The human right for McDonald's employees not to wash their hands

[33girl]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

Question, could one not just wear latex gloves and wash them throughout the day if the handwashing is too much? I don't work in food service myself but I must say if I had to wash my hands that much, they'd be bleeding. My skin is far too dry for that level of "hygiene."

ETA: I see in this case, she was told not to wear gloves because they aggravated her condition.

Soap + latex, on ANYONE'S hands, would probably chew them up in record time. Not to mention the water getting stuck under the gloves and drying out your hands. You should put on a new pair every time you wash your hands.

If you work in ANY restaurant you have to wash your hands a lot. If she developed a skin condition from all the handwashing, she has to find another line of business. Period.

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by Lady Pi Phi

I'm not saying it's right. Just how it is. What she should be doing is either not handling food at all, or changing her gloves everytime she handles different food.

Interesting.

At the cafeteria in the building where I work, some of the food is made to order (hamburgers, etc.) and some pre-cooked.

It seemed to me that the man who runs the grill portion changed gloves a lot. It seemed to me to be excessive.

However, on closer observation, he changes them (throwing the old pair away) each time he touches any kind of raw meat for the made to order things. (ie: steak slices for a Cheese Steak -- not something that is pre-cooked in this situation)

That makes a lot of sense to me.

Also, my for what it's worth opinion is that if washing hands or wearing gloves is hard on a person's hands, they probably shouldn't be in the food service industry. While they may have rights, so does the eating public.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

I wonder what will happen if, God forbid, someone were to contract a disease from that McDonald's because of this insane order. Could such a victim sue McDonald's for failing to live up to its legal public health requirements, even though McDonald's wanted to do so? Or could the BCHRT itself be sued? Would your answer be different if it was just one customer who got an upset stomach -- or a dozen people dying from e. coli, Walkerton style?

I won't be visiting there anytime soon. This is disgusting. Someone will definitely get sick. After someone washes their hand there's still endospores from the bacteria on the hands which are able to survive adverse conditions, such as extremely dry, hot, or cold environments. I can't even imagine how much bacteria were on her hands from not washing them. Yuck!

[AKA_Monet]

Eewl!!! Yuk!!! Gross!!! Now that's why I have limited my eating out experiences, cuz some folks--nasty... These public health rules are put in place for a REASON--shit travels fast!!! I am NOT interested in boosting my immune system today! I do not need to be laid out down for the count for 2 weeks with 0.9% Sodium Chloride solution IV drip. HAYLE NO!! Just wash your hands preferably with the foaming soap 15 seconds under 42 degree C water--preferably 121 C at autoclave And dry with an auto dispensing papertowel duly thrown away.

MRSA and strept are NOT a joke to have, these days... Talk about foot and mouth disease...

[1908Revelations]

I was at a Logans (Hoover, AL, HWY 150) where there was a garbage can overflowing and one of the managers pushed the trash down in the can with his bare hands and did not wash them! He proceded to had plates to the waters.

When I told on his nasty behind he called me a liar....but other people saw it.

[tld221]

so no one is concerned that the woman's compensation of $50K+ for "lost wages?" what was SHE making at McD and where do i sign up?

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by tld221

so no one is concerned that the woman's compensation of $50K+ for "lost wages?" what was SHE making at McD and where do i sign up?

not as concerned as I am that it's okay to not wash your hands in canadian resturants now (or was the order just for that one mcDonald's).

the dollar amount seems rather like a footnote to me. And besides, cost of living might be really high up there, so who knows if it was good money for the mcd's job or just standard

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by tld221

so no one is concerned that the woman's compensation of $50K+ for "lost wages?" what was SHE making at McD and where do i sign up?

If the case dragged on for over a year it makes even more sense.

[macallan25]

This reminds me of the woman that sued McDonalds when she spilled hot coffee all over herself. Wasn't her compensation outrageous?

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by macallan25

This reminds me of the woman that sued McDonalds when she spilled hot coffee all over herself. Wasn't her compensation outrageous?

No Brother, it ended up being less than what everyone remembers.
Also that case was a great deal like this in the way McDonalds handled it.
This is just one of many links about that case:
http://www.caoc.com/CA/index.cfm?eve...wPage&pg=facts

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by macallan25

This reminds me of the woman that sued McDonalds when she spilled hot coffee all over herself. Wasn't her compensation outrageous?

