To expect an exception for bf baby?

[PatchItUp]

I have a 2 month old baby who is exclusively breastfed. Today I’ve got a hairdressers appointment for the first time in months and I’ve been really looking forward to it. I’m having cut and colour so may be a few hours. I’d expressed some milk and my DH is going to try giving him a bottle for the first time.

I mentioned when I arrived that this was the situation and that if he refused the bottle, my DH would bring the baby in to be fed then take him away again. I’ve done this in a different hairdressers with my older children before with no problem.

The receptionist said there was a no children policy and therefore I wouldn’t be able to bring him in. I was a bit shocked and reiterated that he is very young, exclusively bf and couldn’t be left hungry if he wouldn’t take the bottle. She said she would check with the hairdresser.

Hairdresser came and said much the same thing - no child policy, if we make an exception for you we have to make one for everyone and customers will complain. I said again that I understood a no child policy to prevent toddlers running around or making noise but this would be a small baby coming in for a feed and then out again. She said she would check with the manager.

Manager heard and said from across the room ‘there’s nowhere for you to go’. By this point all the customers are listening and I felt really conscious and upset about being argued with by three different members of staff. I was fairly sure that this was illegal refusal of services but not totally confident so I said ‘I don’t need to go anywhere, he’ll just be on my lap, have a feed then go again’. They all again said it’s company policy, they can’t make any exceptions. The manager said ‘what’s the percentage chance he’ll need to come in?’ And one of the women said ‘there’s a good chance he’ll just take the bottle so why not take the risk?’ I replied I couldn’t take the risk that he wouldn’t take it and would be left screaming and hungry and not allowed to come in.

Eventually the manager reluctantly agreed that he could be brought in if necessary but it was clear they were really unhappy about it and it’s soured the experience for me massively.

When I checked on my phone it seems they’re acting illegally in refusing services to a breastfeeding mother, although I guess they could argue it’s down to chemical hazards (although this wasn’t mentioned at any time as a reason).

So - was I being unreasonable? And would I be unreasonable to complain later on?

I know some people will say I should have just left but my hair is such a state!! And I’ve been really looking forward to having it cut and having a few hours to myself.

I breastfed two children each for over a year. I had six-eight weekly hair cuts with every other appointment or so being for a colour as well by the time I had the youngest. I never needed to take either of them to the hairdressers with me. Even with a colour appointment I wasn’t away from them for more than 2 hours. Feed before and after the appointment. I wouldn’t want any child of mine around all the chemicals, sprays etc in a hairdressers!

As @stackthecats and @Lemonelderflower said - the discrimination is against the woman: it's literally just being treated worse than other service users because you're breastfeeding. It's not framed around the baby. There are no exemptions for childfree spaces: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/11 (see sections 13 and 17).

Bit surprised that almost all the women on this thread are so keen to cite "playing the discrimination card" - it's literally discrimination - written in an actual law .

So... does OP want to know if they’re being unreasonable or if it’s illegal? Because we’re several hundred comments in and it would appear OP is never going to agree she was being unreasonable, so I see no point in saying anything on that count.

Now, people going back and forth on the legality and so many saying it’s illegal but OP rather flippantly put the most important bit:
I guess they could argue it’s down to chemical hazards (although this wasn’t mentioned at any time as a reason).
Doesn’t matter if it was mentioned at the time; they’re protected. Straight from Maternity Action UK:
It is NOT against the law to prevent a woman breastfeeding where there are legitimate health and safety risks, for example, near to certain chemicals or radiation.
maternityaction.org.uk/advice/breastfeeding-in-public-places/
And since they have a no children policy, they might have an even stronger leg to stand on (ex. since some studies on fumes are inconclusive, they have made the decision simply to allow only adults who can decide for themselves). And two hairstylists and a manager may not know why the owner made a no child policy; it’s the owner’s job to make the policies they think will best protect the business and mitigate risk.

