Outraged! - Certainly I wasn't in the wrong?! - Page 6

[MusicianDad]

Originally Posted by Literate

OT and sorry for my ignorance, but you are blind and you hunt?

Why not? Far as I know it's legal for blind people to hunt.

[ElliesMomma]

i think i've read most of this thread and there seems to be a fair number of "child peeing in the gutter outside" stories- but almost all of them are from outside the United States. i think there was one in Florida. i live in Illinois, suburban Chicago. i've never seen a child pee outside on the street here, and i feel reasonably sure that if i asked my child to do it, i would be stared at (at the least) or reprimanded (or worse) for being unhygenic, unseemly, pornographic, etc. maybe i'm wrong, but that's my gut feeling about the advisability of asking a child to pee on the street around here.

i've read plenty of MDC threads where a child/parent is scolded for peeing outside on the playground, etc. people are sensitive about that, although i think it's perfectly fine to do it in the privacy of your own yard. i just don't see it happening in public.

i do read in this "debate" (and it is a debate, this particular thread) you're either in favor of stores letting people use a restroom, or against the idea that they should have to. i think perhaps the bottom line (no pun intended) is to beware which stores have restroom availabilty for customers anytime you go out shopping with your small children (or small bladder).

my child is still in diapers, but when the day comes that she needs bathrooms NOW, i am hereby forewarned. thanks!

[trancechylde]

Originally Posted by MusicianDad

Why not? Far as I know it's legal for blind people to hunt.

I don't think it's legality they're questioning...more like..."logistics"?
I would also be interested in how exactly this would happen

[MusicianDad]

Originally Posted by trancechylde

I don't think it's legality they're questioning...more like..."logistics"?
I would also be interested in how exactly this would happen

Sound, special equipment and probably a guide.

[east carolina]

Originally Posted by ElliesMomma

i think i've read most of this thread and there seems to be a fair number of "child peeing in the gutter outside" stories- but almost all of them are from outside the United States. i think there was one in Florida. i live in Illinois, suburban Chicago. i've never seen a child pee outside on the street here, and i feel reasonably sure that if i asked my child to do it, i would be stared at (at the least) or reprimanded (or worse) for being unhygenic, unseemly, pornographic, etc. maybe i'm wrong, but that's my gut feeling about the advisability of asking a child to pee on the street around here.

I think most of those were from me. Yeah, okay I don't live in the U.S. and last time we visited DS was still in diapers. But I think I would just do the same I do here, look for the nearest bathroom and if there's none available, find the nearest tree or gutter. I don't find anything unhygienic about it. Dogs to it too (pee outside, I mean). Or if people would give me a hard time about it, well, when in Rome.... and I'd just always carry around an empty plastic bottle that DS could pee into away from prying eyes.

I don't see grown people peeing or pooing on the street, but I see kids pee in gutter and in parks that have no bathroom. I've never been told not to, it's just not in issue here. And our city is mostly "dirty" because dog owners don't pick up after their dogs. not because humans of any size are refusing to prefer toilet.

But yeah, I guess Europe is more tolerant, or whatever it is, when it comes to kids peeing outside.

[mtiger]

Originally Posted by stickywicket67

i'm not in a position to quit a job but i think everyone is in a position to decide who they will work for. if i had an employer tell me that i was not allowed to let a child or a pregnant woman to ever use the restroom i would look else where for employment. that would speaks volumes to me about 1) their trust of my judgment 2) their compassion for other people

Again, a relatively cavalier attitude. Yes, I could choose to work elsewhere where this wouldn't even be an issue as I wouldn't have the public to deal with. I'd make more money, but I'd also have an hour+ commute to deal with - each way. So I wouldn't be available for my kids' extracurricular activities.

The job I'm at now... I make more than a lot of folks in retail, I'm close to home, and I have a manager who works with me so that I can be there for my kids more often than not. Very few retail (or other) establishments offer that type of flexibility. As a single Mom, that's important to me. Especially in today's economy.

Again, our store is 2 doors down from the public restrooms. I feel no guilt directing folks there, instead of angsting over whether or not to allow them to use our *non-public* restroom. If that makes me a b****? So be it.