Originally Posted by jon1856

No Brother, it ended up being less than what everyone remembers.
Also that case was a great deal like this in the way McDonalds handled it.
This is just one of many links about that case:
http://www.caoc.com/CA/index.cfm?eve...wPage&pg=facts

Yeah, the McDonald's hot coffee case is one of the most frequently misquoted/misused illustrations that I see.

If you really look at the case, it's about a company that knowingly sells a dangerous product when it has other options to make the product safe but that cost the company a little more. It's often package or understood to be a case about dumb people who hurt themselves doing something stupid and then want to blame someone else and collect huge damages.

But McDonalds knew that the coffee they sold was hot enough to burn people's skin off. Seriously, they had documented complaints that it had done just that. Not that it was hot, like most of us like our coffee, but that they were selling a food product that if consumed as purchased would blister people's skin.

Here's a quote from Jon's link: "During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard."

They also knew that they could keep coffee at a lower, safer temperature that wouldn't burn people's skin off, but they would have had to make the coffee more frequently to keep the same quality. They decided to go with continuing to sell the coffee hot enough to burn your skin off.

Many of the damages in the case were originally to punish the company rather than anything related to the woman's claim of damages, if I remember correctly.

[jon1856]

To see the similarities and differences between this case:

Originally Posted by jon1856

This is a rather interesting HR (as in Human Resources/Labour Relations) story which involves public heath issues and matters.
The OP posted a blog story.
This is from the News: http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/n...1-bff4906c3a59
For the full back story, you may wish to read some of the following


HOW NOT TO ACCOMMODATE A DISABLED EMPLOYEE

Published on Monday, November 19, 2007

Every employer is (or, at least, should be) aware of its statutory duty to accommodate disabled employees. It seems, however, that some are more effective at meeting this duty than others. Or, perhaps it’s more appropriate to say that some are worse at it than others.

The statutory duty, arising out of provincial and federal human rights legislation, obligates the employer to take certain steps in enabling the disabled employee to become, or return as, a functioning member of the workforce. The employer must treat this obligation in a serious manner, patiently and carefully assessing the disabled individual’s condition.
http://www.pushormitchell.com/public...icle&PubID=259

http://www.filion.on.ca/pdf/caselaws/McDonalds.pdf
http://www.langmichener.ca/index.cfm...D=9812&tID=244
And yes, under their system of laws, matters of human rights can work into HR matters:
http://www.langmichener.ca/index.cfm...Detail&ID=3800
"Unbeknownst to employers, human rights tribunals have broader powers than the courts to address perceived wrongs in the workplace. For example, a terminated employee alleging discrimination of the grounds of sex, can seek an order of reinstatement, back pay and an assortment of damages through a human rights complaint."
It seems to be rather close to our civil right issues.

And the McDonald's coffee case:

Originally Posted by jon1856

No Brother, it ended up being less than what everyone remembers.
Also that case was a great deal like this in the way McDonald's handled it.
This is just one of many links about that case:
http://www.caoc.com/CA/index.cfm?eve...wPage&pg=facts

Add to the above link:
http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Stella_Liebeck
http://www.overlawyered.com/2005/10/...lla-liebe.html
Which includes this comment:
"Commenter cmdicely: the industry standard was to serve at a lower temperature
False: The National Coffee Association of the USA recommends serving at 180-190 degrees; another article suggests industry standard is 160 to 185 degrees.
According to a Sep. 1, 1994 Wall Street Journal interview with Reed Morgan, Liebeck's attorney, he measured the temperature at 18 restaurants and 20 McDonald's, and "McDonald's was responsible for nine of the twelve highest temperature readings." Which means that, even before one accounts for conscious or unconscious bias in the measurements, at least three, and probably more (what about the other eleven McDonald's?), restaurants were serving coffee at a higher temperature. And Starbucks serves at a higher temperature today, and faces lawsuits over third-degree burns as a result (Jan. 2, 2004).
Commenter Carl: I presume hundreds, if not thousands of people have been saved from severe burns from unreasonably hot coffee.
Commenter MSR: Go to your home coffee maker and make a cup; it will be at about 140 Fahrenheit.
False: To the extent that McDonald's and other restaurants lowered the temperature of their coffee, all it did was cost those institutions market share—people like hot coffee, and today Starbucks has gone from a local shop to a dominant national chain, despite prices several times higher than McDonald's, because they serve their coffee hotter than McDonald's served it to Stella Liebeck, recommending a temperature of 175 to 185 degrees. Starbucks faces suits over third-degree burns hot coffee cases (Jan. 2, 2004), and so does McDonald's Aug. 13). And, moreover, while in the early 1990's home coffeemakers only brewed up to 130-140 degrees, today people can and do buy far more expensive and higher-quality coffeemakers that can serve coffee at the 190-to-200-degree temperature that coffee is supposed to be brewed at."