OP seems to have a ready answer for everything, though - she insisted she wouldn’t be upset if baby swallowed some of her cut hair, and that the dye is not liquid enough to drip on a baby and it would be in foils AND that the baby could not reach the foils from her breast. Seriously? I’m glad the hairstylists and manager involved are thinking more about possible problems than OP. So babies are never lifted or adjusted before or after a feed, putting the baby closer to the foils? Dye is always in one single chemical state - a firm enough gloop that never, ever drips? (If this were the case, they’d never have to do skin allergy tests because they could just rest assured the dye will stay only on the hair ). A mother is okay with her baby swallowing a choking hazard? Honestly, come off it. I know OP wants to justify herself, but this is all just too far.

YABU, which OP will never agree to, and it’s not illegal, with dangerous chemicals as the justification (as I’m sure if OP tried to take some kind of action, this is the answer she’d get), whether they told her at the time or not.

I think you need to find a salon who allow kids or a mobile hair dresser but standing arguing policy like this when you were told isn’t ok.

They have a no children rule, accept it and go elsewhere. You literally booked into somewhere that already had that rule, why pull your face about it? It’s not like they just decided this on the spot when you asked, it’s not that personal

@Mydarlingmyhamburger

I know mumsnet hates this term but there’s a certain K word that describes someone who wants the rules changed just for them. And not only argues with the staff, but then the supervisor and finally the manager to get her own way. And when the manager relents and changed the whole business policy just for her, it’s still not good enough end she’s straight online complaining about them

In case you think not using that particular K word makes you anything less than vile, insulting & misogynistic - it doesn't.

God, the posts here.

That Karen one needs removing. It’s fucking disgusting to call a woman a Karen for wanting to breastfeed her baby

@x2boys I have no idea when what happened, but when I read the policy recently that’s what it stated. I was surprised, I made a joke about my baby being in the office, but it said they had to make provisions for me to feed. It didn’t say anything about expressing, it said breastfeeding. I don’t know much about the law, so maybe someone else can say more, but my documentation said if I was breastfeeding that HAD to make provisions to allow me to do so AND it made defence to my baby being in the work place for it.

@Voomster953

Hey everyone, you’re all missing the point. Come on.

OP is the first person to ever have a baby and the first one to breastfeed. Please give her the adoration she deserves, and suspend all of your own plans and comfort to suit her.

Honestly OP, this place...

There certain,y does seem to be an element of precious first born going on here!
This particular hairdresser has decided to implement a no children policy ( not a no breast feeling policy) as is entirely their right, as op has the right to go elsewhere , where children/ babies are welcome rather than expect them to change their rules just for her. No amount of ' but my baby won't cry' etc will , or should , make any difference

*reference not defence

YABU. PLUS isn’t there some sort of danger of chemicals in your hair when you’re bf? Or is that just when you bleach hair when your expecting?

YABU. Apart from anything else it's a nice little break for you going to get your hair done - enjoy it! If he won't take the bottle then he'll just go a bit hungry until you get back, he might cry but he'll be fine!

In fact, every time I’ve had my hair cut in multiple locations I have had the dye on my hair timed and once checked I’ve moved on to the next step. I really don’t see how you haven’t

Such a pity so many are unable to read.

I didn't say the time for my hair dye wasn't checked.

However, I've often waited at the start for my appointment, at the mirror for my stylist, at the basin for the hair washer, back at the mirror for my stylist to do the cut ... you get the idea.

Hair salons haven't re-opened yet in Ireland. But when they did after the last lockdown, there were still delays as I've described. All fine by me.

I was pointing it out to contradict the nonsensical 'but it's all on such a tight schedule' shock horror

It’s not her firstborn.

This thread is very depressing.

Even more so because it’s Maternal Mental Health Week this week and the judgement on here and suggestions of scheduled feeding and letting baby cry and you should accept you’re a lower human being are frankly, fucking disgusting. No wonder so many women struggle with mental health after having a baby when there is so much judgement.

@BlindingLights101

But why shouldn’t you get a haircut when you have a 2 month old baby. I don’t follow this reasoning.

Because I exclusively breastfed 10 babies while living in a shoe and didn’t have a bath or go to the dentist for 17 years.

Or the shorter version - misogyny.

😂😂😂

Brilliant!

@PatchItUp

Thanks for replies so far, it’s interesting to see the opinions. I really find it surprising how many people would be livid about a baby coming in to a room, sitting on my lap to be fed for 15 minutes, then leaving. He’d obviously be silent for the 15 minutes it takes to feed him. How would that impact on anyone else’s haircut experience?

