Two minutes silence and refusing to serve customer

[BalugaBelle]

At work today I was on the checkout (large retail store) and the silence was announced over a tannoy.

A woman (on the phone) came up to the checkout during the silence, so I shushed her. Motioned to poppies next to till!

She then said, "I'm going to miss my train, please continue serving me!"

I refused, shook my head and sat silently for the two minutes.

At the end I put her items through, she moaned at me and called me rude and petty and then went on her merry way.

So was I being unreasonable to respect the two minutes silence, even if it meant a customer was unhappy at me doing so?

I know good customer service is needed but surely the two minutes silence takes priority? She clearly had no respect!

Quite frankly I didn't give a damn about her train, I was paying my respects as was everyone else in the shop. It was literally almost silent apart from young children (understandable) and general noise, i.e., heating making noises!

I work in a call centre. We observe the 2 minute silence every year. We also join silences for bombing attacks etc when they happen. In the 17 years I've worked there, never has anyone objected. We just quickly advise the customer and excuse ourselves.

YANBU - it's 2 minutes once a year. She can wait and allow people to pay their respects. She was incredibly rude.

"Why does it make it extremely difficult for those young people to leave if they change their minds? "

Because of how much training gets invested in them. Modern military is fairly high tech and people are conditioned to operate well under huge stress, which takes a lot of training. DS is inordinately proud of how well he can keep his feet dry and in good nick even after spending all day in bog conditions.

DS can leave pretty easily at almost any point, but he'd have to do service in the Reserves so the Army can try to recoup its investment.

I certainly would have left the shop, sans purchase, if teller refused to serve me. *

The silence isn’t compulsary (yet), although you’d hardly know it.*

I doubt she’d have lost sleep over it.

No** it isn’t. But it was company policy, as per tannoy announcement, so she should have either waited to be served or left the store if she didn’t like it. Bollocks to her consumerist, entitled, couldn’t be arsed to get organised sooner attitude.

My son is very middle class and serves his country. Most of his friends are from middle class backgrounds. All classes choose to serve.

Look how anti-join-military many MNers are. I think it might be a middle class value in itself "We don't do that sort of thing." Any MN thread asking "What could you never tolerate your adult child doing?" gets ample answers "They must never Join the military."

It's fairly normal to not want your child to be trained to kill and be sent into a horrific situation where they might get killed and injured. It would scare me shitless to be honest. My feeling is that if May, Cameron, Blair etc want a war then how about they stand on the front line and defend their country rather than reclining on a plush sofa, yakking on about how heroic the young boys who have been killed were.

It all sounds very noble and full of camaraderie on the promotional materials. But nobody mentions about when you return from the war with severe PTSD after watching your mates get shot in front of you, with serious physical injuries that mean you have to leave the army and there aren't many other job options open and you end up living a miserable existence and turning to alcohol to numb the pain.

Most DS junior soldier colleagues have poor English & math skills, & spend a lot of time improving those. Most kids with DS's GCSE grades do A-levels & then join to be officers. In the field, there are more lower rank soldiers than officers, so not surprising that more kids with tougher backgrounds are among the casualties.

But don't you ask yourself- why is it the ones from tougher backgrounds who have to DIE? Why don't the higher ranked ones put themselves in the direct firing line more?

My son is very middle class and serves his country. Most of his friends are from middle class backgrounds. All classes choose to serve.

Oooh, thanks Crumbs1. Is that the same son who sings Christmas carols with you in the 'village' and opens one Christmas present and lets the rest be donated to the poor? Since your entire life appears to be one big fantasy it's probably safest not to take what you say as gospel.

I'm with Wild. And I would have served her in silence while doing my quiet 'observing'. Multi-tasking.

Lots of classes choose to serve. But more of them are cannon fodder than others I suspect.

Lots of classes choose to serve. But more of them are cannon fodder than others I suspect

I’d been trying to think of a way to say this.

Because of how much training gets invested in them. Modern military is fairly high tech and people are conditioned to operate well under huge stress, which takes a lot of training. DS is inordinately proud of how well he can keep his feet dry and in good nick even after spending all day in bog conditions.

Lots of jobs require significant financial investment, yet they allow people to leave with no sanctions. That is a poor excuse. The reason is that if they allowed people to leave freely, they probably would do so when told they were being shipped off to Basra. Which would leave the Army in a pretty tricky position. That's also why they segregate them and focus on daily rituals, meaning that leaving becomes much less likely.

The issue isn't whether you think it is a good thing to do. It's not about you.

The OP wishes to take part in a national show of respect. She should be allowed to do so. Just because she works in retail does not mean she loses her right to join in an important national moment.

Actually my DN is from a middle class background, so let’s not generalise too much about it being a working class thing.

I think war films have a lot to answer for actually, in terms of glamorising war.

