- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
How close are we to this already?
Political Correctness
- Thread starter Jed
- Start date
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 26,531
- Points
- 1,160
Remius said:
Me. And it's hell.
Some schools have a common sense approach, which relies on the personal responsibility of the kid with the allergy to not eat another kids' PBJ Sammy. At our school, you risk death by hemp hangman's noose for transgressing the 'no nuts or nut products or anything that might have even looked at a nut or been in the same area code' rule.
- Reaction score
- 265
- Points
- 980
Flavus101 said:
What does that have to do with being politically correct?
People do not have to bathe in Axe or Brut or Vanilla Musk to promote good hygiene or personal grooming. It is strictly vanity and complete unnecessary.
No scent zones happened because those chemicals do impact people.
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
Scott said:
I think we have arrived at that, in step with the measures taken for all other allergies such as the previously mentioned peanut allergy preventative steps taken in schools, etc. It is not that it has an impact on people, but that we are narrowing down what people are "allowed or not allowed to do in public".
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Scott said:
As George said below, this was brought up because it effects what people can and cannot do. Look at this from my point of view.
1. Are colognes and deodorants legal? Yes.
2. Is the percentage of people affected small? Definitely yes.
Why should I not be able to put on a squirt of cologne that 97.6% of the population (According to Statistics Canada 2.4% of the population has a scent "sensitivity") does not have a problem with?
I agree, you should not bathe in the stuff. Nobody likes that. However to ban something that the vast majority of the population uses because a tiny group of people are affected by it seems to be a poor use of "democracy".
I also have my doubts about whether or not these scent sensitivities are medically diagnosable for the majority of those who claim to have this issue. Some people cannot stand the smell of manure, should farmers be prevented from fertilizing their fields?
- Reaction score
- 265
- Points
- 980
Flavus101 said:
We can play this game all day.
I understand, accept, and encourage that people, most people, can stay within the acceptable norm of how much cologne/perfume they apply, to the point where it is an enhancement. The problem lies with the (likely 2.4 as well) percent who soak themselves in the stuff. Since we can't fairly state that only a certain amount be applied we just ban it.
I have developed a sensitivity to scents. Not all, but enough that it legitimately bothers me. I cannot do anything about what others wear, unlike someone who can police themselves, to a point, when it comes to food based allergies.
If you and I meet at a local bar, restaurant or even in the mall and I find myself reacting to whatever you're wearing I simply accept this as a matter of being in a public place. Work is entirely different.
Tell me the legitimate "need" for cologne, please. I have zero issue with deodorants. One is a part of good grooming and hygiene, the other is pure vanity.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I thank-you for being reasonable and I will do my best to be reasonable here as well.
Now please don't take this next bit as completely irrelevant because I will bring it back to relevance at the end. ;D
Banning things that people find pleasurable is 9/10 a losing battle. I am not saying we shouldn't do "the right thing" because it is most likely going to be a losing battle. What I am saying is that there is usually a better way to go about it.
You agree that people should be able to put on a reasonable amount of cologne (or whatever scent product they fancy that day). I agree that people shouldn't be a walking perfume store. I don't claim to have a one size fits all solution to this. There has to be a better way than just outright banning something that the majority of people actually enjoy. I think it should start with conversation, the employees talking to each other like humans and letting each know that it isn't a problem to wear a squirt or two but the amount you're wearing now is too much.
I admit there is no "need" for cologne whereby you would die without it. There is also no "need" for air fresheners, candles, etc. It is something that the majority of people like.
Perhaps I am just backwards in my thinking. I would still like to hear your thoughts on other alternatives to policing the workplace of scents other than an outright ban?
Now please don't take this next bit as completely irrelevant because I will bring it back to relevance at the end. ;D
Banning things that people find pleasurable is 9/10 a losing battle. I am not saying we shouldn't do "the right thing" because it is most likely going to be a losing battle. What I am saying is that there is usually a better way to go about it.
You agree that people should be able to put on a reasonable amount of cologne (or whatever scent product they fancy that day). I agree that people shouldn't be a walking perfume store. I don't claim to have a one size fits all solution to this. There has to be a better way than just outright banning something that the majority of people actually enjoy. I think it should start with conversation, the employees talking to each other like humans and letting each know that it isn't a problem to wear a squirt or two but the amount you're wearing now is too much.
I admit there is no "need" for cologne whereby you would die without it. There is also no "need" for air fresheners, candles, etc. It is something that the majority of people like.
Perhaps I am just backwards in my thinking. I would still like to hear your thoughts on other alternatives to policing the workplace of scents other than an outright ban?
- Reaction score
- 265
- Points
- 980
Flavus101 said:
No probs. I appreciate the same in return.
Unfortunately, the one employee/coworker that you cannot talk to is the one that drives the ban. This is how it happened in one of my workplaces. In the interest of clarity and transparency, I am a safety officer at my workplace, so this comes right into my wheelhouse and I happen to hear both sides of the debate - as well as my admitted chemical sensitivity which makes also makes me a stakeholder.
Let's start with a fact: You have a reasonable expectation, a right, if you will, to expect that your workplace will be free of things that present a hazard to you and possibly impede your performance and enjoyment of the space. I have the exact same rights. You enjoy wearing cologne. In fact, so do I. But I also have this funny schnoz that goes all apeshit with certain scents. Might be perfume/cologne, might be potpourri. To the point of a decent headache and/or an inability to taste mint flavoured chewing gum. In this case, your enjoyment of that strongly scented cologne is interfering with my enjoyment of my space, and because your cologne is an add-on, something that is not a need or requirement, my beak happens to win any debate.
