*grins*

[conuly]

Now, we all should know that, contrary to popular belief, state health departments don't ban going barefoot in businesses.

But recently, somebody told me that this sort of thing is regulated by the locality, and not the state. Interesting, interesting.

Well, it's official:

Dear Ms. Baker:

I am writing in response to your recent inquiry addressed to the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) asking whether there are sanitary regulations requiring that food service establishment (FSE) patrons have on footwear.

Neither the New York City Health Code nor the New York State Sanitary Code contain any provisions which address the issue of clothing or footwear worn by patrons in New York City FSE’s.

Thank you and I hope this adequately addresses your inquiry.

(I assume that they do not have stricter rules for places which do not serve food.)

So the shoelessness is not, legally, a problem for the niecelings - at least, not so long as we stay in the state :)

That post got deleted a while back, I'm sad to say, but all the same - HAH! Ha-HAH!

Comments

[failstoexist.livejournal.com]

does it matter, though? doesn't the store or business still have the right to require shoes?

I think for stores it is much more of a safety/liability issue than a health issue. it's just that the health issue is what stops people in their tracks...Telling someone food isn't allowed in the museum is near useless, but if I tell them it's because of *allergies* kids might have...well they pack up pretty damn quickly. some reasons are just more effective than others.

[conuly]

Yes, they still do - though I'll touch on liability in just a second - so long as they're not lying and claiming it's the law.

As for safety and liability - liability from what? I know, I know - the "OMGSHARPOBJECTS!" bit. Aside from the fact that I could just as easily cut my hand on something sharp, or get sick from touching something with my hands and then picking my nose (or the other way around), the thing is that I don't see how posting a "barefoot at your own risk" sign wouldn't cover that one up nicely - especially as most people don't walk on sharp things with or without shoes on. And those who can't see/feel if they're about to step on something sharp generally don't, I'm certain, go barefoot.

But really, nobody tries to defend these rules by saying it's a liability issue. They always just claim its somehow unhygenic, as though having barefeet suddenly means you're walking around with the plague or something.

[failstoexist.livejournal.com]

I don't go barefoot because I wouldn't want to step in dog shit...or gum. anything like that. But I used to go barefoot at camp all of the time (inspired by the circus guys who i never saw wear shoes once in 3 years) and I really enjoyed it.

the sign would cover for the liability, but not for the social stigma...allowing people to be barefoot inside your establishment is going to be looked on as dirty by most patrons, regardless of the truth, and might lose you some business, especially if you're an establishment that serves food.

In college I often walk into the diner with my shoes off, completely by accident, if I'm working in the attached building on an event. I never wear shoes while I'm working on a show, unless I'm setting up a stage...then I wear huge boots because crushed toes are not my idea of fun. So I definitely enjoy being barefoot and have my barefoot times. that is mostly because I hate socks, though...I am indifferent towards most shoes.

[conuly]

Do you step in dogshit or gum often, then? I'm pretty careful to avoid this stuff in shoes or not, because I dislike both stinking and sticking to everything :P

If you're really concerned about the social stigma, then say that instead of making up dumb reasons. (Though that's a pretty silly reason in and of itself in most places. We can expand the argument to all sorts of things which people are unreasonably prejudiced against, fill-in-the-blanks for yourself, and which one would plainly see as unreasonable to ban. Additionally, there is something to be said for normalizing things like the normal condition of the human foot... and then again, I often do wonder why people spend any time looking at other people's feet. This is why I gave up on socks for a while, because I was tired of explaining that if my socks didn't match, it was because I hadn't done laundry, not because I was starting/following some trend. Why people thought it was any of their business, I *don't* know....)

[failstoexist.livejournal.com]

haha no, I do not...but it has happened a few times in my life, and I was pretty glad I was wearing shoes when it did. at least then I can clean up more easily. I will note that I am more likely to step in gum, and I think I've only stepped in dog shit once...when I was pretty young.

I think it is a silly reason, but I think that's sort of at the base of the policies...that and the fact that it's the norm and not to require it means you need to think about it more carefully when most people probably don't ever think about going barefoot.

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

You seriously think an 'at your own risk' would cover their asses and/or keep people from suing someone? And you also think that the only risk is sharp objects? As a person who goes barefoot a LOT, there is a LOT more than sharp objects out there to cause injury. And to assume that people who do step on things don't go barefoot, and so on.

