5 ms·

The reality is that a hypoallergenic-pet-only policy isn't all that useful. It's unfortunate for allergic people when dogs are allowed, but it's also potentiall

The reality is that a hypoallergenic-pet-only policy isn't all that useful. It's unfortunate for allergic people when dogs are allowed, but it's also potentially a boon to the company. Aside from the benefits of lowering stress, etc., there's also a substantial monetary benefit for people who would otherwise have to take their dogs to daycare or hire a walker for them. I was spending ~$7000/year on a walker in SF, so this isn't chump change. Ultimately, each company has to make its own decision about whether to prioritize those who are allergic to pets or those who wish to bring pets in the office. There are costs and benefits to each.

Raphmedia 7y ago
> The reality is that a hypoallergenic-pet-only policy isn't all that useful. Why wouldn't it be useful? Pet allergies can trigger anaphylaxis which can result in death. Allergies to dogs and cats affect 10%–20% of the population[1]. That's a big chunk of the workforce you are cutting away from your company. Purchasing a hypoallergenic animal for the office's pet is simply being responsible. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5809771/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5809771/
- sokoloff 7y ago
  It's not the office pet, it's many people's family pet that this policy targets allowing. People are realistically not going to replace a beloved family pet in order to be able to bring them to work.
  - Raphmedia 7y ago
    In this case, the responsible solution would be to provide a room where animals would be restricted, such as an indoor dog-park ventilated to the outside. The only time I saw animals roaming freely in an office was the office pet and those should be hypoallergenic.
    - thedaemon 7y ago
      Or restrict you to a particular room or area. That's the same difference except it makes more sense to me, since you are one of the rare people that are allergic to a common household pet.
      - Raphmedia 7y ago
        This collective consciousness apologizes. We often forget that we alone represent 10 to 20% of the human population. We will confine ourselves to the boiler room of our respective offices and continue to work from there. We have estimated that the increase in the number of visits for acute asthma care for adults with dog allergies who live with dogs could add up to $0.5 to $1.0 billion per year to the cost of care. Our control over the global economy is reaching new heights every day.
- awillen 7y ago
  It's not about buying an office dog, it's about people bringing their own pets to work. I'm not denying that it affects a portion of the population - like I said, there's a tradeoff that companies have to make. The anaphylaxis thing isn't a reasonable point at all, since people for whom that's the case will self select out of working at offices that have pets.
  - Raphmedia 7y ago
    > since people for whom that's the case will self select out of working at offices that have pets. Which is exactly my point. In my opinion, it is a waste to exclude 10% to 20% of the workforce to entertain the few people who really want to bring pets to the office. There's also the important to mention fact that adult-onset allergies exist. Allergies can appear suddenly and you would end up with an employee who needs to leave the company for medical reason. Some people might not be made aware of the presence of animals until it's too late to turn back. This has happened to me in the past. I only was made aware of the presence of a dog late in the hiring process. They had me tour the office and it's only when the dog randomly passed by that they told me "and this is [dog name] our office dog". Suffice to say I'm not working there - and dogs don't even trigger death inducing symptoms for me (cats however do). I may have skewed perceptions of my own value, but I think it is their loss.
kevinh 7y ago
> Ultimately, each company has to make its own decision about whether to prioritize those who are allergic to pets or those who wish to bring pets in the office. There are costs and benefits to each. Ultimately, it's a question of whether they want to comply with the ADA or not when considering which to prioritize.
- ndiscussion 7y ago
  Oh? Who's covered... the people with allergies, or the people who need a dog to work? I wasn't aware. Do you have any evidence for this?
  - Raphmedia 7y ago
    Both. However, here we are talking about pet animals and not service animals. Under Title III of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and virtually all state laws, a service animal is an animal that has been trained to perform work or tasks for the benefit of a person with a disability and In both the ADA and Section 504, a person with a disability is someone who has a physical or mental impairment that seriously limits one or more major life activities, or who is regarded as having such impairments. Asthma and allergies are usually considered disabilities under the ADA
    - pmiller2 7y ago
      That raises an interesting question: suppose a business has one employee who needs a service dog and another who is allergic to dogs. Both individuals can be accomodated individually, but there is no realistic way to accommodate both without creating "undue hardship" to the business. Who wins priority? This may be an unrealistic scenario, but it's at least an interesting hypothetical.