I'm aware my phrasing sucks btw, if I could edit it I would.

The point about charity proping up works that the government should do is far reaching and not really related to Poppy Day. The government should also be doing cancer research, paying for hospices and "McMillan" nurses. There are few areas provided for by charity that should not be provided by government.

The idea of recruiting from lower socioeconomic grouping is getting a little blurry I feel: in wW2 it was eventually decided that there was no choice but to send 50,000 men onto killing fields in the hope that 200 would push through enemy lines. Direct combat is not as common now due to technological advances, and we're certainly not talking about wiping out a generation of young poor men.

Never forget means never allow circumstances under which hate can flourish, become a political retorhic and ethnic cleansing can happen in Europe. Never forget means not turning a blind eye to millions gassed to death in workhouses. Never forget means never forget the sacrifices the population of this country made so we could be free of the nazis.

Interestingly, as we move further away from that time and memories fade, indicators that that COULd happen again creep back in. That's why it's essential we educate our children about Ww1&2, why we continue the exhibitions, rememberance days, poppy appeals etc. Anyone who thinks otherwise - well I'd like to hear your alternative

WildBluebelles

In WW1 a higher percentage of officers were killed. Not generals, but captains and lieutenants. The middle classes suffered disproportionately. Clearly in absolute numbers more working class soilders were killed.

Also, the British army was woefully unprepared in terms on numbers for either WW1 or WW 2.

DS1 has 3 grade A A levels. Some of his officers joke with him that he has better A levels than them. When he went to selection the officer there came into the room and said "stand up if you are more qualified than me". No one moved so he said DS1's name.

DS1 has always wanted to be a soldier. He thought about uni and officer training but would have still joined had he have not made it so didn't want the debt.

He loves the army. He's recently been promoted. He's had so many opportunities, travelled all over the world with his regiment for sports. He even gets a buzz out of sleeping outside, in a hole, in the freezing cold. I love seeing how happy he is.

It scares the shit out of me that he might go to war. I'll never forget when he phoned me and went through his will. That's a coversation I never thought I'd have with my 19yo. I'm very proud of him in the same way as I'm proud of DS2 who is training to be a nurse.

"Today 10:23 WildBluebelles

My son is very middle class and serves his country. Most of his friends are from middle class backgrounds. All classes choose to serve.

Oooh, thanks Crumbs1. Is that the same son who sings Christmas carols with you in the 'village' and opens one Christmas present and lets the rest be donated to the poor? Since your entire life appears to be one big fantasy it's probably safest not to take what you say as gospel."

This made me laugh so much 😭

But it was company policy, as per tannoy announcement, so she should have either waited to be served or left the store if she didn’t like it.

OP herself said she might have served customer had she not been nattering on phone and whispered her request instead. So a potential willing to go against company policy was there, she just didn’t like the way the request was executed.

Personally, I’d have served her in silence.

Disgruntled customer can always go on Twitter to complain. Would be interesting to see whether supermarket is as game to change their entire company policy on the basis of one complaint as Topshop.

Tough. She should have allowed herself more time to shop and catch her train. Very disrespectful. I am glad you didn't serve her. People who died in conflict had no choice unlike your self centred customer. Well Done xx

You should have served her as respectfully and quietly as possible considering the knock on effect that not serving her could have. I am a veteran so remember day is very close to my heart, very real and emotional. But it's also a working day and sometimes there are circumstances. Ironicly I was driving a train at that time, I didn't bring the train to a halt in the middle of the main line for the silence. Doesn't mean I am any less appreciative of the price that has been paid. A cost I have had the misfortune of seeing first hand. However I do respect your sentiment.

I'm going to have to read more on this. Seems a wider debate has kicked off

I agree that the OP shouldn't have served the customer if she didnt want to/was observing the silence

I woukd be sad if my children joined the army but thats because, rightly or wrongly, i see it as being more likely to be dangerous compared to navy or the RAF

Most people i know sent to war zones at the moment are pleased as they feel its what they have been trained for and they are paying their 'dues'

I don’t think the OP wanted to multi-task while she was observing the 2 mins silence sort of takes the feeling out of it. YWNBU OP, nobody was forcing the customer to observe the silence, she just had to wait while you did.

Yes exactly. A cultural norm is how respect is born. Every act of respect is a cultural norm thats how it becomes a thing.

No, it became a thing again because the government dictated that we would do it. The 2 minute silence on armistice day originally lasted from 1919 to 1939. It didn't happen for most of my life and it certainly didn't start again as a cultural thing by people deciding it was a good thing to do. It was specifically introduced by the government (not sure exactly what year - think around 2000). I am not in favour and Ransom's post illustrates one of the reasons. It gives a golden opportunity for people to be self-righteous. Random , please put that horrible couple out of your mind!