Sainsbury staff called me stupid, childish and pathetic

unholyangel

Payless wrote: »

The OP has posted nothing since Nov 09 and now this thread has started.

Doesnt necessarily mean anything. I personally signed up in 2007, posted once then forgot all about the site until recently

As for the OP. IMO it sounds like a possible wind up between two foolish workers. The girl who answered the phone could well have known exactly who you were talking about because he could have already told her exactly what he said to you.

I should now point out that my post is purely opinion based on the OP's post and in no way constitutes any factual personal knowledge (as there seem to be a "leapfrog" minority here on the site that like to jump on people for the slightest little thing - even if its because I didnt state the obvious that any sensible person would realise for themselves).

I realise your hesitation in causing the guy to lose his job for something that may not be something he can control. Rest assured, if he DOES have a genuine condition, his employers should take that into account when reviewing the situation and would not be able to dismiss him if there are positions better suited to him.

To say it is discrimination because he is not suitable for his role is utter idiocy. They are not saying he is not ABLE to do the job, just that his demeanor isnt suitable for that particular role..........just like if i were to be abusive towards customers i would not be suitable for the role. While it may not be his fault and isnt 100% fair, it is not a unjust conclusion.

And while i'm sure i will take a lot of flak for this comparison, i am not trying to belittle the troubles faced by people with disabilities in any way, rather pointing out how silly it is to place someone in a role they are not suitable for............whats next? Ugly supermodels? Someone who's obese being the spokesperson for the new "miracle" diet? Men being the spokespeople for tampax?

As other posters have said, if he does suffer from tourettes, it likely isnt pleasant for him either. Its up to his employers to place him in a role where he he is most suited.

shellsuit

gordikin wrote: »

It's not that important really!

It's not that important to have been ripped to bits by someone who gets paid to work with the general public??


Behave will you.

gordikin

Ripped to bits...I don't think so! Stick to the facts. Behave!

pickle

Personally I would just leave the shopping, you don't have to complete the shopping transaction if you believe you're being abused.

shellsuit

gordikin wrote: »

Ripped to bits...I don't think so! Stick to the facts. Behave!

I have tattoos and tend to dye my hair bright red or occasionally other colours – he hated my hair and tattoos and made sure I knew it. He ranted on at me the whole time I was at the checkout, including stuff like telling me I'm stupid, childish, pathetic, etc.

I was quite upset and embarrassed. I could feel myself going bright red and he seemed to enjoy getting this reaction – his grin got wider and wider as he was ranting on at me.

They are the facts, and if that's not getting ripped to bits (do you even know what it means?) what exactly is it???

Hannah_10

Whether or not something is discriminatory can be summerised very simply...

Q1. Can Joe Bloggs do this job as things are?
Yes [then he deserves the same shot at it as anyone else]
No [go to Q2]

2. Could Joe Bloggs do the job if we made adaptations (see note)?
Yes [go to Q3]
No [he's not able to do this job]

3. Can we incorporate the required adaptions?
Yes [he deserves the same shot as everyone else]
No [he's not able to do this job]

As far as I can tell for this man to be able to perform a customer facing job we would need to adapt all customers so that they were all either profoundly deaf and blind, or adapt all customers so that they were either so socially impaired or so disability-aware they did not find the employees comments offensive. Obviously those outcomes are both impossible.

Something is discriminatory when it's unfair. It is not unfair to find this man unsuitable for customer facing employment as there is not any way in which the working environment could be adapted to make customer facing employment a possibility in a business who rely on high-volumes of trade from all sectors of the general public. It just is not possible.

edgex

tbw wrote: »

Look, with the best will in the world it simply is not possible/appropriate for people to always be given a toallly free choice of where they want to work. Unfortunately, some people do have disabilities and, while I have every sympathy for them and would want them to be given every possible chance to live life to the full, there are some things they can't/shouldn't do. It isn't discrimination in the true sense of the word to put a person who is clearly not able to deal with customers face to face in a 'background' position. Its being sensible - and also kinder to the person concerned as forcing someone with a bad case of Tourette's to deal with customers surely will cause them embarrassment, distress and hurt. They know themselves what is happening and would want to avoid it if they could.

Doesn't sound like this guy has Tourette's though - possibly some per personality disorder or Asbergers. He shouldn't be on the till though - customers have the right to be treated politely !!!

er, no

(its Aspergers anyway)

tbw

edgex wrote: »

er, no

(its Aspergers anyway)

Ok, so I made a spelling mistake - hardly a hanging offence.

But your response doesn't make sense - the 'offending' staff member could very well have had any one of a number of problems and he certainly seems to have had issues with relating to customers. Your 'err, no' comment doesn't seem relevant. Or are you just picking holes in my spelling without adding anything to the discussion ?

purt

Can't we be nice to all moneysavers?

Dr_Cuckoo3

Hannah_10 wrote: »

As far as I can tell for this man to be able to perform a customer facing job we would need to adapt all customers so that they were all either profoundly deaf and blind, or adapt all customers so that they were either so socially impaired or so disability-aware they did not find the employees comments offensive. Obviously those outcomes are both impossible.

Perhaps they could give the gentleman a sound proof helmet so customers would not be able to hear him speak :idea: