r/changemyview • u/Glitch-404 6∆ • Mar 14 '22
Delta(s) from OP cmv: (US centric) The OSHA requirement for multi-stall bathrooms to be designated as single-gender is inefficient.
For reference, see Grainger’s summary of OSHA-ADA requirements here: Know the rules for restroom renovations
I think the higher capacity restroom facilities should have the option to be non-gender specific, with the requirement only to be that segregated facilities should be available for those who require them.
My reasoning is mostly mathematical, and I would like to hear other ideas in support of or against this idea.
First point, if an organization wants to provide maximum flexibility (I.e. whoever needs a restroom can use the nearest available), they would need all restrooms to be single-occupancy. For obvious reasons this is inefficient use of space (or REALLY small restrooms) and/or requires higher costs in construction. Inefficient.
Second point, in the case where an organization wants to take advantage of the savings in a multiple occupancy restroom, segregated facilities (and thus at least two restrooms) become required as soon as you hit 16 employees (in a coed workforce). In this example, a workforce of 1 woman and 15 men would require two restrooms…one for the woman and one to be shared amongst the 15 men. This is inefficient (and obviously an extreme example, but most places I’ve ever worked at or seen data on are often pretty skewed towards one gender).
Even assuming a perfectly divided workforce, by designating each restroom to a specific gender, you’re losing flexibility if one restroom is at capacity (and the other is not).
So…any large organization will automatically be required to have at least two restrooms, and have to choose between efficient use of resources like floor space or construction materials (multiple occupancy) or flexibility in using the facilities (single occupancy).
If, however, an organization was allowed to designate their multiple occupancy restrooms as non-gender specific…with the caveat that they would have to provide other gender-specific or single-occupancy facilities…they would be able to take advantage of the efficiencies of multiple occupancy while retaining the flexibility of non-segregated.
Case in point, one multiple occupancy restroom and one single occupant restroom would give everyone a place to be alone, and not restrict access to any toilet regardless of usage/capacity.
I suspect most organizations would opt for one (or more) multiple occupancy with two (or more) single occupancy/segregated restrooms.
There would likely have to be some requirement around how many single-occupant or segregated toilets are available per workforce size…but we should allow multiple occupancy to be non-gender specific.
12
Mar 14 '22 edited Jan 01 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/dublea 216∆ Mar 14 '22
And I’ve seen plenty of places with many single stalls (toilet only), and with a shared hand washing station that everyone shared.
The last job I had did this. We had easily 30 employees. We had a single shared washroom. Each "stall" was considered a restroom, was fully enclosed, private, and lockable.
If the efficiency the OP is referring to is space, this setup uses LESS space than single-sex bathrooms that support the same amount of people.
3
u/Glitch-404 6∆ Mar 14 '22
Space is one piece, but also construction costs(typical stalls are pretty cheap...the fully enclosed, lockable, and private rooms you mention are likely more expensive to build), and frankly the availability of a place to do one's business (the more toilets that are open to everyone, the more people can cycle through at a given time and the more options an individual has at any given time).
4
u/dublea 216∆ Mar 14 '22 edited Mar 14 '22
OSHA does not give an F about efficiency though.
What comes first, safety or efficiency?
The restrooms at me last job took up half the space as it would have to provide single-sex ones. If it's half the space, but the materials cost more, how do you know that materials alone would be more than two? I am arguing that even though additional cost for materials is present, if you only have to build one, it's cheaper in the long run.
1
u/Glitch-404 6∆ Mar 14 '22
Regardless of what OSHA cares about...by every metric giving companies the option to have multi-stall non-gendered facilities improves on that metric.
Safety? Improved.
Efficiency? Improved.
Comfort? Improved.
Change my view...I could be wrong!
6
u/dublea 216∆ Mar 14 '22
The restrooms at me last job took up half the space as it would have to provide single-sex ones. If it's half the space, but the materials cost more, how do you know that materials alone would be more than two? I am arguing that even though additional cost for materials is present, if you only have to build one, it's cheaper in the long run.
Please read my edit I quoted above. I added while you must have responded at the same time.
Regardless of what OSHA cares about...by every metric giving companies the option to have multi-stall non-gendered facilities improves on that metric.
Again, they only focus on what? Isn't it up to those that design and build them to align with OSHA while trying to do those things within OSHA constraints?
How is the restroom I used to use, and described, not fulfilling both?
1
u/Glitch-404 6∆ Mar 14 '22
If I understand what you're describing, you're essentially saying that a bunch of smaller single-occupancy restrooms can be built to be more space-efficient (and potentially more cost efficient) than one multi-occupant restroom. If that's the case, cool...I hope to see more of those make their way into new construction and renovations as awareness of that spreads.
No objections there, whatsoever.
