to feel uncomfortable being served by woman with tourettes that kept swearing at me?

[racmac]

I went to a well known high street store and was served by a lady who had tourettes. I have no problem with this or any of her ticks BUT she kept saying cunt and wanker - i dont use these words in front of my children so dont expect others to AIBU in expecting that she shouldnt be serving customers?

It was rather disconcerting to be told "thats £20.00 please, cunt, wanker"

Racmac

fancyliontamer, sadly the same world as the people on this thread that can't see past a verbal tic

Newsreaders do not say 'Get real' either.

I am not shocked by swearing in general and would have no trouble with someone who I knew had tourettes, but that isn't quite the situation here unless the sufferers wear a big badge saying so.

If I'm minding my own business and someone screams 'WANKER!!' in my ear it would be a health and safety issue for him.

I think H&S was initially raised because of the thought that M&S would have to protenct the TS from stress and possible assault arising from her impairment.

Not customers' H&S.

Clearly H&S a red herring though, since M&S would obv have taken this into account before employing her.

I don't have torettes but swear like a tropper especailly at work its fucking this and fucking that and arsehole bastard twats shit heads.

I am in customer service admin.

I really don't see the fuss about a lady with tourettes calling you a cunt tbh. I bet your children didn't even notice and if they did they would hardly know what the word cunt means.

Imagine how hard it must be for that lady to come to work and not be able to control what she is saying. Good on her I say because people in this country are very arrognant and rude and I bet she has the piss taken out of her alot.

Not sure what kind a job people expect a tourettes person to do as most jobs involves working with other people. I am pretty sure if all tourettes people sat at home swearing to themselves and claiming benefits alot of threads would pop up on here discussing how they are more than capable of working a job lazy gits.

so, those of you who feel that people with certain disabilities cannot do certain jobs because of adjustments that need to be made etc, where do you propose we draw the line?

Maybe we shouldn't stop at discriminating against the disabled? Perhaps an employer should have the right to refuse a woman with small children the right to flexible working or part time hours because that will impact on the productivity of his company? Or refuse to employ women of childbearing age at all because they will most likely leave and will not be doing their job effectively?

Clearly there are certain jobs that are difficult for people with certain disabilities. I would find it difficult to be a teaching assistant for instance because help with writing for instance would be difficult for me. But there is a difference between that and someone whose disability means that they act out of the "norm". Acting differently to other people doesn't necessarily mean you can't do a job. It is not impossible for this woman to operate a till. There are deaf till operators in our local asda who cnnot speak to the customers - should they not be employed either? They can operate the till, take the money, give the receipt - that's all that's required of the job. And similar with this woman.

Her employers clearly don't have an issue with employing her, so whether individual members of the public have issue with it is obviously down to their own attitudes.

Fact is, before the DDA came into force there was no law to prevent an employer discriminating against someone on the basis of their disability. And finding a job was immensely difficult, because as soon as you mentioned your disability you could kiss goodbye even to the prospect of an interview.

Now by law if you meet the minimum requirements for the job they have to give you an interview, so a huge hurdle has been overcome, and probably hundreds of thousands of people with disabilities have been given the chance to prove that they're not aliens by at the very least attending interviews. Interviews which prior to the dda wouldn't even have been considered.

You are being unreasonable. I would have explained to my child the reason for it. The same way i would explain if he were to question why someone was in a wheelchair etc.

Good point Claw3

How do you know someone has tourettes in the first place? I'm quite sure I could guess after a bit, but the first time there is no way to know and no reason to react differently than if anyone else had verbally abused you.

I think it would be fairly obvious from context!

Ordinary transaction in M&S, shopworker shouts 'cunt' = obvious tourettes, surely.

www.depression-guide.com/symptoms-of-tourettes-syndrome.htm

Onager - I think "that will be £20, cunt, wanker, fuck, shit" would be a big clue.

They are not verbally abusing you, its a bit like a stutter, they cant help it. Im sure given the choice they would love to be able to stop shouting out random swear words.

I know they are not verbally abusing you. What I was getting at is that you don't know they have the condition the moment you walk up to them. I'm sure it would be obvious after a bit, but that might be a bit late.

But the onus is on the customer here surely?
It's not about the customer.
It's about the right for the woman on the till to be able to have a job and be supported in that role where necessary. Support in this case would probably be someone close by overseeing her incase of any upset or rude customers not being aware of her condition.