[stickywicket67]

Originally Posted by mtiger

Again, a relatively cavalier attitude. Yes, I could choose to work elsewhere where this wouldn't even be an issue as I wouldn't have the public to deal with. I'd make more money, but I'd also have an hour+ commute to deal with - each way. So I wouldn't be available for my kids' extracurricular activities.

The job I'm at now... I make more than a lot of folks in retail, I'm close to home, and I have a manager who works with me so that I can be there for my kids more often than not. Very few retail (or other) establishments offer that type of flexibility. As a single Mom, that's important to me. Especially in today's economy.

Again, our store is 2 doors down from the public restrooms. I feel no guilt directing folks there, instead of angsting over whether or not to allow them to use our *non-public* restroom. If that makes me a b****? So be it.

ok got it.

it's your choice not to let 3 year olds who are going to pee themselves use the restroom. but would your "flexible" manager fire you if you did?

at least you own it. if employees don't let regular customers in an emergency use the bathroom so be it. and those "outraged" customers will shop where they will. if i were their manager i'd fire them for bad customer service and poor judgment.

my issue is excusing the actions of the employees in the OP by saying maybe it was policy, no exceptions, and they were perhaps fearful of being fired. i find it truly hard to believe that any shop like that would fire an employee for allowing a child to pee in their toilet.

as for cavalier- i think it's cavalier that posters have summed up my financial situation and the economy of my area by my willingness to stand up for what i believe is the right thing to do. by that reasoning only wealthy people of independent means could afford the courage of their conviction.

[mtiger]

Originally Posted by stickywicket67

ok got it.

it's your choice not to let 3 year olds who are going to pee themselves use the restroom. but would your "flexible" manager fire you if you did?

at least you own it. if employees don't let regular customers in an emergency use the bathroom so be it. and those "outraged" customers will shop where they will. if i were their manager i'd fire them for bad customer service and poor judgment.

Actually, it IS company policy that our restrooms are not for public use. So I both comply with and enforce that policy. Regardless of the customer.

I have yet to have a customer outraged at being told we do not have a public restroom and being directed to the closest one to our store. Nor have I had any who have refused to continue shopping with us. We're polite in letting them know and in directinb them appropriately.

Would my manager fire me? Probably not the first few times. But I'd get spoken to about it. If I did it often enough - I'd get written up. And ya know... I have a pretty good record at my place. I'd prefer not to mess it up that way.

Originally Posted by stickywicket67

my issue is excusing the actions of the employees in the OP by saying maybe it was policy, no exceptions, and they were perhaps fearful of being fired. i find it truly hard to believe that any shop like that would fire an employee for allowing a child to pee in their toilet.

Again, it IS our company policy. And yes, my pople know that, at the end of the day, termination is a possibility.

Originally Posted by stickywicket67

as for cavalier- i think it's cavalier that posters have summed up my financial situation and the economy of my area by my willingness to stand up for what i believe is the right thing to do. by that reasoning only wealthy people of independent means could afford the courage of their conviction.

Sorry, but you are the one who said we could find other jobs and that, basically, we were pussies for not standing against such policies. No, I could not find another job that offers me what I have now. Nor can I afford to risk losing this job over a 3yo's toileting needs. I've known a lot of kids over the years, and not a one has been so desperate while shopping as to have to pee in a gutter. Sorry.

[onlyzombiecat]

Originally Posted by stickywicket67

my issue is excusing the actions of the employees in the OP by saying maybe it was policy, no exceptions, and they were perhaps fearful of being fired. i find it truly hard to believe that any shop like that would fire an employee for allowing a child to pee in their toilet.

Where I worked I was told by the owners that there were absolutely no exceptions. I totally believed that it would have gotten me fired even if it was a child. They fired a pregnant woman for missing one too many days.
I needed the job (money, insurance) so chose to follow the policy while I worked there.

As I stated in my pp to this thread I would definitely complain about the policy with the store owner/management. I would not focus my anger on the employees though for carrying out a policy.

[clairedevaux78]

I always carry a potty on the go in my car for this reason...and bc a lot of public bathrooms are NASTY!!!!! We still use the potty on the go a good bit, and there are a few times when I have been stuck without it that I really regret it!

