Don't call the barmaid 'love' - new discrimination laws

Don Searle
Member - 19 posts

Unworkable, unwise, unwanted...and that applies to Harriet Hormone as well as this ill-considered piece of blunderbuss legislation. Along with smoking, why not ban conversation altogether...the only sure way of protecting yourself from spurious harassment claims!

Nigel DuPree
Member - 112 posts

Ok is that before or after court finding that "Banter" is not harrassement unless perhaps it turns into teasing over a prolonged period and then only when euro regulations are correctly interprted by UK and regulations 'harmanised' ? What happened to proportionate or measured response or is it just gonna be another "strict liability" law where no opportunity to defend or mitigate? Just another Guilty before proved innocent.........

Anne McAllister
Member - 115 posts

I must be honest here.
I thought it was another April Fool !

Peter Hoare
Member - 3 posts

I did wonder whether it was an April Fool, and then realised that this was the Daily Mail, so expect shoddy, over-sensationalised reporting.

I quote from the article itself: "The regulations say that bosses are responsible for protecting their staff from sexual harassment by customers".

Show of hands for anyone who disgarees with that in principle? No, didn't think so.

So, from there, you *could* conceivably get to the point where a barmaid takes her employer to a tribunal for being called "love". But until that happens, until it's found in her favour, until "large-scale compensation" is given, this is simply speculation.

Emma McAuley
Member - 9 posts

Surely the article has just used a very low level example to highlight what could potentially be a bigger issue? I worked in several bars when I was a student and often put up with some quite scandalous comments from male customers, although admittidly I was a lot younger and less wise in those days.

If other bar workers (and this happens to males too!) feel they can work in an environment where they are not subjected to degrading comments from customers, surely this can only be a good thing?

I have often experienced what appears to be a physical miracle, where a bar worker without a low cut top or face full of make up has been capable of serving me a perfectly drinkable beverage. I must dig out the details of that bar........

James Fairchild
Member - 210 posts

I remember one night club I used to go to in my student days where the barmaids wore bikinis...

How would this issue affect a lap-dancing place? Would a punter sitting there, getting hot under the collar, maybe even salivating or panting be sexually harassing the girl?

Kevin Brown
Member - 73 posts

Where I was brought up (in South Yorkshire) it was, and is, commonplace to address all and sundry as 'love', irrespective of gender. It's part of the local patois and is used INDISCRIMINATELY.
It's arguably more acceptable than calling someone 'mate' (which might be interpreted as an offer) or 'pal' and 'chum', which might count as subliminal advertising for the pet food industry.
Let's be reasonable here, how could the word 'love' be associated in any way with gender differences .......
(Vive la difference).

David Sharp - Workplace Law Network
Online advisor - 119 posts

Kevin - I can endorse your comments, and was making the very same point in our office only the other day. When I was first a student in Leeds (back in the days when 30p took you all around the city) I remember a bus driver calling me "flower". As a 20-year old bloke with a less than delicate build. I was quite taken aback.

It didn't take too long to realise though, as someone new to the area, that lots of people called you "love" and "flower", regardless of your sex, age or intentions!

Anne McAllister
Member - 115 posts

I also did bar work (many years ago) and had no problem being called love, darling, sweetheart, honey etc etc
Actually it was the only place i did get called nice names LOL

Alex Gordon
Member - 13 posts

Enough of this cheery northern banter, there is a serious side to this which is that it is unacceptable to treat members of staff as objects.

A friend owns a bar here in Glasgow anf has operated a zero tolerance approach to sexual harrassment of staff for years. His reasoning? he wouldn't want it happening to his girlfriend or sister so why accept it for a member of his staff. Now that is REAL common sense.

James Fairchild
Member - 210 posts

When I had a girlfriend in Sheffield, people were referred to as "duck".

Alex - I'm sure if you were to insist that "cheery northern banter" cease then that could be considered racial discrimination on the grounds of geographical origin.

Fair play to your friend. He could teach the landlord I used to work for a few things.

Kevin Brown
Member - 73 posts

Alex - there's a serious point behind the cheery northern banter. In some parts of the country strangers are habitually addressed in what might be interpreted as over-familiar terms by exotic visitors. To address a bar person as 'love' in Sheffield would be nothing out of the ordinary, the recipient (male or female) accepting the use of the word as culturally consistent with the area. If followed by abuse, suggestive remarks, or inappropriate behaviour the response would be somewhat different. What we seem to have here is an il considered 'one size fits all' propoal that takes no account of regional differences, and is far more likely to offend a sizeable sector of the population who use the word daily without malice or ulterior motive as part of their normal speech pattern.
You're right in stating that it is how staff are treated that matters, but that surely depends on their perception of how they relate to customers and that in turn has to be inextricably linked to attitude and intent.
If we start with 'love', who knows what will be deleted from the dictionary next. I suggest any form of address could be seen as a pejorative, depending on the moods, attitudes and intentions of those involved in the exchange.