In this case specifically, it's not a case of "suck it up" like some, perhaps even in this thread, would like to believe. It's a legitimate unwell feeling that people do suffer from, I can attest to this personally. And because it's difficult to discern just who is going to be affected, it becomes far easier just to ban the stuff. Because it is strictly vanity it makes that job a whole lot easier. We are not discussing eating foods with nuts or exposure to nuts, we are talking about a scent that has exactly zero bearing on how you perform, but can affect how others perform. It's not society becoming more limp waisted or pandering to the weak.
Those are the broad strokes.
Now to narrow it down:
If only it worked that way, right? I'd have less to do.
I did have an interaction similar to that with one of my coworkers.
Now I'll tell you about a similar interaction between two others.
To be fair, it could also, just as easily, go this way:
So, because of the latter two interactions, management just bans the stuff and takes away any rational discourse. Roughly 2.4% of people are affected, and 2.4% of people are assholes about it, one way or the other. Management has no way of knowing who is going to be a Flavus, or who is going to be a Ramona. They want Scott to show up to work and produce, so the easiest thing is to just ban it.
And have we seen one court challenge of it? I am going to go out on a limb here and not google that, because I think it would be pretty flimsy.
Edited to modify sentence structure, not content.
- Reaction score
- 4,844
- Points
- 1,060
Providing they are safe and equitable, the employer has the right to set the rules of the workplace. If they say 'no scents', that's what they mean.
Yes, you have rights.
That being, you have a right to the work, if employed there, as described, within the terms of reference.
Or the right not to work there if you find the rules too onerous for you.
No different than when an employer set out that you will have, say, safety boots for the job. So, you wear safety boots to work..........or you don't work.
There is no difference between the two examples.
Yes, you have rights.
That being, you have a right to the work, if employed there, as described, within the terms of reference.
Or the right not to work there if you find the rules too onerous for you.
No different than when an employer set out that you will have, say, safety boots for the job. So, you wear safety boots to work..........or you don't work.
There is no difference between the two examples.
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
Scott said:
Now if you become the Harassment Adviser guy, you will have to take a different tack. [
- Reaction score
- 1,332
- Points
- 1,260
Flavus101 said:
For what it is worth to the discussion,
Guidelines for Addressing Scented Product-Related Concerns in the Workplace
http://wx.toronto.ca/intra/hr/policies.nsf/9fff29b7237299b385256729004b844b/d5888b275f32a92385256cc3005ded1e?OpenDocument
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
One more series of questions and then I will most likely give up my backwards way of thinking. ;D
When you say workplace, what do you define as the workplace? Is a school considered a workplace? If so, does it extend past secondary school? How about a mall? Or a driver examiner who has to enter personal cars. Are the cars considered to be the workplace?
What I am trying to get at is where do we draw the line as a reasonable place to have scent free zones?
In a perfect world those Romano's are the ones that should have to suffer. Not the Scott's and Flavus'. I sadly know that we do not live in a perfect world.
When you say workplace, what do you define as the workplace? Is a school considered a workplace? If so, does it extend past secondary school? How about a mall? Or a driver examiner who has to enter personal cars. Are the cars considered to be the workplace?
What I am trying to get at is where do we draw the line as a reasonable place to have scent free zones?
In a perfect world those Romano's are the ones that should have to suffer. Not the Scott's and Flavus'. I sadly know that we do not live in a perfect world.
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
A very good course to go on when offered, no matter what you or others may think, the Harassment Adviser Crse, which has this handy publication:
Harassment Prevention And Resolution Guidelines
What constitutes a "workplace"?
Pay particular attention to the last part of that statement: "where work relationships exist". That could mean anywhere where workers employed at the same place may gather as a group.....ie. the MESS after work on a Base, or a neighbourhood pub where they may have a Team Card or even a Company sports team. That is an area that can cause concerns in the HA world when people start slagging other colleagues.
Harassment Prevention And Resolution Guidelines
What constitutes a "workplace"?
Pay particular attention to the last part of that statement: "where work relationships exist". That could mean anywhere where workers employed at the same place may gather as a group.....ie. the MESS after work on a Base, or a neighbourhood pub where they may have a Team Card or even a Company sports team. That is an area that can cause concerns in the HA world when people start slagging other colleagues.
- Reaction score
- 265
- Points
- 980
Flavus101 said:
Definitions depend on provincial/territorial laws.
If you're a teacher then school is your place of work. Administrators can put a no scent rule in place for employees and can do the same for students. That's been done already, and easily.
Vehicles have long been considered workplaces in certain areas. For example, when smoke free workplaces came into effect in BC lots of guys ran afoul of this policy by smoking in work vehicles.
Let's look at the mall, because you have two distinct groups: employees or people who, as a part of their work, do things like deliver items to mall employees; and you have the patrons. The scent policy would cover employees and visitors engaged by store staff so that other staff would not be adversely affected by the scent. You could stretch this by mandating that if an employee finds a patron's scent to be too much to handle then they have a mechanism in place to ask someone else to wait on the person.
By no means is it perfect, but there is a linear approach to it in most cases.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Thank-you for taking the time to lay out your side of things Scott.
I do not agree with how far this no-scent policy reaches. However, in an office setting I completely get where you are coming from and you have changed my mind for that scenario.
I do not agree with how far this no-scent policy reaches. However, in an office setting I completely get where you are coming from and you have changed my mind for that scenario.
- Reaction score
- 4,844
- Points
- 1,060
Ontario definition
“workplace” means any land, premises, location or thing at, upon, in or near which a worker works; (“lieu de travail”)
Federal
work place means any place where an employee is engaged in work for the employee’s employer; (lieu de travail)
“workplace” means any land, premises, location or thing at, upon, in or near which a worker works; (“lieu de travail”)
Federal
work place means any place where an employee is engaged in work for the employee’s employer; (lieu de travail)
Similar threads
