Interesting thread.

I don't mind dogs, from a distance.

Not in the workplace though

Now it has got me wondering, if people are allergic to dogs, would that give them a terrible cough?

Kind of like you might get from someone vaping near you.

Just wondering :-)

Watcher, interesting point you make.

My son had a problem in his workplace that we are sure was caused by his colleagues vaporing in the enclosed area.

He is allergic to some breeds of dog but not all.

We have three dogs, all mixed breeds, (they used to be mongrels but the canine equality act does not allow that now ha ha he).

One is a Yorkie, another looks like a Welsh Terrier, the third is mostly Bichon.

The breeds he is allergic to are the spanial type that lose their hair frequently.

I can see why some of you may have it all sorted, but actually it's not suitable for most work places. Certainly not ours. As far as I am concerned, you do what's practical. Why introduce a risk if there is no need to?

I can see very few places where actually it would work. It wouldn't work at my workplace and we have enough to do accessing the risks already in place, never mind introducing new ones.

I walked through one of our local parks a few months ago with my 9 year old son, and it's become a popular dog walking spot where owners quite often let their dogs off the lead for a run around. If you have a well behaved dog, that's fine, but as a person who does not know you or your dog, I can't be expected to know that. I have owned dogs most of my life so I love them, but one particular dog came running over to my son and began jumping up at him. He was being very friendly, but my son didn't know and the dog wouldn't get down. Not only did he frighten my son, but he covered him in mud and god knows what else. The owner didn't give a damn at all, and said if we didn't like a park with dogs in it, we shouldn't be there. I had to remind him that it was a 'public' park. Not a 'dog walkers' park and you have a duty to be responsible. I could well have lamped him for his careless attitude to anyone else apart form dog people. Sorry, but that makes my blood boil.

Same for the owner who let their extendable dog lead go right across the cycle path knocking my daughter off her bike then insisting it was my fault because my daughter should have known that dogs take precedent over everything else including my daughter's safety. Oh and the one who let their dog run all over my family picnic and then laughed at us when we asked them to control their dog after it had trod on, cocked it's leg and then ate some of the food. Ruined picnic because of a careless owner.

Not related to this, but sets a scene that some dog owners can be very selfish about their animals to the detriment of anyone else. Not saying this is anything like people on here who may be very responsible owners, but some people just don't like dogs, or don't want them around them in their workplaces. If you have found that everyone agrees and it works, great, but for most people, they wouldn't want it.

It's a workplace for most, somewhere they expect to come and not expect to see any animals unless a guide dog, or unless you happen to be in a place where animals is the business. I can't be expected to know the nature of any animal unless in a controlled environment. That's not most workplaces.

Sorry to sound like the kill joy but common sense should tell you not to introduce anything that may cause more problems than it solves.

Where you have that in place, what if a new person comes to work for you and they have numerous allergies and can't tolerate any animal contact? Surely you would have to then remove animals where this is not a core task of your business to benefit the person? You can't expect the person to start wearing masks or PPE and risk having a reaction and a potentially fatal reaction.

If you don't do it in the first place, then you don't have the issue, full stop.

There are very few bad dogs, but there are plenty of bad owners.

So who do you think will bring the dogs into work!

As I said at the beginning this is not about health and safety this is about management avoiding making a decision.

Taking this from a purely H&S perspective, without emotional content, one should ask the following questions:

Q] Do dogs in the workplace introduce a new risk?
A] Yes - whichever way you look at it, dogs in the workplace introduce their own risk, whether this be to people with allergies, because they can create a trip hazard, introduce fleas, they can mess on the floor - whatever the reason, introducing dogs to the workplace introduces its own risks.

So, using the hierarchical controls:

Q] Can the risk be eliminated?
A] Yes, prohibit dogs (except those which are necessary under the Equality Act) from coming into the workplace

Simple. It's a health and safety question using the hierarchical tools at our disposal to reduce the risk to the lowest level possible.

