No French Fries For You! New Health Dept. Employee Rules

No fried food: Health Dept. workers cringe at new rules restricting foods, fragrances, decorations

sweetness-light.com...

No overbearing perfume. No obscene pictures. And definitely no French fries for work lunches.

That’s the new edict for employees of the same city Health Department that brought you calorie-counting menus and snuffed out smoking on beaches and in parks.

The updated rules – which range from what workers can serve at agency powwows to how loud they can talk in the office – come as the Health Department begins to move into its new Queens digs today.

Yep. Hold on to your hats... it gets better. Perfume I can understand. The rest? You decide.

A set of guidelines for "Life in the Cubicle Village" sent to employees asks them to avoid wearing products with "noticeable odors" or posting "any displays, photos, cartoons, or other personal items that may be offensive."

They also should avoid eavesdropping.

If they can’t – "at least resist the urge to add your comments," the cubicle rules recommend.

Did Jenny Craig start working for the government?

Employees also got a bright-colored brochure stipulating what can and can’t be served at meetings and parties.

Tap water is a menu must when food or drinks are served. Other beverages must be less than 25 calories per 8 ounces.

"Cut muffins and bagels into halves or quarters, or order mini sizes. Offer thinly-sliced, whole-grain bread," the brochure states.

Deep-fried foods are an absolute no-no and "cannot be served."

For celebrations, cake and air-popped popcorn – "popped at the party and served in brown paper lunch bags" – are allowed.

But when a "celebration cake" is served, cookies can’t be offered.

Really? Really? These are adults here! Smart enough to hire, but obviously not smart enough to feed themselves what they wish to eat. Since when does working for the government consist of you handing over the twinkies for squirrel food?

"These standards are mandatory for meetings and events sponsored by the Health Department," the brochure states.

Health honchos say they are just practicing what they preach…

"The Health Department is leading by example by updating its guidelines for food and beverages served at agency meetings and events," spokeswoman Erin Brady said.

I can respect the fact that they do not want to supply food like this with their money for meetings and such, but do we really need to ban an employee from drinking a big gulp at the Christmas party if they bring it?

I know the old "If you don't like the rules, don't take the job", and can agree with that 100%. I just see this spreading further in the future, as the government keeps inching in on personal rights. It's almost like they will have everyone eating and drinking what they want them to down the line.... one way or another.

What do you guys think? Over the top or reasonable?

As I read it, it is only for department sponsored events. Thus the department would likely be spending taxpayer funds on the food for this event. If this interpretation is correct, then I support the policy.

Quite honestly it sounds more like PRISON rules than workplace rules. Do they have to wear orange jumpsuits everyday?

reply to post by Kangaruex4Ewe


WHAT???? No french fries!!!!!! No more freedoms??
Nooooooooooooooooooooo. Say it aint so.

reply to post by Kangaruex4Ewe


Wow, next they're going to tell you where to live and who to talk to ...
Oh wait...

Lol I wonder what will happen if you sneak in a cheeseburger

Well they missed the chance with that generation. All the new "healthy" menu options in schools are meant to teach kids the right way to eat (but all they really do is teach kids how to go without food).

The more laws and rules, the more control TPTB have. Get ready for this to become a law some time in the future for all government departments, then for all private companies.

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
As I read it, it is only for department sponsored events. Thus the department would likely be spending taxpayer funds on the food for this event. If this interpretation is correct, then I support the policy.

I also said I could understand if they didn't want to supply it. But I did question if this would be mandatory for employees on break, celebrating a fellow coworker's birthday, etc. The article is not entirely clear cut on that issue. However, my main issue falls in line with government reach. Especially as it pertains to New York...

In another article on the same issue-

The gerbil-loving food choices are in step with Health Commissioner Thomas Farley's push to reduce New Yorkers salt, sugar and alcohol consumption.

www.nydailynews.com...

Food control is becoming a huge issue in New York and that is partly why I posted this.

Originally posted by jjkenobi
Quite honestly it sounds more like PRISON rules than workplace rules. Do they have to wear orange jumpsuits everyday?

Made from organic cotton no less. I agree. It does sound a little not so great...

Originally posted by meathed
reply to post by Kangaruex4Ewe

 

WHAT???? No french fries!!!!!! No more freedoms??
Nooooooooooooooooooooo. Say it aint so.

edit on 4-4-2011 by meathed because: (no reason given)

No. Your freedom has been comletely stripped by the banning of cookies and cake being served together. Scary how quick that happened isn't it?