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

Eewl!!! Yuk!!! Gross!!! Now that's why I have limited my eating out experiences, cuz some folks--nasty... These public health rules are put in place for a REASON--shit travels fast!!! I am NOT interested in boosting my immune system today! I do not need to be laid out down for the count for 2 weeks with 0.9% Sodium Chloride solution IV drip. HAYLE NO!! Just wash your hands preferably with the foaming soap 15 seconds under 42 degree C water--preferably 121 C at autoclave And dry with an auto dispensing papertowel duly thrown away.

MRSA and strept are NOT a joke to have, these days... Talk about foot and mouth disease...

lol lol lol lol lol

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by jon1856

To see the similarities and differences between this case:


And the McDonald's coffee case:


Add to the above link:
http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Stella_Liebeck
http://www.overlawyered.com/2005/10/...lla-liebe.html
Which includes this comment:
"Commenter cmdicely: the industry standard was to serve at a lower temperature
False: The National Coffee Association of the USA recommends serving at 180-190 degrees; another article suggests industry standard is 160 to 185 degrees.
According to a Sep. 1, 1994 Wall Street Journal interview with Reed Morgan, Liebeck's attorney, he measured the temperature at 18 restaurants and 20 McDonald's, and "McDonald's was responsible for nine of the twelve highest temperature readings." Which means that, even before one accounts for conscious or unconscious bias in the measurements, at least three, and probably more (what about the other eleven McDonald's?), restaurants were serving coffee at a higher temperature. And Starbucks serves at a higher temperature today, and faces lawsuits over third-degree burns as a result (Jan. 2, 2004).
Commenter Carl: I presume hundreds, if not thousands of people have been saved from severe burns from unreasonably hot coffee.
Commenter MSR: Go to your home coffee maker and make a cup; it will be at about 140 Fahrenheit.
False: To the extent that McDonald's and other restaurants lowered the temperature of their coffee, all it did was cost those institutions market share—people like hot coffee, and today Starbucks has gone from a local shop to a dominant national chain, despite prices several times higher than McDonald's, because they serve their coffee hotter than McDonald's served it to Stella Liebeck, recommending a temperature of 175 to 185 degrees. Starbucks faces suits over third-degree burns hot coffee cases (Jan. 2, 2004), and so does McDonald's Aug. 13). And, moreover, while in the early 1990's home coffeemakers only brewed up to 130-140 degrees, today people can and do buy far more expensive and higher-quality coffeemakers that can serve coffee at the 190-to-200-degree temperature that coffee is supposed to be brewed at."

I've just never been able to accept the idea that anyone wants to drink coffee that's hot enough to actually burn your skin to the point of blisters.

And it seems like there'd be a difference in the temperature that coffee is supposed to be brewed at and the temperature that you'd expect to serve it to be consumed.

On some level when the news of the case broke, I thought the woman failed to use common sense simply because I had discovered for myself that McDonald's coffee was way too hot to ever be drunk right after you bought it.

But I reevaluated my opinion of the suit when I learned exactly how hot it was because it seemed unreasonable to sell coffee hot enough to burn that badly.

Maybe I need to reevaluate again.

(I'm trying to figure out why Starbucks doesn't seem equally as hot, and maybe it's just the better construction of the cups and the insulating sleeves, but I've never had the impression that Starbucks was as hot at McDonalds when I went to consume the beverage. )

[CutiePie2000]

I do feel that handwashing when handling food is a BFOR (bonafide occupation requirement), but remember that even if you wash your hands religiously, when you're a cash handler, your hands will be fraught with gross bacteria pretty quickly, because paper money is filty!

Then you get into scooping up the french fries, handling the ketchup package (and then bacteria is all over them) and yeah, you've pretty much got the same story.