Mum is asked to leave shop because her child is having a tantrum.

First topic message reminder :

An assistant in the John Lewis department store rudely asked a young mother to leave the shop because her child was having a tantrum.
He said other customers had complained, and escorted the embarrassed mum out of the shop.

Over reaction from him or should customers be able to shop in peace without putting up with screaming toddlers?



http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/mum-told-leave-john-lewis-10998605

Didge wrote:My view is this.
The reality is during the day the most customers these places will have is mothers with babies and toddlers. That is not being sexist, just a reality of the situation. Thus it makes sense that shops should make their stores that much more friendly to children, where a small area could be created with toys to help distract children which in their situation must be mind numbingly boring being dragged around hours with one or both parents. I mean seriously, most children are inquisitive, excitable, hyper and most of all want to play. So as much as its difficult for parents, nobody tends to give a thought what its like for the child being carted around from shop to shop. This is why to me if an area is available in a shop which is there for children to have some much needed fun, this would make the fay far much more easier for everyone.  Just think if the store had such an area, the child would have easily been distracted by something new and fun.

Just a thought

Shops generally like to utilise all of their floor space to maximise sales, so I don't know if they'd sacrifice any selling space to a play area. Who is to supervise the children in such an area anyway?

Syl wrote:
I'm used to Stormee.

You have my RESPECT Syl even though you have kicked me up the bum a few times.
Same with Miss Ragga, she has shot me with her Uzi a few times.

Laydeez will alwayz have my respect, there are othuz on here.

From my viewings the respectable looking muthuz do not have TANTRUM kids in shopz, OK, they cry, no prob, it is the bratz.

I heard one screaming at her kid yesterday calling him Saul, poor littul devil, what a handle.

I like kidz but cound not eat a whole one.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:My view is this.
The reality is during the day the most customers these places will have is mothers with babies and toddlers. That is not being sexist, just a reality of the situation. Thus it makes sense that shops should make their stores that much more friendly to children, where a small area could be created with toys to help distract children which in their situation must be mind numbingly boring being dragged around hours with one or both parents. I mean seriously, most children are inquisitive, excitable, hyper and most of all want to play. So as much as its difficult for parents, nobody tends to give a thought what its like for the child being carted around from shop to shop. This is why to me if an area is available in a shop which is there for children to have some much needed fun, this would make the fay far much more easier for everyone.  Just think if the store had such an area, the child would have easily been distracted by something new and fun.

Just a thought

Shops generally like to utilise all of their floor space to maximise sales, so I don't know if they'd sacrifice any selling space to a play area. Who is to supervise the children in such an area anyway?

SOME of the larger shopping centres over here have creches available for young parents, where they are staffed with qualified childcarers paid for by both relatevely small charges on those parents, and subsidised by the centre/mall owners...

MANY decent sized shopping centres also have parenting rooms available, somewhere.

OBVIOUSLY, most ordinary shops couldn't afford such services on their own..

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:My view is this.
The reality is during the day the most customers these places will have is mothers with babies and toddlers. That is not being sexist, just a reality of the situation. Thus it makes sense that shops should make their stores that much more friendly to children, where a small area could be created with toys to help distract children which in their situation must be mind numbingly boring being dragged around hours with one or both parents. I mean seriously, most children are inquisitive, excitable, hyper and most of all want to play. So as much as its difficult for parents, nobody tends to give a thought what its like for the child being carted around from shop to shop. This is why to me if an area is available in a shop which is there for children to have some much needed fun, this would make the fay far much more easier for everyone.  Just think if the store had such an area, the child would have easily been distracted by something new and fun.

Just a thought

Shops generally like to utilise all of their floor space to maximise sales, so I don't know if they'd sacrifice any selling space to a play area. Who is to supervise the children in such an area anyway?

The parent or parents would Rags

Like I say, kids need some fun time and would help break up the day.
Again if there is a small are with toys, this would no doubt of distracted the child very quickly from the tantrum.

The idea of a creche outside of the shop is OK, but if you had one in a shop the noise would be even worse!

