Not allowing heavily pregnant woman to use a loo

[pelvicfloorisnomore]

I’m imminently due my third baby and have a massive bump. Popped to the local coop post school run and as I was checking out was desperate for the loo. My pelvic floor is pretty shot from previous 2 kids, the baby had dropped during the school run walk so I was feeling like I could not wait. The store was empty bar a couple of pensioners. I asked if I could use the staff loo as desperate, there are no other loos nearby and I was unlikely to make it the half a mile home in time. The member of staff said no against policy and I soiled myself before I even made it the front door of the shop. Completely humiliating and had to walk home like that and could have been avoided if a little kindness shown.

AIBU to expect some flexibility in branch policy to accommodate for those in need? It hardly fits with the coop key value of caring for others.

@MrsLBrown I don't think you realise how easy it is to lose a job in retail. If you break policy, there's very little flexibility - it's "you didn't do X, that's gross misconduct" - they won't care that you were trying to be nice or that the customer was pregnant.

If you wait until something serious occurs, it's already too late (in their eyes) - they just won't allow people to take risks.

Why would they not have a choice? Joe public isn't more likely to have an accident than a member of staff so I can't see why insurance companies would have that exclusion.

Obviously shops are not going to want non employees to wander around the shop with no supervision as they could steal half the stock. That doesn't mean they would want to be in a position where Joe public isn't insured for accidents though. What if someone is there for a job interview or a workman needs to go in the back for example? No shop is going to want to leave themselves open to being sued for damages and not having insurance.

So YOU don't know the size of the shop or how often OP goes there but more importantly the staff member she spoke to wouldn't have known whether it was a "one off" (my personal experience, the fact that I've seem multiple news articles, threads on MN and even several posters on this thread have had their own experiences confirms people ask to use staff toilets A LOT) nor whether she "obviously" needed a wee.

Op said she "soiled" herself which usually means poo but even if she didn't how on earth is the staff member supposed to know? Are you really suggesting she should have stood there asking op exactly what she was planning on doing in the loo? Being pregnant doesn't mean she couldn't also have had diarrhoea or vomited everywhere. Pregnant women also use drugs, you don't magically stop being a junkie when you get sperm in you.

Besides which even if they used their magic toilet powers to establish that OP was just going to have a wee, she ended up not even making it to the front door so it is equally likely she would have lost control on the way to the loo - so they still have to clean up piss or shit in the stockroom or stairs or where they eat their lunch.

And what if they do somehow manage to establish OP was a lovely person who was just going to have a nice clean wee but someone standing next to her said "oh i need the loo too" - how do they say no to them without being discriminatory?
It's "well known" that young children and disabled people and elderly people and people who are ill ALSO might need a loo suddenly.

Do you think pregnant women should be the sole exception and no other groups of equal need? What if they said "oh I'm pregnant too" - how do you prove they arent?

It's not a different issue at all -the question is why shops don't let members of the public use staff toilets and my answer is why - because staff don't have magic toilet powers to tell who is honestly desperate and wants to use the loo as a one off and will clean up after themselves and someone who will make a huge mess/nick something.

The stock room is where the shelves are. Possibly where equipment and/or chemicals etc are stored
The staff room will be back there with staff bags etc

Insurance WILL differentiate and the store would be in the absolute shit if something happened back there

Maybe contact the co-op head office? Perhaps it will inspire a change in policy. It's unfortunate that this happened though i can see that it probably was a blanket rule and not up to the cahier. I had to use incontinence pads a bit last pregnancy. Keep up those pelvic floor exercises!

It's a horrible world where senseless rules about insurance are more important than human kindness or dignity.

What nonsense this is- I seriously doubt that there has ever been a huge problem of people taking shops to court for letting them use staff toilets. The world is currently full of these kinds of stupid rules, and everyone just says 'health and safety' or 'insurance', and common sense and kindness go out the window, in fact you can't even argue. Dumb rules trump everything else, and everyone nods along gravely, saying we can't even discuss this because 'staff might lose their job'. They only lose their job over something like this because the world has become so inhumane.

I am very sorry - how awful for you.

I think it’s terrible society has devolved to such an extent that so many think it’s acceptable for a heavily pregnant woman to be treated this way - whether it’s at the behest of an individual’s choice, or a corporation’s policies, it lacks humanity.

I'm so sorry this happened!

Yes, this.

It’s not about a shop assistant probably on mimium wage following the rules. I get that. I imagine if she felt able to should would have let me use the loo.

It’s about the fact that people are afraid to help another person in need for fear of punishment of some sort. That accomodations are not made for many people in need. Even when it is the mission statement of that business.

In a thread of almost 200 mums, there have been some kind voices that have shown empathy (thank you!) but a lot have come to castigate and blame a woman describing a moment of extreme humiliation. A woman having an accident publically. Accident being the key word here. A few even came to mock (urghh, so you Shat yourself?)-thanks.

Also, small stores tend to only have one or two staff on the floor during quiet times. Taking a customer into the back would either leave the floor empty or, more likely, one member of staff alone which would go against their lone working policy. And be very helpful to the shoplifters.