Were you having a colour? What if baby comes in say 5 min before the colour is due to be washed off? What if the person after you was late for work /dentist /childcare because your appointment was held up so therefore everyone after you was 10 /15 min late No children means no children. It doesn't mean no children except yours!

a haircut is likely to take more than an hour.

Er, no. If you get your hair coloured, it's easily 2 - 3 hours.

YABU massively unreasonable and I say that as someone who bfed

I know how you feel OP! I want to go to a night club because I’ve not been to one in ages but they won’t let me take my baby in for a feed either, all I’ve asked is that they keep all alcohol away and turn the music down so that I can settle them!

Funny how if this was a “no children wedding” people would be up in arms about no exception for a breastfed baby..:

What will you do next time op. ? Will you try to get back in and basically rely on them to ban you?

@RightYesButNo

So... does OP want to know if they’re being unreasonable or if it’s illegal? Because we’re several hundred comments in and it would appear OP is never going to agree she was being unreasonable, so I see no point in saying anything on that count.

Now, people going back and forth on the legality and so many saying it’s illegal but OP rather flippantly put the most important bit:
I guess they could argue it’s down to chemical hazards (although this wasn’t mentioned at any time as a reason).
Doesn’t matter if it was mentioned at the time; they’re protected. Straight from Maternity Action UK:
It is NOT against the law to prevent a woman breastfeeding where there are legitimate health and safety risks, for example, near to certain chemicals or radiation.
maternityaction.org.uk/advice/breastfeeding-in-public-places/
And since they have a no children policy, they might have an even stronger leg to stand on (ex. since some studies on fumes are inconclusive, they have made the decision simply to allow only adults who can decide for themselves). And two hairstylists and a manager may not know why the owner made a no child policy; it’s the owner’s job to make the policies they think will best protect the business and mitigate risk.

OP seems to have a ready answer for everything, though - she insisted she wouldn’t be upset if baby swallowed some of her cut hair, and that the dye is not liquid enough to drip on a baby and it would be in foils AND that the baby could not reach the foils from her breast. Seriously? I’m glad the hairstylists and manager involved are thinking more about possible problems than OP. So babies are never lifted or adjusted before or after a feed, putting the baby closer to the foils? Dye is always in one single chemical state - a firm enough gloop that never, ever drips? (If this were the case, they’d never have to do skin allergy tests because they could just rest assured the dye will stay only on the hair ). A mother is okay with her baby swallowing a choking hazard? Honestly, come off it. I know OP wants to justify herself, but this is all just too far.

YABU, which OP will never agree to, and it’s not illegal, with dangerous chemicals as the justification (as I’m sure if OP tried to take some kind of action, this is the answer she’d get), whether they told her at the time or not.

This is a misreading of the legal situation, though. It's designed to protect against industrial chemicals and radiation, not to apply to an everyday service.

In a discrimination case, the business would need to show something like there were no spaces at all in any part of the salon which would be safe (unlikely) and that they were using chemicals on the premises which were sufficiently different to any hairdresser in which you could breastfeed to make them a special case. If you can find examples of any other hairdressers who are offering materially the same service and can accommodate a breastfeeding woman, then a defence falls down immediately. A high street hairdresser is unlikely to be able to show they are an exception purely because of this. You can't just proffer a defence under an exemption unless it is a robust one.

@brushlaptop

YABU

When I was bf my son I just waited until he could go 3-4 hours between feeds. My hair looking awful was the least of my problems when I had a small baby... also most people have terrible hair at the moment but it's just hair 🤷‍♀️

That was your choice.

OP doesn't have to put up with 'terrible hair', if she'd like her hair done & salons are open.

@PatchItUp

no kids means no kids. Personally I don’t care if you bf your baby in the hairdressers or not , but why should your baby be subjected to the overwhelming aroma of dyes and bleach etc ? That’s not fair on baby. If your appointment runs 15 mins longer and you say your happy to pay for the fifteen minutes ( how would you work that out?) are you going to reimburse the next customer who’s appointment your eating into? It’s not a massive deal. You’re really acting like it is though. Why did you even ask? You’re not interested in anyone not agreeing with you - you’ve made that quite clear. Rules are no kids- NONE.