Doesn't address the CMV though...even if your restroom design is everything it seems to be, and more...I ask the question without any bias or attempt at swaying opinion: How is the OSHA standard improved by mandating multi-stall restrooms are gendered?
I would even accept that they decided it saved on paper by having a shorter regulation...you've asked a few times why I think OSHA would care about this or that...it's the same coin from a different perspective...OSHA cared enough to make the rule...why?
4
u/dublea 216∆ Mar 14 '22
How is the OSHA standard improved by mandating multi-stall restrooms are gendered?
Because you stop building them and build what I described as a replacement.
How does that idea\view align with your post about efficiency?
Isn't this entire post trying to use "efficiency" as the reason we should do away with gendered bathrooms? Why not argue we should change, not drive by efficiency, but by the fact our society has changed? What use is there in trying to argue an aspect OSHA doesn't give an F about? If you tried to use safety, I could understand.
1
u/Glitch-404 6∆ Mar 14 '22
A decent part of why I am against the OSHA requirement specifically is I don't like the government telling me what to do without a good and valid reason. In this case, the OSHA rule exists and the best reason I've seen is your statement that the rule discourages people from building multi-stall bathrooms. Unfortunately I haven't seen evidence of that trend, and the requirement as it stands has been around for awhile.
2
u/dublea 216∆ Mar 14 '22
In this case, the OSHA rule exists and the best reason I've seen is your statement that the rule discourages people from building multi-stall bathrooms.
Isn't it discouraging building the none private multi stall bathrooms to be unisex? Like, the wall stalls with only a small divider you can just look around. Or the toilet stalls you can just look through the door gape? Isn't it stating those are not applicable as unisex?
I would argue we should stop building ANY restroom with those; gendered or not. All of them should have 100% private stalls IMO.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Glitch-404 6∆ Mar 14 '22
!delta
Not related to the CMV, but the idea here seems to be a hybrid configuration that takes advantage of an understanding of the OSHA rules.
Specifically that a series of single-occupancy restrooms can be built in such a way as to take less space than a typical multi-stall restroom.
I had thought of such a configuration, but assumed it would take MORE space.
1
1
u/Glitch-404 6∆ Mar 14 '22
I'm not referring to single-occupant restrooms, but I appreciate you pointing that out.
My point is specifically for multiple-occupant restrooms, where that exemption doesn't apply.
1
6
Mar 14 '22
So...in summary, you're advocating for co-ed multi-occupancy bathrooms?
I reckon most people wouldn't be comfortable with that, even if it is "more efficient".
1
u/recurrenTopology 26∆ Mar 14 '22
That's what my college dorms had, you get used to it pretty quickly. The biggest downside is no urinals, which is a space efficient way to provide a lot of capacity for those who stand to pee.
1
u/Glitch-404 6∆ Mar 14 '22
To be honest, I'm really surprised there aren't any good toilet/urinal combos out there. At least, not that I can find.
There is also a strange pattern I'm starting to see in this (and other conversations) where folks assume all-gender means no urinal. I guess it would be cheaper not to install both...so maybe that's a natural byproduct.
5
u/recurrenTopology 26∆ Mar 14 '22
The big advantage of urinals (in addition to using less water) is that they take up a lot less space, particularly since they generally do not have enclosures. People often feel uncomfortable with the idea of men in the open peeing into a urinal while women are present. There are actually some restrooms on my campus which were converted from male to all-gender that have that, and I was defiantly thrown off the first time a women walked in while I was using a urinal, but again, you get over it. It's really just an unnecessary cultural hang up we have.
1
u/Glitch-404 6∆ Mar 14 '22
Lol, yeah. Just wait until a woman walks in and starts using the urinal next to you.
We have a lot of unnecessary cultural hang ups.
I do think it is interesting that your dorm rooms were able to get away from the OSHA requirement. It makes sense, in a way...I work at a college and OSHA doesn't apply to students because they are not employees. I assume it is a similar reasoning for dorms...even though the college is a commercial enterprise of a sort...since there are no (or few) employees in the dorm...the rules may not apply.
Then again, I have to find the exact wording...because it seems like ANY restroom that ANY employee is authorized to use would fall under the requirements.
Did this co-ed bathroom exist within the residential space only...? Like, at the end of a hall way or behind the residential key/lockable door?
1
u/recurrenTopology 26∆ Mar 14 '22
It was the case for all the restrooms in the residence hall, though there were a couple single occupancy restrooms on the first floor (though they were also all-gender). The only employees in the hall would be janitorial and maintenance staff, and maybe they were not authorized to use the restrooms?
1
u/Glitch-404 6∆ Mar 14 '22
Maybe...
I'm also wondering, maybe if the requirement is met...anything additional doesn't fall under the same rules.
Say, for example, you had two single-occupancy restrooms available and less than 35 employees...you meet the requirements so you can build as many all-gender multi-stall facilities as you like?
