Waitrose delivery driver

Just to be clear, I'm only commenting on how difficult it is as an employer to deal with complaints from staff about abusive members of the public. It is very one sided and unlikely they would proactively contact the customer for their side of the story.

In contrast, I've had a particular member of staff complain consistently about racism from callers, and that they have no choice but to hang up when they do it to them. I reviewed the calls and can honestly find nothing in it. Racism from customers does happen, but this advisor IME (20+yrs) isn't experiencing it. I have 5 dismissed complaints now where I could not find anything but 1 upheld complaint that was IMO flimsy.

The customer tutted and said I can't understand you, then waited for the advisor to repeat themselves. This was cited as racism and I absolutely felt pressure to uphold this due to all the other complaints I'd dismissed. Nothing happened to the customer, no warning, no contact from me or the company. That would be outrageous. It was just an acknowledgment that the advisor, on that occasion, had flimsy justification for hanging up on the caller and therefore it wasn't added to the disciplinary file dealing with all the other times they had hung up on callers without justification.

Regardless of anything else, no company should employ a delivery man who refuses to leave a woman’s house promptly when asked to do so. “I’ll take my time” is as pretty close to threatening. I would feel intimidated, and with good reason.

And where did you get the idea that she attacked him personally @respectmysex?

She said she told him to leave her property using colourful language. I would have thought that would have been along the lines of fuck off my land.

I have seen KJK confront TRAs on a number of occasions and she has never resorted to personal attacks. She doesn't need to.

So this person knows where she lives and has tackled her on a very controversial subject in her own home where she was paying for a service. If she’d had a religious symbol or a political sign this driver would have had absolutely no business Challenging her on that either.

This person needs a lesson in professionalism and boundaries.

"I have to say that there is little that annoys me more than companies or their staff who try to silence complainants because the complainant is so angry and frustrated that they have sworn."

Here's where I draw the line:

For fuck sake, this is shit. Understandable, no warning.

You fucking idiot, you're so shit.
A personal attack and not acceptable.

I have the benefit of reviewing recorded calls, and can make decisions I feel comfortable with, based on the precise facts. It must be harder when complaints are made about face-to-face interactions with no recording.

Sorry, I meant that for an average delivery driver seeing the sign, using it as a starting point for small-talk and then changing the subject if it becomes obvious that this is a political matter the driver can't agree with the customer on, seems an entirely reasonable way for a delivery driver to behave. I have no problem with a delivery driver "small-talking" about a sign in the window.

But you are 100% right that in this case the misogynistic male delivery driver clearly wanted to pick a fight and that is completely inappropriate. This man knew what the sign meant, he knew that he completely disagreed with Posie, and as a result he should have completely avoided the subject, because Posie was buying groceries not inviting morons onto her property to be patronised and insulted by them.

@StopStartStop I wrote to Waitrose too. I got a stock response "Thanks for getting in touch, your email is important to us and we’ll come back to you as soon as we can – your case number is...". My point was that I don't think Posie complained until after she got the letter (but maybe I am misremembering or missheard). I thought that the timeline was: incident - complaint from driver to his bosses - letter from waitrose to posie - posie replies pointing out her side of the incident.

From what I can make out the driver should currently be being investigated for

(a) bringing politics up on the doorstep.
(b) Arguing with a customer.
(c) Misogyny and being a creep (re teenage daughter and changing room).
(d) Maliciously and dishonestly complaining about the customer.

But that investigation should only be happening as a result of what has happened after the letter from waitrose to posie. And to be fair I don;t blame them for writing based on their driver's account. They had no reason to see it from Posie's point of view because they had no reason to suspect that Posie was in the right, given she had not complained about the delivery driver at that time.

I can buy the argument that a sign in the window is a starting point for small talk

He was (i) delivering groceries and (ii) he knew what the sign meant. He was picking a fight. Somewhat like "so what's cross mean in your window?" "Oh, are you a Christian? I'm an atheist and I find your sky Daddy offensive ... No need for either conversation.

The delivery driver should have done the job and kept the gob closed.

I can buy the argument that a sign in the window is a starting point for small talk. Perhaps ill-advised, but I don't particularly mind that he asked. BUT, obviously, no company should tolerate it's staff arguing with customers over politics. If he was unable to agree with Posie's position it was time to switch the small-talk to the weather or Britain's Got Talent.

@LK1972

This. I bet the delivery driver wouldn't have behaved like that if she was a 6ft 4 rugby player look-alike. Pure domineering male entitlement.

I am not for one second denying the male entitlement aspect of this, but I think that you might underestimate that male entitlement (combined with arrogance and bravado) often extends to men behaving in a domineering way even when the physical odds are much less biased in their favour. That said I would not be at all surprised to find that as a group TRAs are more likely to threaten women and less likely to threaten other men, when compared to other groups of men.

First, she had signs up in her window she said they said “woman: adult human female” so on.

As she is entitled to have. Free speech innit. Afterall, there's plenty of rainbow flags about. What's difference?

The delivery driver who was a trans woman asked: what are the signs in her window?

The delivery driver should have done the job and kept the gob closed.

End of.

Waitrose are so stupid. They are alienating their customer without at least asking for clarification from her side too... imagine receiving that letter FFS.

This. I bet the delivery driver wouldn't have behaved like that if she was a 6ft 4 rugby player look-alike. Pure domineering male entitlement.