[conuly]

I think if somebody is going to sue, they'll sue anyway, and it's better to be more open than less. I mean, I might as well say "You think making them wear shoes is going to stop them from suing?"

The risk isn't, of course, just sharp objects - that's just what people talk about. However, the risk *is* limited to "things you can step on" - and if it's dangerous in barefeet, and it's not parasitic worms, then it's dangerous for shod people too.

I never assume that people who step on things don't go barefoot - but I do think they're silly if they do. I don't step on things barefoot or otherwise, not since I had a branch cut right through the sole of my shoe once. (And it hurt!) I've since learned to watch where I'm going.

On a different note, what is up lately? It seems like I can't post without you posting in your journal, or commenting as though I've personally attacked you (instead of, say, people who make rules based on ficticious laws - though if you do that, you need to knock it off, lyk, ryt NOW!!!!!)

If you're mad at me for something, can you and I deal with that? Or if you're generally mad at me for many things... I don't know. I just feel as though I'm clearly not being a good friend to you if things I say are consistently upsetting you.

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

Besides what you can step on, what can fall on your feet is a big BIG problem. I guess I'm super sensitive to that because I've broken my foot from things falling on it, and because of Dan's line of work, where foot injuries can happen, and steel toed boots are a requirement (another myth -- that your toes get chopped off or crushed from them).

Anyways, I honestly cannot think of any post I made in reply to a thing you've said. I've been skimming SO MUCH lately I probably haven't even read much. I *have* been commenting a lot about what goes on in my life, which has been frantic and hectic and stressful and a lot is going on.

But I can't even think of one post of late where you said anything that I found even mildly annoying.

Or do you think the poll I did was because I was annoyed? I was actually facinated by your poll and wanted to poll my readers! Other than that, it's all personal stuff that I am dealing with.

One thing though, Ted has become more aggressive, and grabbing my attention, and I MUST get up the moment it happens more or less. Or he stands on my chair and pulls my hair, etc. So sometimes when I see he is getting wound up, or if he is actually yanking the hairs out of my head or whatever, my comments have been sounding rather rude/direct. If I remember to do so, I do go back and say something, or try to say 'more later, somethings up' or whatever. And its not even that he is NEGATIVE and I give him attention, he just wants it more lately, and I put the kiddoes first. He's just more OBVIOUS about it now. (i.e. instead of screetching or something in a corner or a room, assuming that means come see me mom, he comes and gets me. Communicate better, I respond better. He's communicating better, so I am responding better. I get what he wants more often now.)

But if a post looks like an attack on you, do let me know...I usually am direct, and actually don't post often in my own LJ anymore when someone elsewhere bothers me, and in threads I tend to comment, and maybe reply once or twice (in a conflict) but if it is something I don't see an easy resolution to, I just let it go.

[conuly]

Okay. I'm sorry it took so long to reply, but I went to bed right after posting and then, you know, the day happened.

It seemed for a while there that I'd post something autism-related, and you'd post in your journal something... very snarky?

But if you weren't directing it at me, I was probably misreading it a lot. I know it's not easy raising an autistic kid - heck, it wasn't even easy raising me, and everybody knows how wonderful I am :P

So I'll take a breath and be more patient.

[conuly]

As for "things can drop on your feet", that rule would make sense if they also banned, say, tennis shoes or open sandals, which provide no protection for the top of your foot. (And if they didn't try to claim it was a health department thing. I hate misinformation about easily-verified thingies.)

Obviously, in a hazardous area, I'd wear some sturdy shoes, or not enter at all - I don't want to get my foot broken (or lacerated), I break my toes often enough as it is! And a broken foot is hard to heal. But my everyday shoes, and probably your everyday shoes, and most people's everyday shoes aren't likely to provide much protection from that sort of thing - and I do believe that in most situations, heavy shoes are harmful instead of helpful.

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

Unless you're upset about the posts where I am upset with Ted? If I don't post about it, I will crack. They have nothing to do with anyone but me, and Ted. And that's part of my flist, unfortunately. Life can be hard with him and if I can't get it off my chest, I will lose it.

