingredients that go into the products so as to protect everyone, not just those who suffer from chemical/environmental sensitivities that, in Canada, as of a few years ago, was about 2%. Just because someone does not appear to have sensitivities, it does not mean that it's not harmful to them as well. However, as the demand for these products is very high, that's not likely to happen any time soon.

Even scent-free labelling on certain products are not completely fragrance free, and it's perfectly legal. 

*Fragrance Free or Unscented*
This means that no fragrances have been added to the cosmetic product, or that *a masking agent has been added to hide the scents* from the other ingredients in the cosmetic. *Some products labelled fragrance-free may actually contain "fragrance" or "parfum" on the list of ingredients.*
http://healthycanadians.gc.ca/drugs...oducts-produits/advertising-publicite-eng.php

I'm a migraine sufferer myself, however, the above [just like even the smell of coffee] just aggravate the condition, but does not trigger the migraines [in my case]. As for the perfume itself, I think the greater problem is with those that shower in them. 

For all you know, it could be the tea you're drinking in the office that may contain multiple pesticides, that could be triggering your migraines.

'Of the 10 brands tested, only Red Rose came back free of pesticide residues.'
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/pesticide-traces-in-some-tea-exceed-allowable-limits-1.2564624

As JaG mentions, the list is rather endless.


----------



## Just a Guy

I believe, though I can't find a confirmation link, that there used to be an NHL goalie who was allergic to water...had to take a pile of pills before every game so that he could drink it. 

I suppose it would have been better to ban water from the nhl...maybe they could play roller hockey since ice would be an issue...

I asked a buddy, he said it was Joaquin Gage from the Oilers...but he couldn't find an article to prove it

Did a google search on water allergy though and it does exist 1 in 250 million people...


----------



## Davis

Coming back to the issue at hand, the question is whether someone should wear perfume if it makes a co-worker sick. Wearing perfume is a choice. Breathing is a necessity. Only the most selfish person in the world would say "I like to wear perfume, so you should quit your job because of your disability." Wearing perfume is optional, and minor. it is not important. Breathing and working are necessary parts of life. 

Your sister is lucky that having people eat wheat around her doesn't make her violently ill . If it did, would you still say that people should carry on eating wheat around her and she should just go through life being sick? I wouldn't make a co-worked ill or have to quit their job if I can make a small change to my behaviour for a part of my day. It would be much easier for me to adjust my eating, rather than force her to be sick or unemployed. I'm just not that selfish. 

Your earlier comment about "hypochondria" suggests that having a perfume allergy is a choice. You haven't identified yourself as a doctor (and what doctor would ever be so humble as to call himself "just a guy"?), and you've never examined my husband or the original poster, so I don't think you are in a position to say that their illness is a choice and not a real disability. 

You last and lamest attempt at a slippery slope argument shows how far you want to get away from the issue of people selfishly choosing to wear perfume and make other people sick -- if the water allergy in the NHL is a real thing and not another thing that you've just imagined, there is no indication that other people's consumption of water would have any impact on the alleged allergy sufferer. And drinking water is essential for life and hockey (but I repeat myself). Wearing perfume isn't. It just isn't. It is an unnecessary frill that is making co-workers sick. 

Again, I am so glad that society is evolving past atitudes like yours. The world does indeed get better.


----------



## Just a Guy

You act as if it is one persons maliciously wearing perfume to injure your husband instead of hundreds of people using hundreds of different products...go to a store and look at how many products have scents in them, it's not just perfume it's laundry detergent, deodorants, soap, the list is endless...

If it was a one on one thing, you'd have an argument, but reality is a little different.


----------



## Davis

No, it is just perfume (and scented hand cream). it isn't soap or deodorant or laundry detergent. In the case of the OP and my husband, the one or two people wearing perfume were asked to stop, but continued to do so. In neither case is it about hundreds of people using hundreds of different products. Laundry soaps, deodorant, etc. on other people do not give off enough scent to cause a problem. A scented laundry soap did cause a problem when he wore clothes washed in it, so we threw it away and use an unscented product. And he doesn't wear other people's clothes, so they can use whatevwer they want.

Once again you take the discussion off to imaginary places. Getting back again to the real issue at hand, it is about a few people choosing to wear perfume when they know that it makes someone sick. It seems that they do not accept that it makes him sick. Maybe they think he's being a hypochondriac or something. If people are going to make stupid decisions to about something so minor as wearing perfume without regard to the impact that it has on the health of a co-worker, the eemployer has to do something. 

It really is just perfume making someone sick. There is no need to wear perfume at work.