Raphmedia 7y ago

> The reality is that a hypoallergenic-pet-only policy isn't all that useful. Why wouldn't it be useful? Pet allergies can trigger anaphylaxis which can result in death. Allergies to dogs and cats affect 10%–20% of the population[1]. That's a big chunk of the workforce you are cutting away from your company. Purchasing a hypoallergenic animal for the office's pet is simply being responsible. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5809771/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5809771/

sokoloff 7y ago
It's not the office pet, it's many people's family pet that this policy targets allowing. People are realistically not going to replace a beloved family pet in order to be able to bring them to work.
- Raphmedia 7y ago
  In this case, the responsible solution would be to provide a room where animals would be restricted, such as an indoor dog-park ventilated to the outside. The only time I saw animals roaming freely in an office was the office pet and those should be hypoallergenic.
  - thedaemon 7y ago
    Or restrict you to a particular room or area. That's the same difference except it makes more sense to me, since you are one of the rare people that are allergic to a common household pet.
    - Raphmedia 7y ago
      This collective consciousness apologizes. We often forget that we alone represent 10 to 20% of the human population. We will confine ourselves to the boiler room of our respective offices and continue to work from there. We have estimated that the increase in the number of visits for acute asthma care for adults with dog allergies who live with dogs could add up to $0.5 to $1.0 billion per year to the cost of care. Our control over the global economy is reaching new heights every day.
awillen 7y ago
It's not about buying an office dog, it's about people bringing their own pets to work. I'm not denying that it affects a portion of the population - like I said, there's a tradeoff that companies have to make. The anaphylaxis thing isn't a reasonable point at all, since people for whom that's the case will self select out of working at offices that have pets.
- Raphmedia 7y ago
  > since people for whom that's the case will self select out of working at offices that have pets. Which is exactly my point. In my opinion, it is a waste to exclude 10% to 20% of the workforce to entertain the few people who really want to bring pets to the office. There's also the important to mention fact that adult-onset allergies exist. Allergies can appear suddenly and you would end up with an employee who needs to leave the company for medical reason. Some people might not be made aware of the presence of animals until it's too late to turn back. This has happened to me in the past. I only was made aware of the presence of a dog late in the hiring process. They had me tour the office and it's only when the dog randomly passed by that they told me "and this is [dog name] our office dog". Suffice to say I'm not working there - and dogs don't even trigger death inducing symptoms for me (cats however do). I may have skewed perceptions of my own value, but I think it is their loss.

kevinh 7y ago

> Ultimately, each company has to make its own decision about whether to prioritize those who are allergic to pets or those who wish to bring pets in the office. There are costs and benefits to each. Ultimately, it's a question of whether they want to comply with the ADA or not when considering which to prioritize.

ndiscussion 7y ago
Oh? Who's covered... the people with allergies, or the people who need a dog to work? I wasn't aware. Do you have any evidence for this?
- Raphmedia 7y ago
  Both. However, here we are talking about pet animals and not service animals. Under Title III of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and virtually all state laws, a service animal is an animal that has been trained to perform work or tasks for the benefit of a person with a disability and In both the ADA and Section 504, a person with a disability is someone who has a physical or mental impairment that seriously limits one or more major life activities, or who is regarded as having such impairments. Asthma and allergies are usually considered disabilities under the ADA
  - pmiller2 7y ago
    That raises an interesting question: suppose a business has one employee who needs a service dog and another who is allergic to dogs. Both individuals can be accomodated individually, but there is no realistic way to accommodate both without creating "undue hardship" to the business. Who wins priority? This may be an unrealistic scenario, but it's at least an interesting hypothetical.