Turns out he was sick, and his doctor (well not his, the one who was there) is a complete and utter moron and I may post about that in a minute, I just haven't had a CHANCE. But Ted venting posts are not directed at anyone but the world, random dieties, him, me, whatever. Unless someone in his life hurt him (i.e. idiot osteopath). Same with venting about any of my little darlings. Will probably happen less now, that I have D. here for a while. (Also they cut my respite in half, but they picked it up again hooray.)

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

I didnt read the comments, but am pointing out a place can make their own rules if they want.

[failstoexist.livejournal.com]

does it matter, though? doesn't the store or business still have the right to require shoes?

I think for stores it is much more of a safety/liability issue than a health issue. it's just that the health issue is what stops people in their tracks...Telling someone food isn't allowed in the museum is near useless, but if I tell them it's because of *allergies* kids might have...well they pack up pretty damn quickly. some reasons are just more effective than others.

[conuly]

Yes, they still do - though I'll touch on liability in just a second - so long as they're not lying and claiming it's the law.

As for safety and liability - liability from what? I know, I know - the "OMGSHARPOBJECTS!" bit. Aside from the fact that I could just as easily cut my hand on something sharp, or get sick from touching something with my hands and then picking my nose (or the other way around), the thing is that I don't see how posting a "barefoot at your own risk" sign wouldn't cover that one up nicely - especially as most people don't walk on sharp things with or without shoes on. And those who can't see/feel if they're about to step on something sharp generally don't, I'm certain, go barefoot.

But really, nobody tries to defend these rules by saying it's a liability issue. They always just claim its somehow unhygenic, as though having barefeet suddenly means you're walking around with the plague or something.

[failstoexist.livejournal.com]

I don't go barefoot because I wouldn't want to step in dog shit...or gum. anything like that. But I used to go barefoot at camp all of the time (inspired by the circus guys who i never saw wear shoes once in 3 years) and I really enjoyed it.

the sign would cover for the liability, but not for the social stigma...allowing people to be barefoot inside your establishment is going to be looked on as dirty by most patrons, regardless of the truth, and might lose you some business, especially if you're an establishment that serves food.

In college I often walk into the diner with my shoes off, completely by accident, if I'm working in the attached building on an event. I never wear shoes while I'm working on a show, unless I'm setting up a stage...then I wear huge boots because crushed toes are not my idea of fun. So I definitely enjoy being barefoot and have my barefoot times. that is mostly because I hate socks, though...I am indifferent towards most shoes.

[conuly]

Do you step in dogshit or gum often, then? I'm pretty careful to avoid this stuff in shoes or not, because I dislike both stinking and sticking to everything :P

If you're really concerned about the social stigma, then say that instead of making up dumb reasons. (Though that's a pretty silly reason in and of itself in most places. We can expand the argument to all sorts of things which people are unreasonably prejudiced against, fill-in-the-blanks for yourself, and which one would plainly see as unreasonable to ban. Additionally, there is something to be said for normalizing things like the normal condition of the human foot... and then again, I often do wonder why people spend any time looking at other people's feet. This is why I gave up on socks for a while, because I was tired of explaining that if my socks didn't match, it was because I hadn't done laundry, not because I was starting/following some trend. Why people thought it was any of their business, I *don't* know....)

[failstoexist.livejournal.com]

haha no, I do not...but it has happened a few times in my life, and I was pretty glad I was wearing shoes when it did. at least then I can clean up more easily. I will note that I am more likely to step in gum, and I think I've only stepped in dog shit once...when I was pretty young.

I think it is a silly reason, but I think that's sort of at the base of the policies...that and the fact that it's the norm and not to require it means you need to think about it more carefully when most people probably don't ever think about going barefoot.

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

You seriously think an 'at your own risk' would cover their asses and/or keep people from suing someone? And you also think that the only risk is sharp objects? As a person who goes barefoot a LOT, there is a LOT more than sharp objects out there to cause injury. And to assume that people who do step on things don't go barefoot, and so on.

[conuly]

I think if somebody is going to sue, they'll sue anyway, and it's better to be more open than less. I mean, I might as well say "You think making them wear shoes is going to stop them from suing?"

The risk isn't, of course, just sharp objects - that's just what people talk about. However, the risk *is* limited to "things you can step on" - and if it's dangerous in barefeet, and it's not parasitic worms, then it's dangerous for shod people too.