Mark Shuttleworth
Member - 39 posts

Why is it treating someone as an object to call them 'love' 'duck' 'mate' 'pal' or 'chuck'. If sexual harrassment is being practised by patrons throw them out, simple but i don't think any of the above names are offensive and if so just say "don't call me that" .
What is the alternative greeting?
Good evening associated human can i get you a drink?
Yes please licensed premises employee i'll have 568 millilitres of lager!

paul thompson
Member - 1 post

we each have our own tolerance level regarding this subject however its quite easy to "police" by stating politley that the comment is not wanted or show appreciation as appropriate. ie take control!!
Let common sense return to the masses and lets celebrate the differences within our national greetings and general english dialogue.
Lets not let the PC idiots get away with it, dont rise to the bait, maintain the status qou and carry on rockin all of the world - lifes too short me duck!

Helen C
Member - 15 posts

I find it very hard to get my head around this "love" word being classed as harrassment. I really think it is PC gone loopy! I just feel sorry for some of the older generation who have always called everyone love and now have to watch what they say, especially after a few drinks, when more relaxed. I can just imagine it: "A pint over here please love..err sorry..I meant to say A pint over here please dear *ooh is the word "dear" classed as harrassment too* err sorry love err dear oops.... I meant to say A pint over here please barmaid!"
the next thing will be the PC brigade saying that the word maid is discrimination...wonder what happens when a woman calls a barmaid "love", would that be classed as harrassment too? If not, why? coz then that would be discrimination aginst Men! You see, I could go on and on, thats how ridiculous it all is!

Thomas Aldridge
Member - 3 posts

I have just watched on TV (BBC1, Sun. 6th April) the RNLI helicopter rescuing an old lady from her flooded home. The rescuer in trying to calm/reassure her called her "love" and "sweetheart!" I trust the P.C. brigade and those who make, and enforce such ridiculous laws weren't watching otherwise the RNLI wont get any more donations from these people. However I doubt if these people are at all charitable. So perhaps they will just be serving writs upon the RNLI!

Alex Gordon
Member - 13 posts

Come on, are you people serious?

First of all with regard to the "possibility" that any employer will be "sued" for a member of the public calling a member of staff "Love, duck or whichever term of endearment" is used in the North of England, where does this arise. Oh I see in the mind of the writers of that esteemed organ the Daily Mail. Well known for their expertise in matters relating to Employment Tribunals.
As anyone will tell you, you jump through hoops to get there and they do not tolerate spurious or absurd complaints.

Take a closer look at the opening two comments on this thread, from people on a site designed for professional use who seem unable to raise themselves above a level of imbecillity. Others, less offensively but with a similar degree of ignorance, talk of going to court over what is self-evidently an ET matter. So...

...here goes, I did not suggest that banter should be legislated against, I simply meant that the discussion on this thread had disappeared up an alley of "ee oop, when I were lad" navel gazing which was obscuring the fact that staff in the service industry should expect to be treated with a degree of respect which you would give to any other employee. I emphasised that along with my firm belief that I expect all staff to treat any colleague with the same respect that you would accord a member of your own family.
That seems to represent "common sense" as opposed to speculating on a piece of nonsense written by a reactionary right-wing propaganda sheet.

Kevin Brown
Member - 73 posts

This discussion is in the Opinion section of the forum. That being the case you really should expect contributors to state their opinions, navel gazing though it might seem to be. Labelling other contributors as imbecilic is unhelpful and suggests that you fail to treat other contributors with the degree of respect you advocate as a universal right.

David Wooldridge
Member - 13 posts

On reading all the comments on this, and other topics, I cannot help but think that standard common-sense has gone completely 'out of the window'!
Most of us really know what is, or not acceptable, without the threat of legislation & threats of 'legal action' for discrimination or whatever.
Without referring to the good old days' , I really think it's about time we went back to just being normal, having a laugh & having fun, although I sincerely believe that we all reserve the right to state if somethings or comments are particularly deemed offensive in particular situations'.
Some people should 'grow up', & forget about trying to extract £'s out of the legal system.
I'm sure there are 'real' issues that some could find to put their energy into!!

Don Searle
Member - 19 posts

Mr Gordon. I am one of the imbeciles you refer to in your most recent comments, most of which seem to emanate from an attic room in whichever ivory tower you currently occupy. In case you were speculating, my whole career has been spent in service industries - hotels, leisure, catering, FM - so I am familiar with the kind of derogatory treatment to which workers in those sectors are sometimes subjected. I would never condone such behaviour and, indeed, have ejected guests and customers for stepping beyond the boundaries that common decency would dictate.
In my stupidity, I was labouring under the misapprehension that, as in Mr Brown's message above, voicing an opinion of incredulity at what is obviously a piece of sensationalist tosh published in the toshiest newspaper around, was one of the objectives of this feature of the website. How naive of me! Perhaps I should have prefaced my remarks with 'tongue in cheek' - but then I'm probably too ignorant to realise that you're too ignorant to have realised that in the first place - moron!

john murray
Member - 1 post

As someone who is trialling this site, it is not inviting to read such discussions which have clearly descended in to an almost personal slanging match. Surely a mature discussion can do without such derogatory and juvenile exchanges.

Alex Gordon
Member - 13 posts

To Don Searle, two words from your own posting, "Harriet Hormone", if that isn't the statement of an imbecile, God help us.

Stacey Collins
Member - 10 posts

An opening gambit starting with the words "you know you can now be sued for..." is probably not worthy of a response. However, may I just say that hysterical reaction to what you can be sued for precludes the possibility that there is common sense in Britains court system (which there most definitely is despite what the papers say).

In fact a lawsuit on the grounds of referring to someone as "love"would never even get as far as a court and if it did it would be treated with the contempt it deserves. A corollary is the fear people have that they might be sued for malpractice for giving first aid if someone dies as a result, which is complete nonsense although a good money spinner for insurers. What we might call common sense has a name in this case - an obiter dictum called the "good samaritan principle". It is not in the public interest for such a case to proceed.

I expect that if the "love" case came to court it would be similar. In fact a judge would have very little difficulty distinguishing between a figure of speech and an act of sexual harrasment simply by relying only on the definition of harassment in existing statutes: Employment Equality (Sex Discrimination) Regulations 2005 . No appeal to nebulous and undefined "common sense" is needed at all. Common sense is not something we are born with, is not universal and there is no agreement on its scope or contents. The phrase is meaningless itself. Either the rights of a person have been infringed or they haven't.

Some people like to get hot under the collar about nonsense legislation, PC gone mad and so on, but very ,very few of the examples cited that Britain is being slowly strangled by red tape wielding nannies actually ended in a reasonable, well behaved and considerate member of the public, who was going about his or her rightful business, being either sued or jailed unjustly. It doesn't happen.

One issue we should seriously concern ourselves with is the stress that is induced by getting upset over newspaper articles like these (april fool or otherwise). Newspapers know as much about lawmaking as they do about science, i.e. not nearly enough. Next to no preparation, care or knowledge goes into 50% of what you read in a newspaper. They also make stuff up, sensationalise and deliberately misinterpret hings, and they lie.

That said the Guardian reports today that Hooters plans to open 36 more branches in the UK. I think most law firms specialising in harrasment will be far to busy with that little lot to bother if you call someone "love".

Jeffrey Thomas
Member - 14 posts

I agree that issues are sensationalised by the press but the reality is that people are being socially engineered by the government and the 'do gooders' that persue such lunitic policies. What they are really doing is enforcing their will on people because they think they know better and what is good for all. I believe that most people in this country are fed up with all this nonsense and political correctness. Unfortunately, most are afraid to speak out for the fear of recriminations. We are sleep walking in to becoming a totalitarian state where what people say and do are controlled. Ever seen the film 'V'? If not - watch it and you will understand what I mean. I also agree that few people are born with 'common sense' which is why, in my view, the country is heading in the wrong direction that will ultimately result in civil unrest. Common sense is not meaningless- it is a measure of someone's intelligence and gives an individual the ability to decide on what is actually right and wrong as well as what is reasonable. It is this that determines morals and fairness in any society and is what the law should be based on. Sadly, there are few who have it! The absense of common sense results in stupid laws which are not necessary and there are many examples that can be quoted. These stupid laws unfairly affect peoples lives disproportionally to the apparent offence. Constantly, laws and policies are brought in to rob people of their reason and coerce their thinking and partly because of this people are unjustly and needlessly sued, jailed or penalised in some other way. There are somethings in society that should be outlawed in order to maintain morality, law and order but people should be permitted to speak freely and have the freedom of expression, within reason, without the fear of saying the wrong thing that would offend someone or someones belief. Common sense can decide what is reasonable and what is not as well as what is offensive. Fairness and freedom should be valued - sadly both are being slowly eroded.

someone somewhere
Member - 18 posts

Am I missing the point.
Since when was calling someone 'love' discriminatory or harassing?
It's a commonly used phrase in many parts such 'mate' or 'man' or 'duck' etc