Give shop assistant a medal. YES YES YES

Grow a backbone, John Lewis! Whichever member of staff ejected this mother and her screaming toddler deserves a medal, not a disciplinary procedure because we, the silent shopping majority, are heartily sick of the parents who stand by while their red-faced little emperors throw monstrous tantrums.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3483241/Oh-torture-tantrum-one-mum-asked-leave-John-Lewis-screaming-child-CLARE-FOGES-says-hurrah-six-mothers-share-toddlers-mortifying-meltdowns.html#ixzz42OW3IiZy
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Stormee wrote:Give shop assistant a medal. YES YES YES

Grow a backbone, John Lewis! Whichever member of staff ejected this mother and her screaming toddler deserves a medal, not a disciplinary procedure because we, the silent shopping majority, are heartily sick of the parents who stand by while their red-faced little emperors throw monstrous tantrums.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3483241/Oh-torture-tantrum-one-mum-asked-leave-John-Lewis-screaming-child-CLARE-FOGES-says-hurrah-six-mothers-share-toddlers-mortifying-meltdowns.html#ixzz42OW3IiZy
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

John Lewis shouldn't have rewarded that woman - they should have stuck up for their employee instead of pandering to her. I think she would have loved to see the man fired.

We are fans of John Lewis.

Last summer we took two poorly people there for garden furniture at their request.
They were unsure of which to select and the assistant said, "don't worry, it is free delivery and if you find you do not like it we will come and collect it FOC and make sure you get something to suit you, providing you do not damage it." THAT IS GOOD SERVICE.

I will be disappointed if the shop assistant gets told off.

Look at the way she's stirring it up.

She said: “I called customer services and someone did call me back. They apologised and said the member of staff’s behaviour was out of order.

“When I complained customer services said they knew exactly who was involved and that he worked on menswear.”

Firstly, did they really say that the sales assistant was out of order?

Secondly, perhaps they said they knew the member of staff she was referring to, but the way it's been reported implies that they already had problems with him.

It seems many would like children to be hamogenised, kept away from society and only brought out of the packet when they are fully grown and trained to be model citizens.

It also seems that some are happy with posters calling young mums 'promiscuous tartz'.  I'm glad I'm not.

Not see any poster on this thread call a young mum a slag???

I haven't seen anyone call them slags either.

My objection is to what this woman did afterwards - talking to the press, trying to get the sales assistant into trouble, and John Lewis not sticking up for their own staff.

Raggamuffin wrote:I haven't seen anyone call them slags either.

My objection is to what this women did afterwards - talking to the press, trying to get the sales assistant into trouble, and John Lewis not sticking up for their own staff.

Well that poster is looking to derail as usual and not talk about the topic of the debate

Anyway, any person in this day and age should use the media, if they ahve been dealt with poorly as its more likely to get a reaction than wasting time going through courts. Also with the advent of CCTV in stores you can also tell if someone is lying like with the young mother who lied claiming she was kicked out for breastfeeding. 
So in reality Rags, all round its far easier to take this approach if you want something done and it also allows for the store to look good also by how they react towards the customer.

Raggamuffin wrote:I haven't seen anyone call them slags either.

My objection is to what this women did afterwards - talking to the press, trying to get the sales assistant into trouble, and John Lewis not sticking up for their own staff.

Reading back I changed it, but same difference, promiscuous tartz.

Absolutely nothing would ever be done about anything, if people didn't campaign and get published things situations they object to.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I haven't seen anyone call them slags either.

My objection is to what this women did afterwards - talking to the press, trying to get the sales assistant into trouble, and John Lewis not sticking up for their own staff.

Well that poster is looking to derail as usual and not talk about the topic of the debate

Anyway, any person in this day and age should use the media, if they ahve been dealt with poorly as its more likely to get a reaction than wasting time going through courts. Also with the advent of CCTV in stores you can also tell if someone is lying like with the young mother who lied claiming she was kicked out for breastfeeding. 
So in reality Rags, all round its far easier to take this approach if you want something done and it also allows for the store to look good also by how they react towards the customer.

They weren't dealt with poorly though were they? She got an apology, a gift voucher, and some flowers.

This sales assistant is just an ordinary person who did what he thought was best - customers were complaining apparently. Perhaps he could have dealt with it better, but he's only human and he didn't deserve to be berated all over the internet and the press by this silly woman.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I haven't seen anyone call them slags either.

My objection is to what this women did afterwards - talking to the press, trying to get the sales assistant into trouble, and John Lewis not sticking up for their own staff.

Reading back I changed it, but same difference, promiscuous tartz.

