New UK law lets staff sue their boss if customers offend them once - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15270344
Telegraph wrote:New law lets staff sue their boss if customers offend them
Rishi Sunak faces Tory revolt over backing for Lib Dem Bill that could leave employers facing explosion of litigation


Rishi Sunak is facing a Tory revolt over “draconian” laws that will allow shop assistants, bar staff and doctors to sue their employers if a member of the public offends them at work.

New harassment rules on the brink of becoming law will enable medics to sue the NHS if a patient insults them, allow bar staff to take legal action against landlords if they are offended by drunk punters, and let baristas take coffee shop owners to a tribunal if they overhear offensive remarks made by customers.

Senior Tories warn the proposed law will lead to an explosion of litigation and force business owners to run their establishments like a “police state”.

A Whitehall source said ministers were “sleep walking” into a “big expansion” of the Labour-era Equality Act, which Mr Sunak had previously blamed for enabling “woke nonsense to permeate public life”.

The row will come as a major embarrassment to the Prime Minister, who has been seeking to position the Conservatives against “woke” policies that are unpopular with many business owners and working-class voters.

Tory backbenchers accused the Government of “taking their eye off the ball” by supporting a “mad” Private Member’s Bill, sponsored by two Liberal Democrat parliamentarians, on course to become law within weeks.

The Bill was waved through the Commons without a vote during a Friday sitting when most MPs were back in their constituencies.

Ministers are under pressure to ditch or gut the legislation, with backbenchers warning that purported “freedom of speech” protections added into the Bill will do little to save employers from crippling litigation.

Businesses must take 'all reasonable steps'
The Worker Protection Bill will make employers liable for staff being harassed by “third parties” such as customers or members of the public. It introduces a legal requirement for companies and public bodies to take “all reasonable steps” to prevent this.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, the former business secretary, said establishments that “serve the public can expect to run a police state in their business”, while Sir John Hayes, the chairman of the Common Sense Group of Tory MPs, said it had “sinister implications”. Another Conservative MP, Craig Mackinlay, said he believed the change was “draconian”.

Lord Frost, the former Cabinet Office minister, described the Bill as a “woke, socialist measure” that would “have a chilling effect on every conversation in a workplace”.

Lord Strathcarron, a Tory peer who runs a publishing firm, said bookshops could be put off inviting authors such as JK Rowling to give talks, “on the off chance that one of the author’s fans might be wearing a T-shirt that says, ‘Woman Equals Adult Human Female’, knowing that an employee could sue for hurt feelings – real or vexatious”.

Other scenarios, he added, could include “somebody going into the Dog and Duck ... then insulting the barman, and the barman suing the landlord. Or someone going for an MOT, the car fails, and they slag off the mechanic and the mechanic sues the garage owner. It’s mad and no one’s thought it through.”

While a separate clause in the Bill putting a duty on bosses to prevent the sexual harassment of employees commands broad support, peers are demanding the Government drop the introduction of a new obligation on employers to prevent harassment by third parties that relates to a “protected characteristic” such as sex, gender reassignment or age. Critics fear this will lead to companies having to expel clients over trivial incidents and facing costly litigation by staff.

Bill goes further than Equality Act
It goes significantly further than a measure in the original Equality Act, which made employers liable for third-party harassment after three separate incidents – known as the “three strikes rule”. The third-party provisions were stripped out of the legislation altogether by the Coalition government in 2013. A source said they were now effectively being reintroduced but without equivalent safeguards for employers. It will also apply to public sector organisations such as hospitals, schools, and police forces, placing a significant new burden on taxpayer-funded bodies to protect themselves from being sued by their staff.

Baroness Burt of Solihull, the Lib Dem co-sponsor of the Bill, told the Lords it would offer new protections to “retail staff who face racist abuse from customers, NHS workers who are subject to homophobic harassment by patients, and pub staff who are harassed by drunken customers in relation to their sex”, all of whom “currently have to rely on the good will of their employer in taking steps to protect them, rather than the law”.

