John Lewis Boss Calls For Abusing Shop Workers To Be An Offence

[Mister M]

1 minute ago, Irene Swaine said:

There is a difference between rudeness and abuse. One is acceptable, the other is not.

Rudeness isn't acceptable. Though obviously you deal with rudeness and abusiveness differently.

1 minute ago, fools said:

"rancid carcass" - is that a term they teach you in customer services nowadays

 

fuss over nothing, if customers are abusive, the staff can decline to serve them anyway

 

I had 3 members of staff in one shop turn their back on me the other day, they knew I was trying to get some help

I wouldn't know fools. I no longer work in customer services.

[RollingJ]

2 minutes ago, Irene Swaine said:

It's not just taking crap, there is much more to it than that, which I have learnt through my studies and my careers in customer facing roles. Some elements are *politeness *Resilliance *Professionalism *Welcoming Attitude * Helpfulness * Thinking of every way to give the customer a great experience.

 

If I go to Sandra's shoe shop and the staff seem as though they can't be bothered to be there, but I go to Carmel's shoe shop and the staff are welcoming, polite, helpful and go the extra mile, you bet your bottom dollar I will return to Carmel's and give Sandra's a swerve.

In the job I did for the majority of my working life, I spent a long time on both sides of the fence - although the main component of my job was internal, i was also expected to deal direct with customers our 'profit centre' did work for that did not involve any other area of the business, and also dealt with external suppliers.

 

We used to get upset customers on odd occasions, but they never swore at us or threatened us, and I used to have situations when suppliers 'let us down', but a polite phone call sorted it - I certainly was never abusive to the person on the other end of the line.

[Padders]

Well I went to Morrisons at Hillsboro a couple of weeks ago.

I got to the checkout with my purchase,

1-Egg

1-Potato,

1-Banana,

1-Carrot,

1-Custard tart,

1-Slice of beef,

1-Small bottle of milk,

1-Tin of Ambrosia rice pudding......

The check out girl said to me "I bet your single"

I said "Yes, how do you know"

She replied "Because you effing ugly"

I now shop at ASDA.

 

[echo beach]

On 17/07/2023 at 22:46, Chekhov said:

I have upvoted your post Jack, but I would make a distinction between using moderate swearing about the situation, and hard core swearing about the person you are dealing with. There's  a big, nay massive, difference.

 

>>If someone puts their hands on you it's assault<<

 

I think assault is when someone gets hurt, simple, as.

Definition of assault :

 

make a physical attack on (implication : with the intention of causing hurt, maybe even injury).

In legal terms assault is defined as inciting fear or purposefully aggravating a person. So it could be simply a threatening look or gesture or language.

If that person touches you without your permission which results in physical harm then they are committing battery.

 

You have to be a bright spark to know the difference!🙂

 

echo.

[Tipstaff]

Attentive,  polite, helpful and courteous people in retail will very rarely,  if ever,  get any abuse from others.  

[Chekhov]

9 hours ago, echo beach said:

In legal terms assault is defined as inciting fear or purposefully aggravating a person. So it could be simply a threatening look or gesture or language.

If that person touches you without your permission which results in physical harm then they are committing battery.

 

You have to be a bright spark to know the difference!🙂

 

echo.

Ah, so the "victim" gets to decide if it's an assault.

That sounds eminently fair and reasonable (not).

 

Basically if battery is what I would consider assault, then assault must be something and nothing

Edited July 23, 2023 by Chekhov

[Chekhov]

9 hours ago, Tipstaff said:

Attentive,  polite, helpful and courteous people in retail will very rarely,  if ever,  get any abuse from others.  

Basically I do agree with you and have upvoted your post, but, as related here, I got abuse (and even serious threats) for something that was totally out of my control and I could not have been more sympathetic. 

I do think staff can hugely ease any situation by not just repeating the company line or quoting small print. Much better to say something like "I agree you have a right to be upset / disappointed / annoyed, I would be too in your place" , that generally takes much of the wind out of a disgruntled customer's sails.

[Chekhov]

14 hours ago, Mister M said:

On the subject of the thread, I don;t think there should be a specific offence for shop workers.

However I would support any move for the right of a shop worker not to serve members of the public who are belligerent and nasty.

I do know that many shops, buses and services have over the years started to display signs which state very clearly that the company does not tolerate abusiveness towards their staff. 

I have seen appalling incidents of members of the public being vile to people who are just trying to do their job, and it's not fair.

How belligerent and nasty ?

If you mean threatening or personally insulting (as in insulting the staff member as opposed to getting upset about the situation) then maybe.

 

But dealing with the general public is not all a bed of roses, people are all different and someone may, in fact, act very differently according to how much stress they are under at any particular time

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

Ah, so the "victim" gets to decide if it's an assault.

That sounds eminently fair and reasonable (not).

 

Basically if battery is what I would consider assault, then assault must be something and nothing

That's exactly how it should be.

I suppose you would want the accused person to decide, as in some one accused of speeding in a car,  is the one who decides whether they were speeding or not.

Of  course it should be down to the victim to decide.

If you don't like that,  then behave yourself,   and don't turn someone into a victim.

 

[Prettytom]

53 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

Ah, so the "victim" gets to decide if it's an assault.

That sounds eminently fair and reasonable (not).

 

Basically if battery is what I would consider assault, then assault must be something and nothing

It seems much more fair and reasonable than allowing the perpetrator to decide.

 

Or a random, uninformed bloke on the internet.