Absolutely nothing would ever be done about anything, if people didn't campaign and get published things situations they object to.

Campaign against what? A decision by a sales assistant to ask someone to leave because their kid was being disruptive?

If we're going to campaign against anything, it should be against silly people who try to bully shop assistants and try to get them into trouble via the media.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Well that poster is looking to derail as usual and not talk about the topic of the debate

Anyway, any person in this day and age should use the media, if they ahve been dealt with poorly as its more likely to get a reaction than wasting time going through courts. Also with the advent of CCTV in stores you can also tell if someone is lying like with the young mother who lied claiming she was kicked out for breastfeeding. 
So in reality Rags, all round its far easier to take this approach if you want something done and it also allows for the store to look good also by how they react towards the customer.

They weren't dealt with poorly though were they? She got an apology, a gift voucher, and some flowers.

This sales assistant is just an ordinary person who did what he thought was best - customers were complaining apparently. Perhaps he could have dealt with it better, but he's only human and he didn't deserve to be berated all over the internet and the press by this silly woman.

But the customer is always right Rags and if seen they are right when she was clearly wronged and the store has admitted this wrong, then the sales assistant was wrong also. He dealt with the whole situation wrong. Just because some complain does not mean you throw somebody out of the store but in fact ask if you can assist that mother.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They weren't dealt with poorly though were they? She got an apology, a gift voucher, and some flowers.

This sales assistant is just an ordinary person who did what he thought was best - customers were complaining apparently. Perhaps he could have dealt with it better, but he's only human and he didn't deserve to be berated all over the internet and the press by this silly woman.

But the customer is always right Rags and if seen they are not right when she was clearly wronged and the store has admitted this wrong, then the sales assistant was wrong also. He dealt with the whole situation wrong. Just because so complain does not mean you throw somebody out of the store but in fact ask if you can assist that mother.

See, this is the problem - the customer is not always right, and retail companies shouldn't pander to them if they're not right.

He dealt with the situation in a way which she didn't like - that didn't make it wrong. Of course John Lewis will apologise to her - that's standard procedure if a customer complains. They should not have commented publically though - that's just wrong IMO as it was between the customer and the company.

Anyway, if he hadn't done anything, perhaps the customers who complained would have been all over the internet complaining about sales assistants who ignore disruptive kids in shops.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


But the customer is always right Rags and if seen they are not right when she was clearly wronged and the store has admitted this wrong, then the sales assistant was wrong also. He dealt with the whole situation wrong. Just because so complain does not mean you throw somebody out of the store but in fact ask if you can assist that mother.

See, this is the problem - the customer is not always right, and retail companies shouldn't pander to them if they're not right.

He dealt with the situation in a way which she didn't like - that didn't make it wrong. Of course John Lewis will apologise to her - that's standard procedure if a customer complains. They should not have commented publically though - that's just wrong IMO as it was between the customer and the company.

Anyway, if he hadn't done anything, perhaps the customers who complained would have been all over the internet complaining about sales assistants who ignore disruptive kids in shops.

But in the eyes of business they are right, the point you miss, as its bad for business.
Again where like the woman lied being kicked out the Police dealt with this, but your view they should not go to the press once upon a time so countless customers ignored which is disgusting. So now rightly stores have to be very careful how they deal with a situation.
He had no right to ask her to leave.
Where is the store policy that says he has the right to ask a customer to leave because their child is upset?
He is thus in the wrong and took a decision that has placed the store in a bad light.
They did the right thing to show and agree that the member of staff was wrong
That then allows people to see that at least they have not ignored this complaint, which matters to people

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

See, this is the problem - the customer is not always right, and retail companies shouldn't pander to them if they're not right.

He dealt with the situation in a way which she didn't like - that didn't make it wrong. Of course John Lewis will apologise to her - that's standard procedure if a customer complains. They should not have commented publically though - that's just wrong IMO as it was between the customer and the company.

Anyway, if he hadn't done anything, perhaps the customers who complained would have been all over the internet complaining about sales assistants who ignore disruptive kids in shops.