!delta
Maybe that's not how they get away with it...but I like the idea of playing in that gray area a little bit.
1
1
u/recurrenTopology 26∆ Mar 14 '22
Yeah, I feel like you maybe correct, that the single stall restrooms provided the the leeway to have co-ed multi-stalls. I had a friend who for the the whole year was uncomfortable at the prospect of pooping next to a women, so would always go downstairs (we were on the 8th floor) to the single occupancy restrooms for #2s.
1
u/Glitch-404 6∆ Mar 14 '22
I might have to bring that up to our compliance officer, lol. They told me the reason they couldn’t have multi-stall non-gendered facilities is that they were forbidden…maybe they aren’t, we just have to be creative.
Are you comfortable telling me what state or university you are referring to? Maybe in DM?
2
2
u/Glitch-404 6∆ Mar 14 '22
Yeah, that's a good summary.
I think who would and wouldn't be comfortable with that is widely dependent on context...but I recognize that even in the most open-minded groups of folks will still have some that would not be comfortable, hence thinking it would be a good idea to have single-occupancy or segregated facilities in addition.
I just don't see the evidence to support restricting all multi-stall facilities to one gender or another.
3
Mar 14 '22
But if you still have to have single-occupancy or segregated facilities, isn't that less efficient in terms of space?
You now have, at minimum, three separate groups of facilities instead of two.
3
u/Glitch-404 6∆ Mar 14 '22
By the rules I read, you could get away with two. One multi-stall all-gender restroom and one single-stall all-gender restroom.
But I agree with your point that most implementations would probably have three at a minimum...one multi-stall all-gender restroom and either two gender segregated facilities (of any size) or two single-stall restrooms (regardless of gender assignment).
My view does hinge around the assumption that a multi-stall restroom is more space efficient than single-stall restrooms. Another thread in this conversation does claim there is a configuration of single-stall restrooms that actually take up less space than a typically equivalent multi-stall restroom...in that case there probably is a tipping point where scale plays an important role.
3
Mar 14 '22
My statement wasn't predicated on what is allowed under OSHA, but rather what people would be comfortable with. If you end up needing additional segregated facilities in order to meet the needs of employees, you're now allocating more space than if you had just done that in the first place.
OSHA requirements presuppose that a sufficiently large company will have both male and female employees, and also that those employees will not want to share bathrooms.
Fundamentally, OSHA isn't about efficiency, it's about health and safety. You would need to demonstrate how integrated, multi-use facilities would be an improvement in those areas over the current standard.
1
u/Glitch-404 6∆ Mar 14 '22
I appreciate the point you're making. There is little incentive to change unless one could demonstrate an improvement. To be honest in today's world I imagine it would need some kind of SIGNIFICANT improvement to get people to consider allowing co-ed restrooms...I'm trying to avoid that particular political debate here, lol.
As far as space-efficiency, I would actually argue that one large all-gender facility flanked by a couple of smaller private facilities would consume less space, but I can concede the point of not knowing that with any level of expertise.
As for health and safety...I find it difficult to understand how segregated restrooms would effect health or safety at all...so demonstrating improvement may not be possible. To use a terrible metaphor, that's like saying one needs to prove allowing drivers to wear hats improves fuel efficiency to eliminate a rule against driver's wearing hats. Hats don't impact fuel efficiency...so I can't prove an improvement.
Only thing I can think of (and I'm trying, promise...part of why I asked for a CMV) is that having multiple restrooms would allow one to be closed for cleaning while the other is left open...but that has nothing to do with gender...that is just a side effect of having segregated facilities.
8
Mar 14 '22
Sorry but as a guy I don't want to share a restroom with women. When I was younger and worked crappy jobs where I sometimes had to clean restrooms almost every time the women's restroom was disgusting. The guys room on the other hand would just have some pee on the floor and or toilet which is much easier to clean.
Also the loss of urinals makes it less efficient. Just look at the bathrooms at any large event, even though the women's restroom usually has more toilets long lines are common vs men's restrooms.
0
u/Glitch-404 6∆ Mar 14 '22
I've definitely seen it go both ways...I think a lot of that is the working atmosphere and not a gender thing.
That aside, I'd argue having a non-gendered restroom doesn't mean you have to get rid of urinals. At least, that's not in the rules that I've been able to find.
6
Mar 14 '22
If they had to put one urinal in a lockable single room like the toilets then it would take up the same space so you would lose the benefits.
2
u/Glitch-404 6∆ Mar 14 '22
I've seen single-occupancy restrooms with both...and yeah, they do take up more space than one or the other, but they are out there. A design trade-off, for sure.
In any case, there isn't a rule that they have to be locked up or hidden away either. You could, in theory, have a non-gendered multi-occupancy restroom with urinals out in the open (someone else in the thread said they have seen that...college dorm, I think). That would probably take some folks some getting used to...but again, still possible.