If it was any other, less emotive, subject we would all be agreeing totally that we can't introduce unnecessary risks, but because we are talking about man's best friend we seem to have left the basic fundamentals of health and safety management out of the equation.

You cannot introduce a risk into a workplace which may have a debilitating effect on those people that work there - and consider it "OK" because it's a cute fluffy dog that you love.

Let's not forget that occupational asthma is reportable under RIDDOR and if the dog is the result of that occupational asthma then the consequences could be very severe indeed.

The requirement to provide hot drinks is in the ACOP to provision 25 of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations - it is not an avoidable risk, it is a legal requirement.

What about the stress now caused to the employees who have suffered an alergy when they didn't need to, becuaes someone wanted to introduce a dog into the workplace. Outside the workplace you can choose to go were you want to either be with dogs or not. If dogs are introduced to the workplace then you have no choice.

If you want animals in your job, work for the RSPCA, dogs trust etc. or when applying for job ask if they allow dogs and if the answer is no go elsewhere.

Sorry, it was always risk created by work, wearing shoes is not a work activity, nor is making a cup of tea. But having someones dog walking around so people can trip over, get bitten, have allergies, fear, anexity, stress, stepping in dog muck and urine, is created by a manager or director who allowed it without looking at the risk.

We should go back to activities created by work, never agreed with the nanny state mumbojumbo, of having to assess everything including, making tea, using a micro wave, walking up and down stairs, doors in case someone opens it and hits someone else all complete and utter garbage and has no place in H&S or risk assessment.

Hillary

You may have missed earlier post about allergies and links and quotes from HSE.

The risk of allergy has not been ignored, but has been well covered in this thread. It would form a part of your risk assessment. If someone had a dog allergy then it would need to be addressed.

Occupational asthma is reportable, but the the criteria are high for this. It can be caused by many things. But if you look back on my posts check out the quote from the HSE on Dog Allergy.

Ian

Animals have been part of work for well.......thousands of years. When humans figured out how to use horses for transport, it radically changed what was able to be accomplished. Those same horses would in some instances also be pets.

Can non-working animals be in a workplace? Of course they can, just as any other risk that needs to be managed appropriately and there equally needs to be a rational justification for automatically pursuing the elimination route. Risk assessment and a strategic management decision which informs the organisations policy in this regards is what is required. That is enshrined in UK H&S legislation and is quite frankly a common sense approach, although as they say, sense is not always common.

The mouth breathing exhibited on this topic is literally breath taking.

Ian

I didn't miss it, but perhaps you misunderstood it. It says that dogs and cats can be asthmagens but it is difficult to prove because people may come into contact with them in a different environment. However, when a person with asthma knows they are allergic to dogs and cats, they make special arrangements NOT to come into contact with them in a different environment. What asthmatic in their right mind thinks "I know, I'll pet a few dogs and cats today because I want to spend the next three days struggling for every breath"? Exactly none, that's how many. Same goes for eczema, quick pat of a dog and the hands swell, the face goes blotchy, the eyes get itchy and stream, and sometimes you don't even need to pat them, just be in close proximity. Why should people who suffer from these complaints and stay away from triggers in their personal lives be subjected to them at work? And why, when it doesn't affect their actual job, should they be health screened? It's a bit of an invasion of privacy, I'm not sure it's even legal....

and Ian, perhaps you missed the correct spelling of my name .... just saying.

It looks like I have been barking up the wrong tree during this debate, a lot of people have had a tail to tell about the for's and against, and fur enough we all have an opinion.

I kept my ear to the ground but have found the argument for very paw, but it has been a bonus to feed the argument, I normally have a nose for this type of thing and have no bone to pick with anyone. This has been leading people a merry dance, but I have been collared being involved.

and for this reason I'm out.

Anyway i'm off for a biscuit and a run, I'm sick and tired of lying under this desk waiting for my master to go out so I can get onto the IOSH website.