Onager - I cant think of anyone else who would shout, cunt, wanker etc at you, for no apparent reason as soon as you approach, other than someone with tourettes.

I get where your coming from though, not everyone is aware that tourettes even exists and could take offence.

I have a mentally handicapped brother (before he was in a wheelchair) to look at him you would think nothing was wrong with him. He would walk up to people and rub their heads, luckily he was never unsupervised!!

onager - that was my whole point about what kind of society you buy in to. Whether it's money based or person based.

"That's the arrangement our society/economy is based on. Someone pays me money to do something they want done. If I take the money it's my job to do it they way they want it done. If I can't or won't then it's dishonest to take the money."

But this has nothing to do with the debate as the employee is obviously doing things to the satisfaction of their employer, if not to the satisfaction of small-minded customers.

Therein is the debate, should the employer only put "perfect" people in customer facing jobs to minimise "offence"? For me, that's a resounding no.

If someone can't tell the difference between a verbal tic and someone being intentionally abusive they're a bit thick tbh. It's very obvious.

Mind you from my experiences of going out with ds1 there are a lot of thick people out there.

Ok having taken some time to cool off after effectively being called a bigot I'm coming back to this. I have a counsin who can't hear. Another cousin who can't see and my gran can't walk or talk. Myself and my family have always given generously to charites for the deaf and blind to name a few. Just because we know of these things though doesn't mean we have a huge ammount of knowledge about them. And to suggest that people 'just educate themselves' is silly.

I have no objections to anybody with any disablity or condition working. In fact I'd encourage it. I will be the first to admit though that if I was served by a person who shouted 'wanker, cunt!' at me my reation would be: 'open mouth, wide eyes, blink, blink, blink.'

I would of course, catch on that this was most likely a condition and that they had no control over it. Fine. But I'm sticking to my guns when I say I wouldn't like this to happen in front of my dd. It would make me uncomfortable, what can I say, I'm only human.

It's all well coming at me with, but what happens if this was on a bus or in the street? That is a situation that nobody has any control over. In a store enviroment, someone has control over who serves on a till. I would think it more appropriate to say, let this woman serve people, but perhaps let someone else serve if there are young children in.

I don't see how that hurts anyone, and I'm sure that anybody with tourettes would understand someone asking that of them.

I think this has all gone way off topic. Of course the OP has a right to be uncomfortable at being sworn at, I don't know many people that wouldn't be. Condition or not.

Catchastar - No one would like someone to shout out swear words in the presence of children. Unfortunately the world in which children live does consist of swear words and disabilities and our children at some point will experience these things.

Should we wrap our children in cotton wool or explain to them the reason for this?

Well it's illegal. You cannot refuse someone a customer service role for reasons of Tourettes. You cannot do it. No matter what you think is appropriate.

So if you are ever in the position of employing someone I suggest you read the DDA. Ignoring it, or deciding that you don't care what it says the role isn't suitable for someone with disability X could end up costing you a lot of money. And for the purposed of the DDA TS will be seen as a disability.

"I'm sure that anybody with tourettes would understand someone asking that of them."

And if they don't you could find yourself in court. You can't ask that question, any more than someone can ask a woman in an interview whether she's planning to get pregnant.

Swearing is a symptom of tourettes, I know someone who has it. She works, but in an office, where her colleagues know about her condition.
I can sympathise with the OP, but I'm sure the lady serving her is equally embarassed, as it's out of her control.

But why is protecting them from swearing at the age of 3 wrapping them in cotton wool - Im not talking about a 10 year old who is quite capable of understanding that a condition such as tourettes makes people behave in this way - they have no control over it.

A 3 year old does NOT understand this and is just as likely to think its ok to use these words whenever they feel like it.

A 3 year old does not have the same comprehension as a 6 year old or a 10 year old - they will no doubt hear far worse as they get older but he is only 3.

It's nothing to do with wrapping your child up in cotton wool, it's wanting to take care of them and not have someone swear at them like that. There are so many things you have no control over with regards to your children, I don't see how wanting to keep them from being sworn at in this manner and in this situation is being 'precious.'

My opinion still stands where it always has though, I do think it's inappropriate. You may not, that's up to you. Agree to digaree I guess.

Racmac - Then you leave the store and dont return to the store, if you dont want to 'expose' your child.

Im sure lots of 3 year olds pick up swear words and have NEVER been in contact with someone with tourettes. So you explain in exactly the same way, in terms they can understand.

If you see someone in a wheelchair, would you protect them from that? You never know they might start to imitate them!