But in the eyes of business they are right, the point you miss, as its bad for business.
Again where like the woman lied being kicked out the Police dealt with this, but your view they should not go to the press once upon a time so countless customers ignored which is disgusting. So now rightly stores have to be very careful how they deal with a situation.
He had no right to ask her to leave.
Where is the store policy that says he has the right to ask a customer to leave because their child is upset?
He is thus in the wrong and took a decision that has placed the store in a bad light.
They did the right thing to show and agree that the member of staff was wrong
That then allows people to see that at least they have not ignored this complaint, which matters to people

They're not always right in the eyes of the business. If they nick something, they're not right, if they harass a member of staff they're not right.

There is probably no actual policy about that kind of situation, so it's merely a matter of opinion as to who was right and who was wrong. There's nothing to say he had no right to ask her to leave. Her complaint had nothing to do with anyone else - it was between her and John Lewis.

One thing I've noticed in all these stories about customers whinging is that the employee never replies via Facebook or whatever. That's probably because they want to keep their job - something that these bullying customers are very well aware of, so they know they can whinge with impunity. I'd like to see one of these employees reply though and put their side of the story.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


But in the eyes of business they are right, the point you miss, as its bad for business.
Again where like the woman lied being kicked out the Police dealt with this, but your view they should not go to the press once upon a time so countless customers ignored which is disgusting. So now rightly stores have to be very careful how they deal with a situation.
He had no right to ask her to leave.
Where is the store policy that says he has the right to ask a customer to leave because their child is upset?
He is thus in the wrong and took a decision that has placed the store in a bad light.
They did the right thing to show and agree that the member of staff was wrong
That then allows people to see that at least they have not ignored this complaint, which matters to people

They're not always right in the eyes of the business. If they nick something, they're not right, if they harass a member of staff they're not right.

There is probably no actual policy about that kind of situation, so it's merely a matter of opinion as to who was right and who was wrong. There's nothing to say he had no right to ask her to leave. Her complaint had nothing to do with anyone else - it was between her and John Lewis.

One thing I've noticed in all these stories about customers whinging is that the employee never replies via Facebook or whatever. That's probably because they want to keep their job - something that these bullying customers are very well aware of, so they know they can whinge with impunity. I'd like to see one of these employees reply though and put their side of the story.

You failed to understand my first point, the onus is always to see the customer is dealt with rightly.
Even where a customer has harassed a member of staff is to learn from this if the situation was escalated by the store, its policies or the staff member itself. That means the shop may well then have the right to have the customer charged, but its interested is then from a repeat of the situation. So there is much you need to learn from a business point of view Rags.
If there is no policy then its not a case of a matter of opinion, as a child can be temperamental and there is nothing more embarrassing for a mother with already their child having a tantrum, then for some clueless shop assistant then further embarrass them by wrongly asking them to leave. So he had no right to ask this mother to leave and the store agreed with her by the fact it admitted as such by offering something to make the situation right. Her complaint rightly was also against the member of staff and they should have some training made for him to learn how to handle a situation. Anyone with some sense would have tried to assist the mother not ask them to leave. Clearly this member of staff was easily sway by someone complaining, where he should advise those complaining he would go to assist the mother. Store assistants are not only there to stack shelves and help with any advice or assistance of items in the shop but to help assist many needs of the customers. Again it is a reality that many more people will shop with children and any such stance to remove a parent and child because that child is upset is not only backward but damaging to the store

You seem to wrongly think nobody has a right to complain. If you were a parent you might understand how embarrassing such a situation is to have a child so upset. I back this mother to the full and she has every right to be disgusted at her treatment. Stores are when open are for public access.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They're not always right in the eyes of the business. If they nick something, they're not right, if they harass a member of staff they're not right.

There is probably no actual policy about that kind of situation, so it's merely a matter of opinion as to who was right and who was wrong. There's nothing to say he had no right to ask her to leave. Her complaint had nothing to do with anyone else - it was between her and John Lewis.

One thing I've noticed in all these stories about customers whinging is that the employee never replies via Facebook or whatever. That's probably because they want to keep their job - something that these bullying customers are very well aware of, so they know they can whinge with impunity. I'd like to see one of these employees reply though and put their side of the story.

