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

[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."

[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.