I never assume that people who step on things don't go barefoot - but I do think they're silly if they do. I don't step on things barefoot or otherwise, not since I had a branch cut right through the sole of my shoe once. (And it hurt!) I've since learned to watch where I'm going.

On a different note, what is up lately? It seems like I can't post without you posting in your journal, or commenting as though I've personally attacked you (instead of, say, people who make rules based on ficticious laws - though if you do that, you need to knock it off, lyk, ryt NOW!!!!!)

If you're mad at me for something, can you and I deal with that? Or if you're generally mad at me for many things... I don't know. I just feel as though I'm clearly not being a good friend to you if things I say are consistently upsetting you.

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

Besides what you can step on, what can fall on your feet is a big BIG problem. I guess I'm super sensitive to that because I've broken my foot from things falling on it, and because of Dan's line of work, where foot injuries can happen, and steel toed boots are a requirement (another myth -- that your toes get chopped off or crushed from them).

Anyways, I honestly cannot think of any post I made in reply to a thing you've said. I've been skimming SO MUCH lately I probably haven't even read much. I *have* been commenting a lot about what goes on in my life, which has been frantic and hectic and stressful and a lot is going on.

But I can't even think of one post of late where you said anything that I found even mildly annoying.

Or do you think the poll I did was because I was annoyed? I was actually facinated by your poll and wanted to poll my readers! Other than that, it's all personal stuff that I am dealing with.

One thing though, Ted has become more aggressive, and grabbing my attention, and I MUST get up the moment it happens more or less. Or he stands on my chair and pulls my hair, etc. So sometimes when I see he is getting wound up, or if he is actually yanking the hairs out of my head or whatever, my comments have been sounding rather rude/direct. If I remember to do so, I do go back and say something, or try to say 'more later, somethings up' or whatever. And its not even that he is NEGATIVE and I give him attention, he just wants it more lately, and I put the kiddoes first. He's just more OBVIOUS about it now. (i.e. instead of screetching or something in a corner or a room, assuming that means come see me mom, he comes and gets me. Communicate better, I respond better. He's communicating better, so I am responding better. I get what he wants more often now.)

But if a post looks like an attack on you, do let me know...I usually am direct, and actually don't post often in my own LJ anymore when someone elsewhere bothers me, and in threads I tend to comment, and maybe reply once or twice (in a conflict) but if it is something I don't see an easy resolution to, I just let it go.

[conuly]

Okay. I'm sorry it took so long to reply, but I went to bed right after posting and then, you know, the day happened.

It seemed for a while there that I'd post something autism-related, and you'd post in your journal something... very snarky?

But if you weren't directing it at me, I was probably misreading it a lot. I know it's not easy raising an autistic kid - heck, it wasn't even easy raising me, and everybody knows how wonderful I am :P

So I'll take a breath and be more patient.

[conuly]

As for "things can drop on your feet", that rule would make sense if they also banned, say, tennis shoes or open sandals, which provide no protection for the top of your foot. (And if they didn't try to claim it was a health department thing. I hate misinformation about easily-verified thingies.)

Obviously, in a hazardous area, I'd wear some sturdy shoes, or not enter at all - I don't want to get my foot broken (or lacerated), I break my toes often enough as it is! And a broken foot is hard to heal. But my everyday shoes, and probably your everyday shoes, and most people's everyday shoes aren't likely to provide much protection from that sort of thing - and I do believe that in most situations, heavy shoes are harmful instead of helpful.

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

Unless you're upset about the posts where I am upset with Ted? If I don't post about it, I will crack. They have nothing to do with anyone but me, and Ted. And that's part of my flist, unfortunately. Life can be hard with him and if I can't get it off my chest, I will lose it.

Turns out he was sick, and his doctor (well not his, the one who was there) is a complete and utter moron and I may post about that in a minute, I just haven't had a CHANCE. But Ted venting posts are not directed at anyone but the world, random dieties, him, me, whatever. Unless someone in his life hurt him (i.e. idiot osteopath). Same with venting about any of my little darlings. Will probably happen less now, that I have D. here for a while. (Also they cut my respite in half, but they picked it up again hooray.)

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

I didnt read the comments, but am pointing out a place can make their own rules if they want.