You failed to understand my first point, the onus is always to see the customer is dealt with rightly.
Even where a customer has harassed a member of staff is to learn from this if the situation was escalated by the store, its policies or the staff member itself. That means the shop may well then have the right to have the customer charged, but its interested is then from a repeat of the situation. So there is much you need to learn from a business point of view Rags.
If there is no policy then its not a case of a matter of opinion, as a child can be temperamental and there is nothing more embarrassing for a mother with already their child having a tantrum, then for some clueless shop assistant then further embarrass them by wrongly asking them to leave. So he had no right to ask this mother to leave and the store agreed with her by the fact it admitted as such by offering something to make the situation right. Her complaint rightly was also against the member of staff and they should have some training made for him to learn how to handle a situation. Anyone with some sense would have tried to assist the mother not ask them to leave. Clearly this member of staff was easily sway by someone complaining, where he should advise those complaining he would go to assist the mother. Store assistants are not only there to stack shelves and help with any advice or assistance of items in the shop but to help assist many needs of the customers. Again it is a reality that many more people will shop with children and any such stance to remove a parent and child because that child is upset is not only backward but damaging to the store

You seem to wrongly think nobody has a right to complain. If you were a parent you might understand how embarrassing such a situation is to have a child so upset. I back this mother to the full and she has every right to be disgusted at her treatment. Stores are when open are for public access.

If you came into my store I would expect you to treat it, staff and customers with respect.
You'll be saying next publicans are not allowed to eject drunks.

How do we even know if this woman is telling the truth? It's a bit one-sided isn't it?

You know as well I do that the employee is not likely to contradict her publically - because John Lewis would not like their staff to get embroiled in a public argument. The fact that they made a public statement themselves won't stop them disapproving of that. You also know that John Lewis is unlikely to call her a liar if the explanation that the employee gives them contradicts what she said.

The right way for customers to deal with this kind of thing is to ask to see the Manager, and then explain what their complaint is - with the employee present so that he/she can put forward his/her side. That way, any misunderstandings can be discussed and hopefully sorted out.

If that leaves them dissatisfied, they then contact head office or customer services and explain what their complaint is. The company then asks for an explanation from the member of staff, and go from there. What shouldn't happen is for the company to make public statements when they know that the employee can't really contradict them without risking losing their job.

Going to the press or via social media is just bullying because they know the employee can't really stand up for themselves publically.

Stormee wrote:

Didge wrote:


You failed to understand my first point, the onus is always to see the customer is dealt with rightly.
Even where a customer has harassed a member of staff is to learn from this if the situation was escalated by the store, its policies or the staff member itself. That means the shop may well then have the right to have the customer charged, but its interested is then from a repeat of the situation. So there is much you need to learn from a business point of view Rags.
If there is no policy then its not a case of a matter of opinion, as a child can be temperamental and there is nothing more embarrassing for a mother with already their child having a tantrum, then for some clueless shop assistant then further embarrass them by wrongly asking them to leave. So he had no right to ask this mother to leave and the store agreed with her by the fact it admitted as such by offering something to make the situation right. Her complaint rightly was also against the member of staff and they should have some training made for him to learn how to handle a situation. Anyone with some sense would have tried to assist the mother not ask them to leave. Clearly this member of staff was easily sway by someone complaining, where he should advise those complaining he would go to assist the mother. Store assistants are not only there to stack shelves and help with any advice or assistance of items in the shop but to help assist many needs of the customers. Again it is a reality that many more people will shop with children and any such stance to remove a parent and child because that child is upset is not only backward but damaging to the store

You seem to wrongly think nobody has a right to complain. If you were a parent you might understand how embarrassing such a situation is to have a child so upset. I back this mother to the full and she has every right to be disgusted at her treatment. Stores are when open are for public access.

If you came into my store I would expect you to treat it, staff and customers with respect.
You'll be saying next publicans are not allowed to eject drunks.

Sadly, there are people around who think they can do or say what they like on the grounds that "the customer is always right".

Stormee wrote:

Didge wrote:


You failed to understand my first point, the onus is always to see the customer is dealt with rightly.
Even where a customer has harassed a member of staff is to learn from this if the situation was escalated by the store, its policies or the staff member itself. That means the shop may well then have the right to have the customer charged, but its interested is then from a repeat of the situation. So there is much you need to learn from a business point of view Rags.
If there is no policy then its not a case of a matter of opinion, as a child can be temperamental and there is nothing more embarrassing for a mother with already their child having a tantrum, then for some clueless shop assistant then further embarrass them by wrongly asking them to leave. So he had no right to ask this mother to leave and the store agreed with her by the fact it admitted as such by offering something to make the situation right. Her complaint rightly was also against the member of staff and they should have some training made for him to learn how to handle a situation. Anyone with some sense would have tried to assist the mother not ask them to leave. Clearly this member of staff was easily sway by someone complaining, where he should advise those complaining he would go to assist the mother. Store assistants are not only there to stack shelves and help with any advice or assistance of items in the shop but to help assist many needs of the customers. Again it is a reality that many more people will shop with children and any such stance to remove a parent and child because that child is upset is not only backward but damaging to the store