This thread has just reminded me how glad I am that I don't live in the UK any more.

It's a bit of a tangent, but last night I was talking to a client who is a primary school teacher, and previously worked in London. I was asking her about the differences. She said the relationships between staff and children are just much warmer here. If a kid is upset she can give them a cuddle. And I'm very glad to live somewhere where regulations don't stop my child's teacher being able to comfort them when they need it. But of course in Britain everyone would be yelling 'safeguarding!'

Why would they not have a choice? Joe public isn't more likely to have an accident than a member of staff so I can't see why insurance companies would have that exclusion.

Is Joe Public dressed appropriately and wearing correct footwear? Do they know which parts of the stockroom they're allowed (or not allowed) to walk in? Have they completed all the necessary health and safety forms and informed the company of their medical history? No - which is why they're not covered by insurance.

What if someone is there for a job interview or a workman needs to go in the back for example?

Workmen have to sign in and out, and also have their own insurance. People on job interviews would also have to sign in/out and would, again, be accompanied at all times.

YABU pregnancy, illness or injury is not the stores problem and none of them deserve to have their jobs put at risk because of your condition.

There's some really unkind responses on here some of which have shocked me today, it's possible to make your point without being a dick

Well maybe laws could be adapted so that it is obligatory for every private landlord that leases to small shops that trades in a town centre, or retail park, to contribute to a common government subsidised fund that also provides infrastructure like lavatories, drinking fountains and places for the elderly to sit.

It was others on the thread saying they had no morals, I didn't mean you.

I get what you're saying, but I imagine they have very specific remits about how they are caring and socially responsible, no? I don't believe that every business has to be everything to everyone.

That being said, I do think more businesses should try to enable toilet access where they can. Not always possible for a myriad of reasons though!

I feel for you but it is down to self care - tena incontinence pants are much better and hold lots more volume than a pad and are very comfy and discreet. You only have a few days to go so good luck

Every post-partum, perimenopausal woman feels for you op.

Apologies for not rtft, have you heard of Elaine Miller https://www.natracare.com/blog/qa-elaine-miller-pelvic-floor-physiotherapist-comedian/ .

She is quite outspoken about the lack of awareness of pelvic floor dysfunction and has lots of advice about how to help.

Wishing you well for your next birth, you're not alone.

I feel like the people commenting have not been pregnant!

I agree there should be more public toilets. But even if a small shop creates space for one loo, if that was occupied when the OP needed it she would have had the same issue if the need was that urgent.
There's also the issue of space for staff to have storage for their belongings that the public can't get to. If you start letting the public wander around out the back it puts the staffs belongings at risk.

Where I work we have 2 toilets. One for staff and one for patients. The staff one is upstairs and just a toilet cubicle and the sink is in a separate room that also contains staff belongings.
The toilet downstairs is a self contained loo with sink etc inside. Recently a patient complained someone was in the downstairs loo and so she wanted to use the upstairs one. We let her as she said it was urgent but told her she would need to come downstairs to wash her hands as we can't let people into the staff area with the sink as everyone's belongings are there. I cannot tell you how much she complained about that. She was trying to force the door of the staff area open because it was "disgusting that she was expected to wait to wash her hands downstairs". So sometimes you just can't win. You try to be nice and you still get people complaining.

I bet most have. I have.

I agree, but it also feels like some people have not been employed in a low-wage retail job where everything is so precarious and bending the rules, even for a good cause, could be disastrous for you. It's a no-win situation.

I'm sorry if I don't word this well, I'm autistic and really struggling mentally, please don't jump on me. I've been in your situation, it makes you feel so vulnerable and anxious leaving the house and you lose faith in people. In America in 2015 they actually brought in a law called Ally's law, I think it's in 20 states now, shops legally have to let disabled and pregnant people use the toilet. In England I've found it really depends on the person you ask, which doesn't give you confidence leaving the house, I use the strongest incontinence products but sometimes they fail/leak. I'm physically disabled and I need to shop at budget shops that often don't have toilets, I've been refused them, but BandM actually apologised to me and said they'd retrain their staff. I can't tell you how badly I often get treated as a disabled vulnerable person, not just about toilets, it's about humanity. Toilets are a problem for disabled and pregnant people in this country, why is America ahead of us by nearly 10 years?

Absolutely this! 👏👏👏👏

Best post of the entire thread!

Imagine this:

Staff member is one of two staff on the floor. She takes OP out back, against policy. OP is in fact part of a local vicious gang, faking pregnancy to distract staff. With one member of staff now alone with her (where she can either distract them or lock them up elsewhere) the other staff member is now alone on the floor with her partner. Who pulls a knife on them as they rob the place. The staff member on the floor ends up getting hurt/killed. And because a staff member ignored policy the insurance refuses to pay out...

Or OP has to walk through the stock room to the loo. She trips over/something falls on her and causes injury. It's against policy for the public to be back there and insurance doesn't cover public in this area. No payout....

Policies are there for a reason and not just "because corporate aren't customer focused"