The Bill cleared the Commons with limited scrutiny, receiving its first reading shortly before Boris Johnson’s government collapsed and its second on Friday Oct 21, the day after Liz Truss quit as prime minister.

Lord Strathcarron suggested the political “chaos” at the time meant “everyone was taking their eye off the ball”. Another Tory peer, the Earl of Leicester, expressed “surprise” that the Bill had progressed through Parliament on the watch of Kemi Badenoch, who holds the equalities brief. He said: “I hope we can make her aware of the dangers that this Bill presents.”

Ministers are coming under mounting pressure to ditch or change the wide-ranging harassment clause or withdraw their support for the legislation altogether, with Tory peers preparing to put forward a list of amendments.

During his campaign to succeed Mr Johnson, Mr Sunak promised to stop “mission creep” relating to the Equality Act, which he described as “a Trojan horse that has allowed every kind of woke nonsense to permeate public life”.

Fears for free speech
While the Government amended the Bill to try to assuage concerns about free speech, Tory critics are united in saying that did not go far enough.

An employer would only be protected from a claim if four conditions were met simultaneously, which critics warn is too high a bar to avoid being sued.

An employer would have to prove that the offending comment was overheard by their employee, not directed at them, was unintentional, expressed an “opinion on politics, religion or social matters” and not grossly offensive or indecent.

If up to three of these conditions apply to the incident in question then the employee could still sue their boss. Therefore, a barman who overheard what they considered to be offensive “banter” could take action unless their landlord could prove the joke had expressed a political, social or religious opinion.

Lord Strathcarron said it would be “almost impossible” for employers to protect themselves.

Wera Hobhouse, the Lib Dem frontbencher who sponsored the Bill along with Lady Burt, told The Telegraph: “One person’s banter is another person’s harassment.

“My Bill aims to create workplaces where employers ensure that their employees get a proper hearing if they feel they are being harassed, rather than being ignored or dismissed. This Bill is not about stopping respectful discussion of controversial issues.”

A spokesman for the Government’s Equalities Office, said: “Those that seek to harass people will not be tolerated, which is why this legislation will ensure that employers are legally liable if they fail to protect their employees. However, trivial upset is not a matter for legislation, and that is why we have amended the Bill to ensure freedom of speech is protected.

“The Bill will provide the necessary protections for workers, whilst ensuring no one is silenced for simply expressing their legitimately held opinions.”


Nope, this is not a joke, the language in the Bill is quite extreme:

Bill Parliament UK wrote:https://bills.parliament.uk/publication ... ments/2905

The circumstances in which A is to be treated as harassing B under 5
subsection (1) include those where—
(a) a third party harasses B in the course of B’s employment, and
(b) A failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent the third party
from doing so.


Reasonable Steps must be taken before the incident takes place and not after.

Reasonable steps must be taken as per legislation only before and not after the event.

https://www.brachers.co.uk/insights/har ... 20or%20not.

In Allay v Gehlen, the fact that the employer had provided refresher training after the harassment had taken place was not sufficient. These steps must be taken before the harassment occurs.It is also important to keep in mind that just having the policies is not enough. You must also be able to evidence that you have taken practical steps to implement it. It is also important that any training is reviewed and refreshed with employees on a regular basis.


Read more here:

https://www.keystonelaw.com/keynotes/th ... -licensees
#15270358
Is this bill part of the Tories' war on woke?

Build it up (and hope nobody notices) to knock it down. According to the Financial Tmes, waging a “war on woke” is seen by senior Tories as a way to keep the Brexit wound open.


:lol:
#15270363
ingliz wrote:Is this bill part of the Tories' war on woke?

In Britain we basically have a choice of 4 parties.

1 The Woke party, aka the Conservatives.
2 The Very Woke party aka the Liberal Democrats.
3 The Extremely Woke party aka the Labour party.
4 The Insanely Woke party aka, the Scottish Nationalist Party.
#15270368
ingliz wrote:Is this bill part of the Tories' war on woke?

