3 ms·

> 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

> 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.

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.