[Triniity]

First: I did not read everything

Something like that happened to me, but I convinced the worker to allow us (my DD when she was like 20 month old and just off nappies) to use the loo. What I feel is: If I (as the employee) am afraid that the customer is a) in danger or b) making a mess - why don´t I just go with them? (not as in actually on the loo, obviously )

That´s what that lady did, she personally unlocked the door, warned me about the chemicals in the bottles on the floor, I even left the door open for her to see that we were not doing anything disgusting, she checked after us and unlocked the door. Business done. No problem.

I personally and as a ped think that it is a personal injury to deny a little child or any other person in great need a toilet. And it is against human rights. and it is against the first article of the german constitution which is: The dignity of any human is indefeasable.

To let a little child or pregnant woman or whoever wet him/herself is so against this paragraph!

[StarJune]

Originally Posted by stickywicket67

i just don't get the playing of devil's advocate every time someone comes on to vent about something. if the employee in the shop from the original post had said "oh no our restroom is broken today!" or just something with some sense of understanding of the urgency of the issue i don't think ann_of_loxley would've been "outraged". the point was the manner and circumstances in which they were told "no".

: I don't understand why someone can't complain about a situation and vent about it without people coming on give every unlikely scenario and reason why they shouldn't be upset .


OP- I hear ya'. I would be upset too. Once when we were travelling through the States and my daughter who was about your son's age had to go immediately. Of course we had the mandatory rest stops often, but as you know it happens. We are from Canada and were not familiar with the area so we pulled into a large chain hotel and asked for the bathroom. The clerk said that they did not have one . He proceeded to argue for several minutes that the only bathrooms were in the guest rooms :. I just walked in the direction where I thought it would be and let her use it. When I came back he was still arguing with my mom about it and a guest in line was complaining about not being served. I was pissed.

I fully intended to write a letter of complaint to headquarters. Now I can't remember if I did . I had never experienced anything like that in Canada and was so shocked that he would lie and then see a young child in agonizing pain and wanting to go and still refuse. And no, my daughter would never pee out on the street, .

[orangefoot]

Oxfam is staffed by volunteers and probably has only one paid member of staff per shop. This isn't an ordinary kind of shop by most standards and the fact that it was started in OXford to try to ease the effects of FAMine in 1942 you would think that some of their shop policies reflect the work for equality and poverty reduction worldwide.

I am going to make a sweeping generalisation here and say that from my experience the people who volunteer at Oxfam shops tend to be in late middle age, middle class, slightly aloof and wouldn't buy the stuff that they sell. Being told by someone such as this that there was no toilet instead of being honest and saying that they are very sorry but the toilet use policy has changed (for example) would have me on the edge of outrage too.

[finn'smama]

I think it's really sad we live in a world where people are afraid they will lose their job for letting a 3yo use a washroom. Really? OP, I would've been pissed off too, but I also have no issues letting my kids pee outside if they have to go. :
I find it interesting to read about the whole "policy" issue. I'm a letter carrier with Canada Post and have relied many times on using non-public washrooms (especially when I was pregnant!), and have never, ever been denied. I wonder why it's okay to let the post man use a bathroom, but not a 3 yo in distress...

[AndVeeGeeMakes3]

While I appreciate every indulgence that any stranger might extend to my child and her needs, I do not expect it. I think there is a sad sense of entitlement that parents often feel about the way that the world must move around our children, as if it is everyone else's obligation to bend rules, turn deaf ears/blind eyes, make exceptions, etc. simply because parents choose to bring their children into places not explicitly intended for them. I became a mother a bit later in life than lots of women, and I spent many years being amazed at the lack of consideration that many parents seem to feel for anyone outside of their little sphere. As a parent, now, I don't buy in to the "seen and not heard" business, but I do try very hard to gage when/where it is appropriate for my daughter to be and, sometimes, I just have to sacrifice my dearest wishes to shop in xyz store.

[Humnmilk4Humnbabes]

I just think it's awesome you marched your son outside and had him pee right in front of the store! I would have done the same thing ... people are crazy! It's as though the minute you become an adult, you completely forget what it was like to be a kid.