Build it up (and hope nobody notices) to knock it down. According to the Financial Tmes, waging a “war on woke” is seen by senior Tories as a way to keep the Brexit wound open.


It could be, I thought about it too, but I think this one is far more sinister and will go through.

What they are aiming at is to force business to be run as a police state by recording and maintaining these records for all corners of the shop with microphoned cameras, all phone conversations with tape records, by putting up signs and issuing disclaimers over the phone and in person, by maintaining relevant insurance and event records. "Please note that all phone conversations are being recorded, harassment of any nature will not be tolerated and will be sent to the police and prosecution office if you are rude to our staff, please hold the line while we try to connect you".

This has several "positives" for a country like the UK. A country that prides itself on discovering insurance & compliance first and where the inventor of such back in the 1800's, Lloyds bank is still the top company in the stockmarket. The City of London is notorious for offering precisely these types of services to corporations. In the UK everything is a matter of liability, the state thus washes its hands of its own liability for "crime" by shifting it onto someone else.

1) It gives insurance and lawyer companies an advantage over their foreign peers by adding an extra item that they can deal with. As woke becomes more global, British insurers and lawyers will have experience that can be sold abroad.
2) It allows for the further degradation of the police as it turns businesses in the ones doing all the policing and keeping all such records for insurance purposes. It's been more than 2 decades that to get an alcohol license in the UK, you need to have cameras installed in and out of your shop that the police can access anytime. This is about extending this policing that private companies should do to make police work easier.
3) It shifts the liability to people who will seek robots to do these jobs instead and thus provide another competitive advantage for the country's economy.
#15271756
a link that noemon posted wrote:New law lets staff sue their boss if customers offend them...

The major weakness of this is the word "offend." In the last five years, commercial media has been telling us that we should be offended if we are misgendered or dead-named.

In other words, a nation of Trans can easily be offended by pronouns or people who use their previous other-gender name.

This will make *normal social contact* virtually impossible. I guess the Tories are thinking about how much more money they can individually make from this further breakdown of society.

Men in wigs who are offended by every word you say...

Suburbia - by the way - created a similar level of social withdrawal. And the suburbs are also very transvestite: cities dressed in British-countryside drag.
#15274997
Rich wrote:In Britain we basically have a choice of 4 parties.

1 The Woke party, aka the Conservatives.
2 The Very Woke party aka the Liberal Democrats.
3 The Extremely Woke party aka the Labour party.
4 The Insanely Woke party aka, the Scottish Nationalist Party.


It owns so fucking hard that the language of your political thought is so steeped in failure that even the party frothing at the mouth to turn your country 3rd world and absolutely crush your economy is still too woke.

Incredible. But what do I expect from a flat earther?
#15275003
SpecialOlympian wrote:Incredible. But what do I expect from a flat earther?

:) No my geometry's pretty competent, I think you're confusing me with the people who think that the Russians have been operationally encircled in Bakhmut. They're the people who seem to be confusing flat lines and circles.
#15275445
Disregarding the article, if you're a bar owner who lets their staff overserve patrons to the point of belligerency then you're already breaking the law basically everywhere. It's just not enforced by managers and semi-enforced by bartenders, depending on how well they know the patron and how well they tip.

That said, workers should absolutely be able to document that certain customers are abusive and whether or not management has taken steps to curb that behavior or bar them from the store entirely. They're retail employees, not social workers whose job is to manage the feelings of abusive assholes. Retail is where petty tyrants without power go specifically because they know that's where the employees have the least protection from their rage; it's not difficult to see why all those TikToks about raging customers are set in fast food restaurants and coffee houses.
#15275828
SpecialOlympian wrote:Disregarding the article, if you're a bar owner who lets their staff overserve patrons to the point of belligerency then you're already breaking the law basically everywhere. It's just not enforced by managers and semi-enforced by bartenders, depending on how well they know the patron and how well they tip.