You seem to wrongly think nobody has a right to complain. If you were a parent you might understand how embarrassing such a situation is to have a child so upset. I back this mother to the full and she has every right to be disgusted at her treatment. Stores are when open are for public access.

If you came into my store I would expect you to treat it, staff and customers with respect.
You'll be saying next publicans are not allowed to eject drunks.

So how do you get a child to treat a store with respect if they are upset

That is just plain absurd and shows you have no concept that children can be temperamental

You can expect this of adults, but then the store sis there to care for the customer

Raggamuffin wrote:How do we even know if this woman is telling the truth? It's a bit one-sided isn't it?

You know as well I do that the employee is not likely to contradict her publically - because John Lewis would not like their staff to get embroiled in a public argument. The fact that they made a public statement themselves won't stop them disapproving of that. You also know that John Lewis is unlikely to call her a liar if the explanation that the employee gives them contradicts what she said.

The right way for customers to deal with this kind of thing is to ask to see the Manager, and then explain what their complaint is - with the employee present so that he/she can put forward his/her side. That way, any misunderstandings can be discussed and hopefully sorted out.

If that leaves them dissatisfied, they then contact head office or customer services and explain what their complaint is. The company then asks for an explanation from the member of staff, and go from there. What shouldn't happen is for the company to make public statements when they know that the employee can't really contradict them without risking losing their job.

Going to the press or via social media is just bullying because they know the employee can't really stand up for themselves publically.

Well why has not John Lewis not come out and said its a lie

Thus its true

Of course the company will challenge if there is CCTV evidence contradicting her claim.
So that assertion is false also after the incident with the mother who lied over breast feeding.
How can she see the manager if no manager is available?
They have just been asked to leave and at the same time their child is kicking off. Seriously that poor mother is having to juggle a difficult situation and its easy to say that in hindsight, but you have never dealt with what she dealt with.
So again that does not excuse what the shop assistant did.
Again you really cannot grasp how before people did this and went through a lengthy process where they ended up dissatisfied because shops would take the piss with customer complains
Now they are not able to do so with the advent of the social media, and in that aspect, its a blessing because now companies are forced to act and rightly so

Didge wrote:

Stormee wrote:

If you came into my store I would expect you to treat it, staff and customers with respect.
You'll be saying next publicans are not allowed to eject drunks.

So how do you get a child to treat a store with respect if they are upset

That is just plain absurd and shows you have no concept that children can be temperamental

You can expect this of adults, but then the store sis there to care for the customer

All the customers, including ones who are complaining about excessive noise.

However, sales assistants aren't social workers or counsellors, and they're not there to help people control their kids or sort out their problems for them. Of course it's nice if they offer to help, but they're not obliged to.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


So how do you get a child to treat a store with respect if they are upset

That is just plain absurd and shows you have no concept that children can be temperamental

You can expect this of adults, but then the store sis there to care for the customer

All the customers, including ones who are complaining about excessive noise.

Again you have to make allowances for children and to treat them as adults and expect them to act as adults is absurd

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

All the customers, including ones who are complaining about excessive noise.

Again you have to make allowances for children and to treat them as adults and expect them to act as adults is absurd

As I said, we've only heard her side of the story.

Raggamuffin wrote:However, sales assistants aren't social workers or counsellors, and they're not there to help people control their kids or sort out their problems for them. Of course it's nice if they offer to help, but they're not obliged to.

What has this to do with social workers?

They are there to assist

Which means a multitude of tasks

Well they would have to be some right obnoxious, selfish person to not want to help

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Again you have to make allowances for children and to treat them as adults and expect them to act as adults is absurd

As I said, we've only heard her side of the story.

Which John Lewis has not challenged

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

As I said, we've only heard her side of the story.

