30/10/2020
Earlier this week, a young mother was going in to Waitrose in Andover, when she witnessed a member of staff and a security guard mimicking and mocking someone's appearance. The subject of their derision was a 12 year old autistic child; the son of the young mum, Nicole R.
I'm sure that the two offenders might consider themselves 'unlucky' to have been overheard by the child's mother. However, if this is the case, they would be very wrong.
There is no justifiable reason for two adults to publicly mock a child for their appearance. To do so within earshot of others shows the individuals involved to be stupid as well as incredibly rude.
In this case, the Waitrose employee has not just shown themselves to lack the understanding of 'hidden disabilities', but is guilty of bring their employer into disrepute. Whilst wearing the Waitrose uniform, they are representing the company. Their behaviour is Waitrose's behaviour.
If I had done something like this in any of my past employments, I would fully expect to be dismissed for gross misconduct. Such behaviour would have been a clear breach of contract for the jobs I had in retail (the first seven or eight years of my working life), as well as the jobs I had in my 30 year financial services career.
Paul is just 12 years old and shouldn't be the victim of bullying by anyone, let alone adults. Paul is autistic and also has ADHD. Paul doesn't pose a threat to anyone.
Paul's mum, Nicole, is in her thirties. She should be able to go shopping with her children without having to think about the possibility of ignorant people causing such a traumatic experience. Nicole's husband shouldn't have to worry about his wife and children being subjected to such abuse. He is an employee of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II; he works in the British military. You might not think that affords him any privilege, but I'd prefer him to be able to concentrate on his job, rather than being distracted by the senseless actions of an inconsiderate shop worker.
I am pretty staggered that, so far, Waitrose seem to have failed to understand what the issue is. They have failed to say sorry to the young boy and, it seems, not seen this as a prompt to implement training for their staff. Whilst a member of Waitrose's customer services has apologised to Mrs R, it was a very scripted delivery and did not come across as heartfelt or sincere. The situation has apparently been passed up the line to the executive team, but this should be being dealt with quickly.
Waitrose have ofFered a £100 gift card, which suggests a complete inability to understand the impact of their staff member's actions on the mum, her son and, it seems, other family members.
What Waitrose should be doing, is providing a full and meaningful apology to Paul, his mum Nicole, and the rest of the family. They should also be explaining what steps they will be taking to ensure such behaviour is not repeated.
I think it is worth acknowledging the wider issue here.
It is, of course, acceptable for people to have personal opinions and views about the appearance of others. However, there is no need for anyone to discuss such things publicly; in a manner where they might be overheard by others.
There really isn't any need to vocalise such unpleasant thoughts, especially when people outside of your group might hear you.
This applies irrespective of who the comments are about, but is especially the case when children are the subject.
Unless you actually know the individual about whom you are talking, you cannot know what their circumstances are. Do they have a disability? Are they suffering from poor mental health? Is their appearance or demeanour aimed at helping a companion?
Ultimately though; does it matter? Is their appearance any of your business?
I sincerely hope that Waitrose will re-evaluate the situation here quickly and take steps to address what has happened. This needs to happen on both a local and national level. The Andover store's management need to ensure that their staff are made aware as to what constitutes improper behaviour. They should be ensuring, if they haven't already, that the staff member involved in this incident is subject to appropriate disciplinary action and, if they do actually retain their job, robust training.
The John Lewis Group should assess the wider implications of this case.
Mrs R's dealings with Waitrose 'customer services' suggests that the company does not provide training in respect of dealing with customers with 'hidden disabilities'. That, in itself, might not be that surprising. What is surprising, and concerning, is that they seem to have failed to identify a wider training need as a result of this incident.
Maybe they don't realise that bullying innocent children is something that their employees should be expected to avoid; especially whilst at work - wearing the uniform of the company. Perhaps they don't really think it matters. Could it be that they actually think their 'premium supermarket brand' means they don't have to worry about their 'ordinary' customers?
I have, for many years, been a reasonable customer of both Waitrose and John Lewis.
I haven't used them 'exclusively'. But I have been a repeat customer. They have been a business I have used, both online and via their stores, for many years.
Right now, they are a business that I will avoid. I will review this decision if and when they, Waitrose and the John Lewis group, address the issues raised and offer a meaningful apology that is accepted by Nicole and her family.
Comments