I am fairly neutral on this one to be honest, though I regard it as my professional mission to never say 'no' unless there's a genuine reason. And in my view almost all the reasons cited in this thread for not allowing dogs are HR/contract issues and nowt to do with H&S. Mission creep like I say.

So lets deal with the single genuine health issue we have identified. Dogs shed hair and dandruff, which can cause sever allergic reactions in sensitised people. Fair enough. Well, actually, that's not quite true, there are dogs which don't shed and have a much lower risk of causing a reaction. So we should allow poodles.

I also note that everybody says we have to allow assistance dogs (I do agree by the way). But surely all the problems identified with dogs, especially the allergy stuff, applies to assistance dogs. How, in practical terms would one of the allergy sufferers on this thread deal with an assistance dog? After all, asthma is asthma whether caused by a working dog or not,

John

This thread is now very old (about 110 in human years), its had a good life.
I believe its time to have it put down.

Invictus,

Sorry, I don't buy your reasons for accepting one class of dogs over another. If you replace 'assistance' with 'well-controlled' your comments would work just a swell. So it's down to RA again, with owner control of the dog being one of the control measures.

There's nothing special about assistance dogs as dogs, the relevant difference is that they are properly trained. Other dogs can also be well-trained.

Remember, I'm fairly neutral here, but if the H&S reasons for banning dogs don't apply to assistance dogs then banning dogs is not the only available control measure. If your reasons are to do with HR or line-management issues then leave it to HR or line management,

John

OK, I don't want to get too bogged down in this, but the relevant risk from a H&S perspective is asthma and other allergic reactions (if we assume that we are only allowing properly trained dogs so people don't get bitten). This risk is the same whether it's an assistance dog or not; the only variable is the breed of dog. I do take your point about depriving the owner of the use of the dog, and that's why I would almost always allow the use of assistance dogs. Apart from the fact that the equalities act makes it very difficult not to.

My point is that a dog is a dog is a dog. If we allow assistance dogs at least part of the rationale for this is that they are well-trained. Well, many other dogs are well-trained, and some are low risk for allergens. So where's the H&S perspective?

And as for soiling the floor; well, I know of plenty of dogs who never ever do that. That's part of being well-trained. And that comes back to ground rules and RA.

The rest is mission creep, and not H&S,

John

With regard to Guide dogs. As a sufferer I can tell you what I would do, you are correct guide dogs don't tend to jump about etc however you don't actually need to touch the dog. If I was in a bank queue near the front and a guide dog came in and was at the back I would try and complete my business quickly and get out. If I was at the back and they stood behind me I would leave the queue and the bank and wait outside.

In a work environment I simply would not remain in the same room unless an extremely large room. I would request relocation or work from home. If I could not be accommodated, I would seek employment elsewhere very quickly.

Cafe / pub etc I would just leave or not enter - no fuss.

I would not make a fuss about any of the above to the blind person in any way ( I could easily end up in their position, but without the dog). I would probably not make a fuss with an employer either, just simple request.

Red blotchy itchy skin, eyes streaming so much you cant see properly and sneezing. It would be no point in staying in work, as I would not be able to do any work like that. After exposure the effects last for some considerable time.

The RNIB suggest segregation and in places like school rooms etc that the dog is kept out of the class room and the blind person has a sighted guide to help them. I don't see why the same could not apply to the workplace. So still no dogs in work areas !

Chris

In the interests of diversity, avoidance of discrimination, etc., Invictus's suggested rota at #65 surely should include occasional days for exotic pets such as snakes, iguanas, large hairy spiders, rats and pot-bellied pigs! However, it would be wise to exclude pet alpacas, llamas and camels from workplaces on account of their propensity, according to internet sources, to spit at anyone they dislike - especially as their 'spit' includes semi-digested food from their stomachs as well as saliva. Furthermore, the volume of 'spit' apparently reflects the extent to which such an animal dislikes its victim! Some forum readers might wish to use this scintillating snippet of information as the basis for a nouveau topic of conversation - or perhaps not! :-(