Which John Lewis has not challenged

Well actually they have because they said that the sales assistant did not escort her out of the shop as she claimed. She's whinging about that as well.

However, they should have left it at that and not said another word about what they're saying to the sales assistant.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:However, sales assistants aren't social workers or counsellors, and they're not there to help people control their kids or sort out their problems for them. Of course it's nice if they offer to help, but they're not obliged to.

What has this to do with social workers?

They are there to assist

Which means a multitude of tasks

Well they would have to be some right obnoxious, selfish person to not want to help

They're not there to help someone calm their kid down, and if other customers complained, I would suggest that it went on for longer than she claimed.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:



Which John Lewis has not challenged

Well actually they have because they said that the sales assistant did not escort her out of the shop as she claimed. She's whinging about that as well.

However, they should have left it at that and not said another word about what they're saying to the sales assistant.

So they challenged one aspect which means they did investigate and also admitted they were wrong to ask her to leave

No they should leave it at that because the member of staff needs training

Again they have admitted that how she was treated was wrong, the point you keep avoiding

Low key was the way to go in this incident Miss Ragga, now the theorists will make up all sorts crap maybe find a conspiracy. lol

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


What has this to do with social workers?

They are there to assist

Which means a multitude of tasks

Well they would have to be some right obnoxious, selfish person to not want to help

They're not there to help someone calm their kid down, and if other customers complained, I would suggest that it went on for longer than she claimed.

Really, so a person who works in a store and is paid to assist customers has a duty to ask if they can assist a mother who is having a difficult situation. To day its not their job is fundamentally wrong.
What do you think shop assistance are paid to do?
Stand around all day looking gormless?

Stormee wrote:Low key was the way to go in this incident Miss Ragga, now the theorists will make up all sorts  crap maybe find a conspiracy. lol

Common sense was the way to go here

Ask the mother if she needed any help

That is called common decency

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well actually they have because they said that the sales assistant did not escort her out of the shop as she claimed. She's whinging about that as well.

However, they should have left it at that and not said another word about what they're saying to the sales assistant.

So they challenged one aspect which means they did investigate and also admitted they were wrong to ask her to leave

No they should leave it at that because the member of staff needs training

Again they have admitted that how she was treated was wrong, the point you keep avoiding

What they said was this:

In a statement John Lewis said: ”We are very sorry that Mrs Robinson was upset after visiting our shop. One of our managers spoke to her on Saturday to sincerely apologise and today our head of branch has today written to Mrs Robinson to formally apologise again, and has also sent her flowers.

“Although our Partner didn’t escort Mrs Robinson out of the shop, he did ask her to leave in response to other customers’ complaints. We’re speaking to the Partner about what happened, and how we could have been more sympathetic to Mrs Robinson and her daughter.”

They didn't say that the chap was wrong, they said they were speaking to him about how he could have handled it differently. I don't think they should have said that publically, but they're still not saying he was "wrong". What they're basically saying is that they're sorry she was upset, which is not quite the same thing as saying that she was right.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They're not there to help someone calm their kid down, and if other customers complained, I would suggest that it went on for longer than she claimed.

Really, so a person who works in a store and is paid to assist customers has a duty to ask if they can assist a mother who is having a difficult situation. To day its not their job is fundamentally wrong.
What do you think shop assistance are paid to do?
Stand around all day looking gormless?

They do not have a duty to ask if they can assist a mother who is having a difficult time with their kid.

It's all common sense isn't it? It would have been nice if he had done so, but he didn't have a duty to do so. What is really wrong is this woman having a go at him publically when she knows he can't defend himself publically.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:



So they challenged one aspect which means they did investigate and also admitted they were wrong to ask her to leave

No they should leave it at that because the member of staff needs training

Again they have admitted that how she was treated was wrong, the point you keep avoiding

What they said was this:

In a statement John Lewis said: ”We are very sorry that Mrs Robinson was upset after visiting our shop. One of our managers spoke to her on Saturday to sincerely apologise and today our head of branch has today written to Mrs Robinson to formally apologise again, and has also sent her flowers.

“Although our Partner didn’t escort Mrs Robinson out of the shop, he did ask her to leave in response to other customers’ complaints. We’re speaking to the Partner about what happened, and how we could have been more sympathetic to Mrs Robinson and her daughter.”