Originally posted by Mentalistbee
reply to post by Kangaruex4Ewe

 

Wow, next they're going to tell you where to live and who to talk to ...
Oh wait...

Lol I wonder what will happen if you sneak in a cheeseburger

edit on 4-4-2011 by Mentalistbee because: (no reason given)

TSA will now be stationed beside all entrances and exits to prevent contraband cheeseburgers.

Originally posted by Soltari
Well they missed the chance with that generation. All the new "healthy" menu options in schools are meant to teach kids the right way to eat (but all they really do is teach kids how to go without food).

The more laws and rules, the more control TPTB have. Get ready for this to become a law some time in the future for all government departments, then for all private companies.

I agree. The "slippery slope" of things like this is why more people should care about things like this.

Even if it is a "sponsored" event it just seems a bit much,Really we are talking about ADULTS not children where do we draw the line anyway?Especially if it's a party for any special occasion,we have to watch what we eat,seems like the communist party,not a Christmas,birthday,etc party.I just cannot agree with a policy like this.When are tptb going to realize they can only invade so much of our lives....what's next,is the gov. going to issue fast food ration cards?"you are allowed 2 quarter pounders a month or risk serious fine and possible jail time....god help you if you have fries with that" will be on your ration card,I know thats overstating it...but really when it comes to the federal government,you really can't be too sure...probably give you the death penalty for a chocolate shake.What about caffeine addicts such as myself.....fema camp?

I'll admit this is personal freedom taken away, however...

Many of you scream "we're adults" and such...but with obesity rates as high as they are and the lack of exercise and health consciousness that is pervading the western world, one has to wonder...

It's like the kid that didn't make the passing grade for the tests and still expects to be allowed to go out of Friday night with his friends.

Realize that you could have your french fries and fried food occasionally if you learned discipline and moderation. Laws come about for a reason, and that reason is to institute some form of a control that is perceived as "necessary". Learn some moderation and maybe you can get your french fries back....or just eat them on your own time.

Originally posted by TheOneElectric
I'll admit this is personal freedom taken away, however...

Many of you scream "we're adults" and such...but with obesity rates as high as they are and the lack of exercise and health consciousness that is pervading the western world, one has to wonder...

It's like the kid that didn't make the passing grade for the tests and still expects to be allowed to go out of Friday night with his friends.

Realize that you could have your french fries and fried food occasionally if you learned discipline and moderation. Laws come about for a reason, and that reason is to institute some form of a control that is perceived as "necessary". Learn some moderation and maybe you can get your french fries back....or just eat them on your own time.

Obesity is an epidemic for sure. But why should some have to suffer because others can not step away from the doritos and hot wings?

I am not sure what the answer is to fix it, but infringing on everyone's rights because of the actions of a few doesn't seem quite right.

reply to post by Kangaruex4Ewe


OK, I have a friend who is 29, an ex-football player for FSU, and he just completed his second round of chemo-therapy for an aggressive, soft-cell cancer.

Now, one of the main things he is supposed to avoid is artificial sweeteners. He is trying to eat healthy, so he is also avoiding sugars, but if he had to choose, sugar is preferable to artificial sweeteners.

So, is this Health Department advocating the use of known cancer-causing agents to its staff? If someone there develops cancer, after being forced to follow these rules, will it be a work-related injury? Will the department alter their hiring policies, to exclude people that don't fit their image of a health-conscious workplace? No more fat people?

My wife has food allergies. If she worked there, would she be excluded from any participation, because the requirements don't allow for foods that she can eat?

I see a lot of legal defense bills in this departments future.

reply to post by gary714


By sponsored event, I mean the health department paying for it. Everyone would rise up and accuse them of hypocrisy if they purchased all the unhealthy stuff with tax dollars while trying to get people to eat healthier. I saw nothing indicative of the health department trying to enforce a "health food" only policy aside from sponsored(ie paid for) events. This seems entirely reasonable, much more than scrotum and vaginal cavity searches to board an airplane imo.

Originally posted by TheOneElectric
I'll admit this is personal freedom taken away, however...

Many of you scream "we're adults" and such...but with obesity rates as high as they are and the lack of exercise and health consciousness that is pervading the western world, one has to wonder...

It's like the kid that didn't make the passing grade for the tests and still expects to be allowed to go out of Friday night with his friends.

Realize that you could have your french fries and fried food occasionally if you learned discipline and moderation. Laws come about for a reason, and that reason is to institute some form of a control that is perceived as "necessary". Learn some moderation and maybe you can get your french fries back....or just eat them on your own time.

Its their food control measure and laboratory health consciousness that is causing this "problem" amongst other things.

In short, health is great. Good, non GMO foods are good for you, whole fats are good for you, your brain and regulate your appetite.

What they're doing is promoting their frankenstein food and laboratory fat and calory cutting which is murdering people.

The best fats for your body are: coconut oil and others of its class, this is essential for your liver, organs, and health/immune, teeth, you name it. Olive oil. Butter is far better than anything non-homogonized and made in a laboratory. Fairly significant amounts of coconut oil ie. several tablespoons a day.

In short if they tell you its not good for you, investigate thoroughly and be prepared for a surprise.

If they tell you it is good for you, investigate thoroughly and be prepared for a surprise.

I can respect the fact that they do not want to supply food like this with their money for meetings and such, but do we really need to ban an employee from drinking a big gulp at the Christmas party if they bring it?

Not meaning to beat you up op but since when is it their money? We are talking about a state dept right? And if so thats the tax payers money.

Originally posted by jaynkeel

I can respect the fact that they do not want to supply food like this with their money for meetings and such, but do we really need to ban an employee from drinking a big gulp at the Christmas party if they bring it?

Not meaning to beat you up op but since when is it their money? We are talking about a state dept right? And if so thats the tax payers money.

Not beating up at all. Sadly, when we pay it, it becomes their's to spend how they wish with no say so left to us. I can wish it weren't so all day long but...

reply to post by getreadyalready


You know what? Those are points I did not consider at all when posting my OP. Excellent points on top of it!

They could very well be opening themselves up to a load of litigation. Unfortunately, many will not "make waves" for fear of losing their jobs and being blackballed afterwards.

And with the FDA working overtime to let us know artificial sweetener is a very safe alternative , it would be almost certainly a losing battle to sue. Government protecting government = slim to no recourse.

reply to post by Kangaruex4Ewe


I just finished eating a turkey sausage,egg and cheese
sandwich.Now,I will finish my coffee with a couple of
donut holes.
After reading this I have this urge to bake a batch of
oatmeal cookies.This afternoon,can more homemade
jelly with lots of sugar.
Call my hubby and see if he would like fried mushrooms
and fish for dinner

reply to post by Kangaruex4Ewe


Hilarious! That's Progressives for you.. If they could get away with it, they'd have them all wear matching blue jumpsuits too and carry matching lunchboxes (which would be inspected upon entering the building for contraband, ie, french fries and or whole muffins)

I don't know,I mean everybody who works is a taxpayer so don't those who only want them to eat these certain types of food based on image(how it would look),are not addressing all the issues but only the most transparent?
Sure examples need to be made,but seeing as this is America shouldn't the individual rights be respected?Not meaning to be a smartass at all,but it would be easy to just have a smorgasboard,and let everyone enjoy themselves.Seems a better example of what government should be than to exercise control by manipulating people under the guise of "setting a healthy example" that probably will piss everybody in the office except the weird Greenpeace chick in the corner.
I'm probably a bit over the top but really the situation seems a great deal over the top...peace ya'll.

Originally posted by mamabeth
reply to post by Kangaruex4Ewe

 

I just finished eating a turkey sausage,egg and cheese
sandwich.Now,I will finish my coffee with a couple of
donut holes.
After reading this I have this urge to bake a batch of
oatmeal cookies.This afternoon,can more homemade
jelly with lots of sugar.
Call my hubby and see if he would like fried mushrooms
and fish for dinner

This made me literally lol Thanks for that. Sometimes these things are beyond silly IMO. It does tend to make one want to resist...

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Kangaruex4Ewe

 

Hilarious! That's Progressives for you.. If they could get away with it, they'd have them all wear matching blue jumpsuits too and carry matching lunchboxes (which would be inspected upon entering the building for contraband, ie, french fries and or whole muffins)

Your's made me giggle as well. I used to split up sweets and stuff like this for my daughter when she was a toddler... This reminds me of that. Food police. Who would have thought.