[stickywicket67]

Originally Posted by Triniity

First: I did not read everything

Something like that happened to me, but I convinced the worker to allow us (my DD when she was like 20 month old and just off nappies) to use the loo. What I feel is: If I (as the employee) am afraid that the customer is a) in danger or b) making a mess - why don´t I just go with them? (not as in actually on the loo, obviously )

That´s what that lady did, she personally unlocked the door, warned me about the chemicals in the bottles on the floor, I even left the door open for her to see that we were not doing anything disgusting, she checked after us and unlocked the door. Business done. No problem.

I personally and as a ped think that it is a personal injury to deny a little child or any other person in great need a toilet. And it is against human rights. and it is against the first article of the german constitution which is: The dignity of any human is indefeasable.

To let a little child or pregnant woman or whoever wet him/herself is so against this paragraph!

bolding mine- agreed.

Originally Posted by orangefoot

Oxfam is staffed by volunteers and probably has only one paid member of staff per shop. This isn't an ordinary kind of shop by most standards and the fact that it was started in OXford to try to ease the effects of FAMine in 1942 you would think that some of their shop policies reflect the work for equality and poverty reduction worldwide.

I am going to make a sweeping generalisation here and say that from my experience the people who volunteer at Oxfam shops tend to be in late middle age, middle class, slightly aloof and wouldn't buy the stuff that they sell. Being told by someone such as this that there was no toilet instead of being honest and saying that they are very sorry but the toilet use policy has changed (for example) would have me on the edge of outrage too.

yup. right on.

Originally Posted by kalkiwendy

While I appreciate every indulgence that any stranger might extend to my child and her needs, I do not expect it. I think there is a sad sense of entitlement that parents often feel about the way that the world must move around our children, as if it is everyone else's obligation to bend rules, turn deaf ears/blind eyes, make exceptions, etc. simply because parents choose to bring their children into places not explicitly intended for them. I became a mother a bit later in life than lots of women, and I spent many years being amazed at the lack of consideration that many parents seem to feel for anyone outside of their little sphere. As a parent, now, I don't buy in to the "seen and not heard" business, but I do try very hard to gage when/where it is appropriate for my daughter to be and, sometimes, I just have to sacrifice my dearest wishes to shop in xyz store.

i don't think it's a sense of entitlement (or indulgence) for a 3 year old with an urgent need to pee to expect to use the toilet -a toilet that he used before in a non emergency situation.

i agree with you somewhat. i dislike it when parents bring children into the store i manage and let them roughly touch breakables and climb on the furniture with dirty shoes and basically act like they are at a playground but that merely says to me the parents have bad judgment about how well their children can handle being in that environment. doesn't happen that often so when it does i try to intervene and engage the kids while the mother shops and that seems to work pretty well. otherwise, if they break it, they buy it. .

that said, i don't think kids need to be isolated simply for being and acting like children. our society has gotten a bit better at integrating children into daily life but it has a long long way to go and i think we would all be better for it.

personally, i think a healthy sense of entitlement is ok. everyone deserves to be treated with compassion and understanding. a sense of entitlement has helped to change a lot of bad "policies" in this world. the ADA, anti discrimination laws and laws protecting the rights of women came about because of a "sense of entitlement". children are the last group to really be taken seriously. most of this world is still not for them.

ftr- i never called anyone a "pussy". i may be an idealist but i'm not a name caller.

i understand that some employees need policies 100% spelled out for them, with all exceptions written down. imo- retail is probably not a good fit for that person.

when you are dealing with the public there are so many variables on a daily basis you cannot expect policy to cover every situation. as a manager i would not feel confident in that type of person's ability to do the job effectively. their precise following of the written policy would not reflect the tone of my leadership (empowering) nor our place of business- a gift/housewares shop.

as an employee of the kind of shop we're talking about -a shop where we'd expect adults with children in tow to come through the door everyday- i would be resentful of an employer who gave me access to cash and keys yet didn't trust me to use my best judgment about when the non-public restroom could be used by a customer. i would think that that employer really didn't really understand that kind of retail nor customer service and i'd move on to find an employer that better understood that.

if i felt like those were the only type of employers/shop owners in my area i'd look into some kind of schooling and i'd get my butt into another kind of profession. i wouldn't be willing to work a retail job, making retail pay, working retail hours, worrying everyday that a situation might come up where if i didn't 100% follow policy i would get fired. unrealistic and not worth it.