They didn't say that the chap was wrong, they said they were speaking to him about how he could have handled it differently. I don't think they should have said that publically, but they're still not saying he was "wrong". What they're basically saying is that they're sorry she was upset, which is not quite the same thing as saying that she was right.

Yes they have admitted he was wrong and then the heads to write and again apologise, then send her flowers. That is as saying you are in the wrong big time
You do not apologise if you have not been in the wrong
So you are very wrong Rags
Then they even admit to speaking to him how to handle it, why would they do that if he was not in the wrong?
They were right to say it publically
Seriously Rags, never ever run a shop, you would be out of business within 2 months with your philosophy on customers
That is not an insult but a reality

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Really, so a person who works in a store and is paid to assist customers has a duty to ask if they can assist a mother who is having a difficult situation. To day its not their job is fundamentally wrong.
What do you think shop assistance are paid to do?
Stand around all day looking gormless?

They do not have a duty to ask if they can assist a mother who is having a difficult time with their kid.

It's all common sense isn't it? It would have been nice if he had done so, but he didn't have a duty to do so. What is really wrong is this woman having a go at him publically when she knows he can't defend himself publically.

They are paid to assist customers

She needed assistance

What on earth do you think staff are expected to do in a shop again

Stand around looking gormless

Seriously, never, ever run a shop Rags, i would hate to see your dreams shattered

If JL sack their assistant I will not shop there again, CERTAIN.

It is one of the most courteous stores I have patronised.
Other stores could learn from them.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What they said was this:



They didn't say that the chap was wrong, they said they were speaking to him about how he could have handled it differently. I don't think they should have said that publically, but they're still not saying he was "wrong". What they're basically saying is that they're sorry she was upset, which is not quite the same thing as saying that she was right.

Yes they have admitted he was wrong and then the heads to write and again apologise, then send her flowers. That is as saying you are in the wrong big time
You do not apologise if you have not been in the wrong
So you are very wrong Rags
Then they even admit to speaking to him how to handle it, why would they do that if he was not in the wrong?
They were right to say it publically
Seriously Rags, never ever run a shop, you would be out of business within 2 months with your philosophy on customers
That is not an insult but a reality

Of course companies apologise even if the employee wasn't in the wrong. They want to keep customers, and they try to gauge what the majority would think about this situation. As it turns out, a lot of people have not backed this woman, but they weren't to know that in advance.

They were not right to say it publically IMO - that is unfair to the employee.

I think you look down on sales assistants - it's coming over in all of your posts on this subject.

Stormee wrote:If JL sack their assistant I will not shop there again, CERTAIN.

It is one of the most courteous stores I have patronised.
Other stores could learn from them.

They won't sack him Stormee - they're just trying to appease a bolshy customer and any other potential bolshy customers.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Yes they have admitted he was wrong and then the heads to write and again apologise, then send her flowers. That is as saying you are in the wrong big time
You do not apologise if you have not been in the wrong
So you are very wrong Rags
Then they even admit to speaking to him how to handle it, why would they do that if he was not in the wrong?
They were right to say it publically
Seriously Rags, never ever run a shop, you would be out of business within 2 months with your philosophy on customers
That is not an insult but a reality

Of course companies apologise even if the employee wasn't in the wrong. They want to keep customers, and they try to gauge what the majority would think about this situation. As it turns out, a lot of people have not backed this woman, but they weren't to know that in advance.

They were not right to say it publically IMO - that is unfair to the employee.

I think you look down on sales assistants - it's coming over in all of your posts on this subject.

Again if the assistant was not in the wrong they would not have spoken to him

They were completely right to show they were doing something in regards to their rude employee, who clearly needs further training to understand the needs of all customers
I know what a company needs to do for customers, as I have advised in this aspect
I do not look down on all sales assistance, some are fab and even recently posted about the young black shop assistance with the old dear remember Rags praising how he was very good with the old lady
Or have you forgotten that already?

Stormee wrote:If JL sack their assistant I will not shop there again, CERTAIN.

It is one of the most courteous stores I have patronised.
Other stores could learn from them.

Really?

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/jan/31/john-lewis-customer-services-digital-age

Thank you for your input Didge which in no way affects my personal opinion, shopping experience at J L.

Stormee wrote:Thank you for your input Didge which in no way affects my personal opinion, shopping experience at J L.

You are welcome mate, its a debate and lively one, which are always more interesting