@GCRich Waitrose have responded to the one complaint that they had, that is not unreasonable
It wouldn't be, if that were the case. However...

KJK posted about her experience with the Waitrose driver on 9 May.
I was really annoyed. The man had no right to do that.
I contacted Waitrose.

'Your delivery driver challenged Kellie-Jay Keen * on her political activities. She talks about it here. This is inappropriate, and absolutely shocking. When delivering groceries, it is not a person's business to be addressing the customer's politics. The fact that the delivery person was willing to do this, and to tell KJ that the person will routinely use women's spaces despite not being a natal woman, which is an aggressive stance to take, is quite threatening. This person has KJ's home address. Will they share that with anti-feminist activists, putting KJ, her husband and four children at risk? What are you going to do about a delivery person who behaves in this way?'

Good Morning
I hope you are well.
Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
We will investigating this with the branch.
Thanks again for letting us know
Take Care
Kind regards
[name]

No further response after that, but if they did speak to the driver, his accusations against KJK might have been to cover his back.

We're not in Canada. I doubt any tw would be unaware what the signs meant and, in my opinion, they were being goady and looking to start a.....well, let's be charitable....debate. However, they were there to deliver groceries not correct their customer's thinking. If this thread is going to bring in other countries, what might have happened in the US if you refused to leave someone's property?

Well, to be fair, if the waitrose in question has 6 delivery drivers (total guess), and Posie shops once a week, then one might expect that this nasty young man will turn up once every six weeks on average and Posie is likely to have encountered him in the first couple of months of his employment with Waitrose.

Full disclosure, I am a trans ally and not interested in getting into a trans rights debate.

#NoDebate
#NoEngagement

We see you. And your very selective interests that don't include women's rights or an understanding of EqA 2010.

If I were the manager tasked with investigating a complaint about an abusive customer, where the customer has sworn and the driver has not sworn, I'd have to side with the driver.

You'd do that without talking to the customer? I'd normally have expected that if the transaction and incident involved had taken place on a company's premises. This dispute was on Posie's property and inside her house? The driver had refused to leave? That's a very different dynamic and potentially more intimidating.

A delivery driver has no business telling a customer their political views are ok or not. They are there to deliver groceries, not to hold a debate. Personally, I am positive this driver deliberately went there to make trouble. Why on earth would a delivery driver, who gets paid per delivery, otherwise take their time to hold a debate?

Misgendering is also not a crime in the UK. Calling a transwoman a man is not hate speech when discussing single sex facilities. Women are still free to use clear and precise language when they want. And deliberately goading and intimidating a customer who is female when you are male should not be ok in anyone's book.

Waitrose should have talked to KJK first, I bet they know who she is and send the letter to get brownie points during Pride month. Well, I hope all the TQ's buy loads from them then.

Luckily we don't live in the woke hellhole that is Canada but in a country where women don't have to use compelled speech.

Also luckily women can watch KJK's video themselves because your summary is ver poor @Discovereads

That's nice, dear.

Full disclosure, I am a trans ally and not interested in getting into a trans rights debate.

First, she had signs up in her window she said they said “woman: adult human female” so on. The delivery driver who was a trans woman asked: what are the signs in her window? and KJK explained she fought for womens rights. The driver responded, so that includes transwomen then? And KJK said no. The driver said, well I’m not a man. And KJK said yes you are a man and I don’t care what you think you are but don’t use womens spaces (btw deliberately misgendering a trans person is not only rude but a hate crime in Canada). The driver responded well I don’t feel comfortable in the mens. KJK said it’s not womens responsibility to make him comfortable and that more women are uncomfortable than just him if he uses the womens room. The diver said well I’m not going to stop using the womens room because it’s where I belong and I like to. KJK said get off my property. Driver said I’ll take my time. KJK said in “colourful language” to get off her property.

KJK then goes on a ramble about some documentary but then comes back to say she got a letter from Waitrose saying she’d used abusive language to the driver. She then said she wrote back “Carol” and at that point she claims the driver said they liked to use the same changing rooms as her daughter?

Anyway, it’s all pretty disjointed as she can’t even tell her side of the story coherently.

Even if she did not swear at the delivery driver she was very rude and bigoted towards a transwoman by deliberately misgendering them, telling them not to use womens spaces and ordering them off her property. I think the driver was right to lodge a complaint on those grounds alone. I think Waitrose was right to send her a warning letter.

Hope this makes the Daily Mail, was speechless when I first read about it. I think Waitrose should be doing a full investigation. I find it very hard to believe he turned up at her house by chance, I mean what are the odds. It's actually quite sinister and intimidating and they need to look into it.

Omg you couldn’t make it up! It’s like the bloody Stasi being challenged on your perfectly reasonable views. Outrageous- expected more of Waitrose. And very intimidating for the customer too.

Obviously I wasn't there, but I'd say it's perfectly okay to switch to colourful language when politeness fails and there are implied threats issued by the male in question. I doubt I'd have kept it civil under those circumstances, what a chuffing creep.

I mean, Waitrose could always ask him. Did you tell the customer that you could be using the changing room where her daughter was disrobing, whether she liked it or not?

Because Kellie Jay asks absolutely every tw if they're going to be changing with her teenage daughter. It's an integral part of her campaigning questions.

I have zero doubt that she asked that question.

And if he denies he said it to her, he could always be asked, well would you?

Let's get this out in the open, Waitrose.

Do you agree that your male delivery drivers should be allowed to change with your customers' teenage daughters?