----------



## none

Perhaps they just need a reminder - it may be an honest mistake and not malicious. Most people (well maybe not the Just a guy fellow) are more than happy to provide reasonable accommodation when asked. For example, Justaguy is still on the board and not banned even with his rather irritating attitude. Glad to accommodate!


----------



## Just a Guy

Well, if you look at the first posting, the op was complaining about the entire workforce, not just one person. The op also went on to claim all scents, not just perfume. 

As I said before, if it's one person, my attitude is different than if you are expecting a large number of people to change.


----------



## gibor365

_Only a sick f*** would choose to makes a co-worker ill so he/she can smell pretty._ Oh, really?! And if my co-worker is going to be ill if I use after-shave, I shouldn't use it and have allergy by myself?! On the other hand , some my co-workers who doesn't use parfume, make me ill


----------



## james4beach

Addy said:


> I left my work at noon last Thursday due to a migraine. I vomited in my truck on the way home. Oh joy. I told my VP that I was going home due to a migraine from someone wearing perfume. VP could care less, which is fair she has a hospital to run. I will be resigning in the spring once I've saved up more towards my f-u fund.


Please review all the policy documents of your work place. There might be a policy in there that already protects you, and that would be an easy fix. If there's an existing policy, push to have it enforced


----------



## Davis

Just a guy: "The op also went on to claim all scents, not just perfume." She said she is bothered by scents, but she only asked her co-workers to stop wearing perfunme, not change tehir laundry detergent or stop wearing deodorant. let's stick to the subject.

Gibor: "Oh, really?! And if my co-worker is going to be ill if I use after-shave, I shouldn't use it and have allergy by myself?! On the other hand , some my co-workers who doesn't use parfume, make me ill" Your rambling doesn't make much sense. There is no such thing as have an allergy to _not_ wearing aftershave. People bathe. People wear deodorant or anti-perspirant. No-one has to wear perfume. You can go back to your homophobic rants now.


----------



## Just a Guy

On a post that says "no-scent policy" I'd say you're the one not sticking to the subject. You've twisted it to one person wearing perfume that affects my husband...a much more self centred topic than the original poster, or the thread.

My arguement was one person shouldn't have more rights than an entire organization of people. That was basically it. 

Since this seems to be going nowhere, I think I'll leave it be at we'll agree to disagree.


----------



## gibor365

> There is no such thing as have an allergy to not wearing aftershave.


 Oh. really! maybe only if you shave your armpits ... probably you never shaved... A lot of males have allergy if they don't use aftershave ... when i was younger, I experienced it on my own skin... 



> No-one has to wear perfume.


 what a stupid atatement!



> one person wearing perfume that affects my husband..


I just doubt that she really has a husband :biggrin:


----------



## Davis

And bigots like you are usually angry men sitting alone in basement apartments.


----------



## Davis

Just a Guy - the one thing that we can agree on is that the argument isn't going anywhere, so I agree with you that we should let it drop. I shouldn't let myself get into an argument with Gibor. The problem with wrestling with a pig is that you end up covered in mud, and only the pig enjoys it.


----------



## gibor365

> The problem with wrestling with a pig is that you end up covered in mud, and only the pig enjoys it.


 Oh...interesting hobby for female to wrestle with pigs and looks like you have rich experience  ... really, than why do you need to wear parfume?! :biggrin:


----------



## sags

These are the kinds of "problems" that used to have the union reps pulling out their hair.

In a large workplace where people intermingled closely with each other..........we had people who went "jogging" at lunch in the hot summer sun. They would come back sweaty and there were no showers available. We had a person who lived on a pig farm and apparently the odour sticks to people like glue.

People were constantly at the union reps..........to get them to force the company to require the people to apply some perfume to mask the smells.

Keeping everyone happy is an impossible task.

The only solution is to require employees to conduct themselves within the rules and policies of the company and workplace legislation.............and keep opinions out of it.

If it is company policy that the workplace is a non scent workplace.............then it should be enforced.

If it isn't company policy and there is no legislation governing the action.............people will have to put up with it or find another job.


----------



## gibor365

Davis :


> wrestling with a pig


sags :


> We had a person who lived on a pig farm


Guys, did you work together?!


----------



## sags

Hahaha...............maybe............


----------



## Davis

Yeah, so a scent allergy is recognized as a disability, and the rights of people with disabilities to reasonable accommodation in the workplace are recognized in law. Fortunately, neither the OP or my husband work with pig farmers so it is not an issue.


----------



## Just a Guy

In their defence, pigs are actually quite clean animals given the choice. It's the humans who lock them in small contained areas and don't clean the area. 

Chickens, on the other hand, stink. 

I've had both.


----------