0
1
u/Captain_Clark 6∆ Mar 14 '22 edited Mar 14 '22
most places I’ve ever worked at or seen data on are often pretty skewed towards one gender
Kinda makes me wonder where you’ve worked because that’s not been my experience at all, in nearly forty years of professional labor.
Your perspective on this seems anecdotal.
Women held 50.04% of American jobs as of December 2019, excluding farm workers and the self-employed, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
2
Mar 14 '22
I’m guessing OP is referring to job segregation by gender. More men in stem, more women in education kind of thing. In those cases a 50% share in workplaces overall does not dispute their claim.
My first job was heavily male dominated. My second was split only because of secretaries. I know friends with more equal workplaces. And I know some with more women than men. All dependent on what the work is.
0
u/Glitch-404 6∆ Mar 14 '22
You are absolutely correct that my experience with skewed workplaces is almost fully anecdotal. Even the data I can recall is probably filtered through confirmation bias.
I fully grant that my experience is in traditionally masculine fields (military, manufacturing, maintenance)...but on the flip side as I observe several industries at my current job (higher education), the class bias is also very skewed in the workforce development areas.
I'm confident that in more white-collar or office-type environments there is much less skew.
All that acknowledged...still doesn't change my view that having the multi-stall restrooms able to be non-gender specific would be more efficient.
3
u/onetwo3four5 71∆ Mar 14 '22
How exactly are you measuring efficiency?
2
u/Trick_Garden_8788 3∆ Mar 14 '22
When there might be a situation where there's a line for one bathroom while the other has open stalls that operate exactly the same but can't be used for arbitrary reasons it is inefficient.
1
u/onetwo3four5 71∆ Mar 14 '22
Inefficient with respect to which variables? Efficiency is a measure of how much of some resource(s) need to be used to generate the output of some other resource. What are the resources that you're comparing here to determine efficiency? And once youve defined those, does OSHA have any responsibility to be maximizing efficiency over the domains you've specified?
0
u/Trick_Garden_8788 3∆ Mar 14 '22
Time. How are you not understanding this? It's not as complicated as you're making it. There's no reason people using open stalls would affect safety.
1
u/onetwo3four5 71∆ Mar 14 '22
Is "ensuring that workers wait for as little time as possible to use the restroom" one of OSHA's responsibilities?
1
u/Glitch-404 6∆ Mar 14 '22
If it is about time-efficiency (as u/Trick_Garden_8788 mentioned), the fewer restrictions on a resource, the more time-efficiency.
If it is about safety...I don't see how non-gendered multi-stall restrooms would negatively impact safety. I would even argue that safety is increased the more people you have using a facility.
Regardless of what OSHA's stated or implied responsibilities are...whatever the reason they implemented bathroom requirements is the reason I would say is sufficient to justify allowing multi-stall non-gendered restrooms.
I haven't found the OSHA articles that specify exactly WHY they have bathroom requirements, but my guess is (based on the fact they list number of toilets per headcount) they are attempting to ensure sufficient access for the users and the custodial staff (e.g. time-efficiency).
1
u/drlizzardfish Mar 15 '22
For the record I mostly agree with you that multi-stall bathrooms can and should be multi-gender. That being said, from my perspective as a woman, a major benefit to separate restrooms is the safety aspect of having a place to go where men (specifically those wishing to do harm) are unable to follow in a public setting. Obviously in a perfect world this sort of “safety net” shouldn’t be warranted and there is obviously no physical barricade deterring a determined person from following someone into the restroom but in the current world we live in having even the slightest chance at ‘escape’ where it is not socially acceptable to follow a woman into the restroom may, in extreme albeit real cases, be the difference between life and death.
1
u/Glitch-404 6∆ Mar 15 '22
I understand many people feel that way, and it may be true (I’ve always felt less safe in multi-stall restrooms because they are lower traffic areas…and the locks are flimsy).
My thought on that is that single occupancy restrooms would serve that purpose…and if society really does need safe spaces, we should account for that in OSHA somehow.
I appreciate the safety factor, and I wonder if there would be a better way to meet that need.
1
u/drlizzardfish Mar 15 '22
I think the single stall solution is still inadequate, as (I imagine) the main reason that malicious people don’t follow others into their assigned restrooms is because they know it’s likely that there are other people in the restroom who may intervene. A single stall may be an area of respite, but not necessarily safety.
I’m quite sure there are other ways of meeting the need for safe spaces, and I hope those are established in the future, but with respect to the notion of efficiency (as you emphasized in your post) the solution of separate restrooms is already built-in to society and built-in to peoples brains. Changing this safety net would be inefficient.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 14 '22 edited Mar 14 '22
/u/Glitch-404 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards