Lush cosmetics store kicks out disabled child over inability to wear a mask
-
This happened in Canada.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Canada's Charter of Human Rights makes this illegal.
I don't know of a "western" country that allows discrimination like this (aka medical condition).
-
@raphjd said in Lush cosmetics store kicks out disabled child over inability to wear a mask:
This happened in Canada.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Canada's Charter of Human Rights makes this illegal.
I don't know of a "western" country that allows discrimination like this (aka medical condition).
I would guess that it was against store policy AND the law... but that didn't stop the store employee!
People make mistakes - re-train the employee, apologize to the mother & child, and move on. Let it be a teaching moment, so to speak...
-
@bi4smooth I would argue that it wasn't a mistake. It was a bad decision
-
@kekkaishi said in Lush cosmetics store kicks out disabled child over inability to wear a mask:
@bi4smooth I would argue that it wasn't a mistake. It was a bad decision
OK - potato / potato (LOL)
Take the original quote - substitute your word choice, and it seems essentially the same to me:
People make mistakes - re-train the employee, apologize to the mother & child, and move on. Let it be a teaching moment, so to speak...
vs
People make bad decisions - re-train the employee, apologize to the mother & child, and move on. Let it be a teaching moment, so to speak...
-
@bi4smooth
A mistake can be interpreted as not intentional
When I said "bad decision" I meant to imply intent; to say that the employees knew very well what they were doing and decided to do it anyway. It wasn't because a "lack of training", it was because they didn't care to listen or to consider the circumstances. If you are an inconsiderate individual, no amount of training will help you -
@kekkaishi said in Lush cosmetics store kicks out disabled child over inability to wear a mask:
@bi4smooth
A mistake can be interpreted as not intentional
When I said "bad decision" I meant to imply intent; to say that the employees knew very well what they were doing and decided to do it anyway. It wasn't because a "lack of training", it was because they didn't care to listen or to consider the circumstances. If you are an inconsiderate individual, no amount of training will help youI think you're reading an awful lot into that story... maybe some personal experience "seeding" your viewpoint?
Not saying you're wrong just that there doesn't seem to be a basis for your assumptions...
2 of my kids work in "retail" - both as managers... finding good help is SOOOO hard!
One daughter works in a store (I won't name it): they have food options. A customer asked for Almond milk (vs dairy). The employee didn't want to have to go back and get more almond milk (they were out up front), so he used dairy instead.
Turns out the customer had an allergy & went into an emergency situation right there in the store. (Paramedics were called & the customer recovered at the hospital).
The employee admitted to ignoring the customer's request & was fired on the spot...
But do you hold the whole company responsible, or the individual?
That was my point: the employee made the error (whether intentional or otherwise - we may never know)... but Lush probably does not have a store policy that backs their actions, so probably shouldn't be held liable - neither in legal courts, nor in the court of public opinion...
-
@bi4smooth I didn't say that the whole company is responsible. The responsibility falls on the individual only. What you are describing in your example, the employee who didn't want to go get the milk didn't know about the allergy (unless he was told in advanced). I'm 100% sure had the employee knew about the allergy, he would act accordingly
In the Lush consmetics case, even though the employees and the manager knew very well of the child's disability and mask exemption, they still refused. Is that intentional enough? I will say that due to the mask mandates, the employees must have believed that there are no exceptions to that rule obviously (perhaps indeed company policy?). IMHO, this was well beyond a mistake
-
@kekkaishi said in Lush cosmetics store kicks out disabled child over inability to wear a mask:
@bi4smooth I didn't say that the whole company is responsible. The responsibility falls on the individual only. What you are describing in your example, the employee who didn't want to go get the milk didn't know about the allergy (unless he was told in advanced). I'm 100% sure had the employee knew about the allergy, he would act accordingly
In the Lush consmetics case, even though the employees and the manager knew very well of the child's disability and mask exemption, they still refused. Is that intentional enough? I will say that due to the mask mandates, the employees must have believed that there are no exceptions to that rule obviously (perhaps indeed company policy?). IMHO, this was well beyond a mistake
I don't know where you're getting your information from - I didn't go past the article as-posted/linked, plus the follow-on link that claimed to have the "full story".
This story could have a lot of "what-ifs" and the store manager said the situation was "nuanced" (what s/he means by that is unknown, to be sure).
But that's my whole point: you're jumping to conclusions based on what information?
From the information shared so far, your "additional information" has all been inferred. You can choose to infer the worst, or the best - either way, the truth is usually somewhere in between.
I'll posit another story - which may explain why my daughter was so quick to fire the employee who was too lazy to go get the almond milk:
My oldest son is a type-1 diabetic (also called a "Brittle Diabetic") - he often orders coffees and teas unsweetened, or sweetened with Splenda. He usually asks to be allowed to sweeten his own beverage, because not-uncommonly, in spite of ordering the DIET beverage, he is served one with sugar... which can have a deadly effect if he's not aware of what happened. (He can generally TASTE the difference between the sugar, high-fructose-corn-syrup (as bad as sugar to him), and the artificial sweeteners... so he will often take the item back if it tastes initially like it has sugar in it.
So, based on your statement above, when my son orders a diet soda (and he's thin as a rail), he should have to provide his medical history to avoid some dumbass employee giving him a sugared drink because they don't think he NEEDS the diet one?
Or, just maybe, thinking outside the box here: when you order a diet, milk-free beverage, I don't know - just guessing here: the employees should (I think reasonably... maybe?) be expected to give you what you ordered [as opposed to what they THINK you should have ordered!]
IMHO, if the case was clear-cut, the company likely would have been "mea-culpa" and fired the employee. That that isn't what happened leads me to believe that there is more here that we don't know...
But I'm gonna leave it here... you are free to assume the worst (or the best) about Lush - truth be told, neither YOU nor I are likely to drive to the Lush store in Edmonton any time soon! So, the opinions that really matter will be the participants, perhaps some lawyers, and maybe even a jury... again, odds are you and I will not ever be one of those in this case...
-
@bi4smooth said in Lush cosmetics store kicks out disabled child over inability to wear a mask:
2 of my kids work in "retail" - both as managers... finding good help is SOOOO hard!
These days it's quite difficult in retail and food service to find entry-level employees. In some places, the only requirement seems to be a heartbeat, or reasonable facsimile thereof. The unfortunate situation in Edmonton was likely the result of an uninformed and/or less than brilliant employee acting on his/her own. The nutjob websites reporting this story want to hint at some Grand Conspiracy to Oppress the Citizens, but that doesn't work. (Note that this story is only found on a handful of fringe websites, all citing each other as sources. While the "Edmonton event" may very well have occurred, it's not impossible that it's a fabrication.)
One thing missing from all of the crapsheet "reporting" is the child's age, vaccination status, and/or medical condition that led to the mask exemption. While these are personal matters that can be reserved from the "press," it wouldn't surprise me if Mommy Karen and the child weren't vaccinated. Even if the kid were vaccinated, one has to question to wisdom of bringing such child without a mask into a crowded shopping mall.
-
@eobox91103 said in Lush cosmetics store kicks out disabled child over inability to wear a mask:
@bi4smooth said in Lush cosmetics store kicks out disabled child over inability to wear a mask:
2 of my kids work in "retail" - both as managers... finding good help is SOOOO hard!
These days it's quite difficult in retail and food service to find entry-level employees. In some places, the only requirement seems to be a heartbeat, or reasonable facsimile thereof. The unfortunate situation in Edmonton was likely the result of an uninformed and/or less than brilliant employee acting on his/her own. The nutjob websites reporting this story want to hint at some Grand Conspiracy to Oppress the Citizens, but that doesn't work. (Note that this story is only found on a handful of fringe websites, all citing each other as sources. While the "Edmonton event" may very well have occurred, it's not impossible that it's a fabrication.)
One thing missing from all of the crapsheet "reporting" is the child's age, vaccination status, and/or medical condition that led to the mask exemption. While these are personal matters that can be reserved from the "press," it wouldn't surprise me if Mommy Karen and the child weren't vaccinated. Even if the kid were vaccinated, one has to question to wisdom of bringing such child without a mask into a crowded shopping mall.
While I don't disagree with the premise (that it likely wasn't such a good idea bringing a child with medical problems into a crowded mall environment), that also "assumes facts not in evidence" - and I would ask - was it really so important that the child - the ill child - be in the store?
All we really know is that the child had an exemption that the store would not honor. All the other details people are adding are coming from your own imaginations!
-
@bi4smooth said in Lush cosmetics store kicks out disabled child over inability to wear a mask:
All we really know is that the child had an exemption that the store would not honor. All the other details people are adding are coming from your own imaginations!
I would fine-tune this to say that an employee, not necessarily the entire store, did not honour the exemption. (And I'm still a bit skeptical that the event even occurred--neither of the Edmonton newspapers carried this, and I can't find the account anywhere other than fringe websites.)
-
There is a Lush at the West Edmonton Mall.
It's not uncommon for MSM not to carry a story if they don't like the narrative. Sometimes they totally ignore a story and sometimes they wait until they get too large to ignore.
That's not to say that the story is real or not, but MSM talking about it doesn't make it real either.
Hunter's laptop was 100% Russian disinformation per 50 former and current Intel Service bosses. Adam Schiff has 100% absolute proof of Trump colluding with Russia, that he's never released.