That said, workers should absolutely be able to document that certain customers are abusive and whether or not management has taken steps to curb that behavior or bar them from the store entirely. They're retail employees, not social workers whose job is to manage the feelings of abusive assholes. Retail is where petty tyrants without power go specifically because they know that's where the employees have the least protection from their rage; it's not difficult to see why all those TikToks about raging customers are set in fast food restaurants and coffee houses.


2 issues:

1) The point of belligerency has also been formally defined as "someone who uses the wrong pronoun to address staff", someone who "asks staff out for a date more than once", as well as the usual.

2) If someone is being abusive to staff, he/she/they should be reported to the police by the very staff that they are abusing. What is the point of suing the owner of the establishment for criminal actions performed by a third party?
#15277261
noemon wrote:2 issues:

1) The point of belligerency has also been formally defined as "someone who uses the wrong pronoun to address staff", someone who "asks staff out for a date more than once", as well as the usual.


Purposely misgendering someone is an insult and belligerant, regardless of whether that person is trans.

2) If someone is being abusive to staff, he/she/they should be reported to the police by the very staff that they are abusing. What is the point of suing the owner of the establishment for criminal actions performed by a third party?


I have a hard time believing that:

1) The police are helpful.

2) Management encourages repeated stops to the shop by the police. The easiest way to stop a problem is to stop serving a customer and tell them their money isn't good at your shop. And at any place that's run well, the staff should know management has their back.

This is about labor rights. Laborers should not be forced to serve assholes who treat them like shit. In an ideal world, employees would go to management and say, "Hey, this person treats us like shit," and stop taking their money.
#15277806
SpecialOlympian wrote:Purposely misgendering someone is an insult and belligerant, regardless of whether that person is trans.
So what? It shouldn't be illegal to offend someone, or disrespect them.

SpecialOlympian wrote:This is about labor rights. Laborers should not be forced to serve assholes who treat them like shit. In an ideal world, employees would go to management and say, "Hey, this person treats us like shit," and stop taking their money.
There are already protections in place. Workers already have these rights.
#15279580
Godstud wrote:So what? It shouldn't be illegal to offend someone, or disrespect them.


Yeah you shouldn't go to jail for it. That doesn't mean people are obligated to help you after you're rude to them. Like sell you a drink or whatever.

There are already protections in place. Workers already have these rights.


Lol workers have almost 0 rights. I support any law that lets employees bully managers.
#15279594
SpecialOlympian wrote: That doesn't mean people are obligated to help you after you're rude to them. Like sell you a drink or whatever.
As a person who worked in customer service in retail(long ago), I can tell you that you wouldn't sell much if you did this sort of thing. :lol:

SpecialOlympian wrote:Lol workers have almost 0 rights. I support any law that lets employees bully managers.
I guess I am used to working in Canada, where employees have rights. I am pretty sure that even in the USA, workers have rights. Maybe you just don't know the rights that you do have.

Employee Rights
https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/small-bu ... %20history).
#15279595
Godstud wrote:As a person who worked in customer service in retail(long ago), I can tell you that you wouldn't sell much if you did this sort of thing. :lol:


I worked retail too. Do you think I made commission on drinks? What incentive do I have to sell anything other than not having the manager, who is a massive loser, lecture me?

Retail sucks. Give retail workers power. If you can't be polite for a brief two minutes to someone who is serving you popcorn at a theater or coffee at a Starbuck's then you should be de facto shut out of society. It is the absolute least you can do, to not treat someone in a service position as shit and not yell at them.
#15279597
I worked at an American company in retail. They cared what the employees thought of managers and actually would base their manager evaluation on their employee opinions. I saw a couple managers get canned for their treatment of employees.

I always treat people in customer service with the utmost respect. They have more power to ruin your day than you think. :D

Doesn't he have billions in Truth social (you pos[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]

Based on what? On simple economics. and in t[…]