[mumto2]

Sorry, I think you were in the wrong.

You expected to be able to use the 'staff only' area of the shop, in fact barged in and were rude and demanding because your child was inconvenienced.

I'm sure that you must have come across a similar situation many, many times in the recent past as you've being practicing EC and your child has been potty trained for some 18 months now. What do you usually do? Surely not everyone accommodates your child's toileting needs every time??????

[meemee]

i havent read all the replies.

OP i would be furious at how they handled the whole situation. outright lying. there is no toilet back there. or perhaps they meant - there is no public toilet back there.

anyways there are people who take the law v. v. seriously and cannot bend even a little bit. i have seen that happen day in and day out. for instance i have been asked to leave the bus because i was 5 cents short, yet some have actually waived the fare or allowed me on even though i was 25 cents short.

BUT i would not boycott the store - that does a lot of great work - just because of some employees who just cant 'bend'. and honestly even if you write to oxfam - if i was the manager i would sympathise with you, but i would totally support my employees if the public wasnt allowed to use the restroom.

[mammal_mama]

Originally Posted by stickywicket67

i don't think it's a sense of entitlement (or indulgence) for a 3 year old with an urgent need to pee to expect to use the toilet -a toilet that he used before in a non emergency situation.

This is how I see it. I don't think Ann was the least bit rude in trying to help her son get to the potty before he peed his pants.

personally, i think a healthy sense of entitlement is ok. everyone deserves to be treated with compassion and understanding. a sense of entitlement has helped to change a lot of bad "policies" in this world. the ADA, anti discrimination laws and laws protecting the rights of women came about because of a "sense of entitlement". children are the last group to really be taken seriously. most of this world is still not for them.

Excellent point!

i understand that some employees need policies 100% spelled out for them, with all exceptions written down. imo- retail is probably not a good fit for that person.

Makes sense to me.

when you are dealing with the public there are so many variables on a daily basis you cannot expect policy to cover every situation. as a manager i would not feel confident in that type of person's ability to do the job effectively. their precise following of the written policy would not reflect the tone of my leadership (empowering) nor our place of business- a gift/housewares shop.

as an employee of the kind of shop we're talking about -a shop where we'd expect adults with children in tow to come through the door everyday- i would be resentful of an employer who gave me access to cash and keys yet didn't trust me to use my best judgment about when the non-public restroom could be used by a customer. i would think that that employer really didn't really understand that kind of retail nor customer service and i'd move on to find an employer that better understood that.

It sounds like you're really wonderful at what you do, and take pride in your work.

if i felt like those were the only type of employers/shop owners in my area i'd look into some kind of schooling and i'd get my butt into another kind of profession. i wouldn't be willing to work a retail job, making retail pay, working retail hours, worrying everyday that a situation might come up where if i didn't 100% follow policy i would get fired. unrealistic and not worth it.

Very well said! And, again, it's just really really hard for me to envision a situation where an employee could get fired for giving good customer service.

When I was a lot younger, I had a job as the opening teacher in a daycare center. The kids would bring in cereal from home in a baggie, and the daycare supplied the milk. Well, the manager got concerned that we were going through too much milk, and came in early one day to find me pouring milk into the kids' cereal, and then giving them milk in a cup as well.

A lot of milk was getting wasted, and she got onto me, and made it clear that they could either have milk in their bowl or in a glass -- but not both. So, the next day I follow my new policy, and one little boy with a big appetite was upset at not getting both. So, the next morning his mother tells me he wants both, and I stupidly regurgitate the "policy" and tell her that's what I "have to do" ...

So, that afternoon she talks with the manager, who takes me aside and explains that the customer is always right. I'm glad she didn't fire me -- I guess she realized I was young and that maybe I'd been intimidated by our conversation the other day.

But now that I've had some time to live and can see the big picture better, I'm thinking that if a manager were going to up and fire someone, it would more likely be someone who stolidly stuck to "policy" and disregared the customer.