Marks and Spencer support new 'Hooters' in Bristol

[JessinAvalon]

Dear all
This is my first post on here so I hope I am doing this right!

I live in Bristol and, last week, 'Hooters' was granted a licence to open in the city centre. The site is virtually opposite 3 apartment blocks, the lower floors of which are social housing and children are living in them.

What's most disappointing is that Marks and Spencer are leasing the site to 'Hooters'. They have been e-mailed by many concerned people to ask if they will reconsider leasing the building but they have just replied saying it is a "commercial decision" (as if that makes it ok!). In Sheffield, a 'Hooters' didn't even make it to application stage because the developer (Ask Pizza) realised that it would be better not to be associated with a company like 'Hooters'.

Marks and Spencer don't seem that concerned, however. Although they have signed up to the "Let Girls Be Girls" Mumsnet campaign they are not concerned about a company which sells merchandise including babygros which say "Future Hooters Girl" and "Does my butt look big in this?"

I have written to Marks and Spencer telling them that I won't be shopping in their stores again. If you feel strongly about this, please e-mail:

[email protected].

'Hooters' tries to sell itself as a family friendly restaurant but it is anything but. The Hooters in Nottingham attracts mainly stag parties and football fans. Hooters Girls take part in bikini contests and iced wet t-shirt competitions (the t-shirts are put in the freezers before the girls wear them). 'Hooters' has links to Playboy magazine....I could go on.....

I think Marks and Spencer should be shamed for facilitating this company's expansion into Bristol. They are selling women and girls down the river by leasing to this company and all just to make a "quick buck".

Thanks everyone.

@ David - Your pretend attempts at politeness seem to have disappeared now in favour of insults. Now you definitely fall into the definition of a troll, if anyone was in doubt previously.

And don't say it's just because we don't agree with you as you have said:

"don't want to hang around too ling [sic] in case some of the stupid rubs off on me though."

But by all means continue to spend your time telling us all how trivial and pointless this campaign is (what does that say about how you like to spend your time?) as you are continuing to add to the posts and are bumping up the thread.

You are like the (thankfully few) people who signed the petition to say what a waste of time it was - a petition against the opening of Hooters. How kind of them to add to the numbers.

"Told you, I'm off the clock now."

Not getting paid at the moment for trying to play down the campaign or play up the sex industry?

Obviously you will deny the link but anyone who spends their time trawling police statistics to try and discredit reports clearly has an agenda [will be denied].

Oh, I think I have remained relatively polite and my language is better than many on here.

Well done for spotting and pointing out the typo in the line you quoted. Did you learn that from Derailing for Dummies?

"It's also really awesome to utilise the tactic of correcting grammar and/or spelling mistakes and criticising comments on form rather than content to further distract from the issues."

Jess, I hate to break it to you, but being convinced that someone will deny an allegation doesn't make it any more true.

Just been on the school run. A friend who lives on Harbourside told me they have now 'erected' an enormous orange "Hooters" sign outside the ex-M&S. She reckons the people who were persuaded to start up a tourist attraction in the form of a delightful chocolate factory round the corner, on the basis of Harbourside being the jewel in Bristol's touristic crown, are probably feeling a tad pissed off now. So am I, because I wanted to take my family to BrisFest on the Harbourside this weekend and now we will not go. If I had to walk past the "Titties" sign I would either throw up or throw something.

I wonder how the manager of art gallery opposite feels? I can't imagine they're too happy.

Nor is it in keeping with the atmosphere in The Living Room though the manager thought that it would increase footfall (though he did say that he didn't want the Hooters crowd in his bar and said that the door staff would be keeping them out!).

If they've erected a sign its a good time for more action I say . They've just upped the publicity for what you're doing too. Now the apathetics will also know about it.

Don't know the area but can you hand out leaflets outside or set up a stall? (Esp if not open yet so you can be right in front) Maybe on Saturday? You could stick to a few key points and it would be good to get the first info to locals being negative stuff.

Also practical advice on what to do.

Jess - I assumed DSH was saying he didn't want to hang around "tooling" as in being a tool (probably using American slang in honour of Hooters). Was quite touched by his thoughtfulness.

MumBristol - tell the Brisfest organisers you feel unable to come because of this.
I have no idea if they are on side or not but if Hooters is damaging their event I'm sure they soon will be.

Thanks for the idea, Elephants. Will have a think.

Elephants - LOL @ tooling. How apt

Jess - I am pretty sure that if it's a political leaflet then you have a legal right to hand them out. So even when Hooters are open you can stand outside with leaflets and they can't tell you not to.

Difference is (I think ) if its private property, and in the UK public spaces are becoming increasingly privatised, much of Liverpool city centre is.

Here's more info

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/feb/02/liberty-clinic-leafleting

I've been in situations before where people try and overrule this, so its important to know and be able to quote your rights.

PMed you Jess x

Could anyone in Bristol who wants to know more please pm me?

Thanks!

The story has even appeared in Property Week!

Link to article here

Hopefully it will make other companies think twice before letting a building to Hooters in the future.

It worked for a pizza restaurant chain.

It didn't work for Marks and Spencer.

Perhaps the bigger you are, the easier it is to ignore your own ethical trading policies!

Have only just cottoned on to this thread ( was that a pun?) but will be sending my email to Sir Stuart this afternoon, and will stop shopping there forthwith.

Although I think this is appalling for all the reasons that you've all said, I did see a ray of hope in the Telegraph article that was linked to about how the company has had ambitious expansion plans but has struggled to realise them. Bristol has slipped through the net (and JessinAvalon, the lack of local accountability is shocking) but there are other towns where they have been prevented from gaining a foothold. Hopefully, the effect of this campaign will be to raise awareness in other towns and cities of exactly what Hooters is and why it's unwelcome.

I'm interested in the reference some people have made to a waiver that waitresses have to sign to prevent them making complaints about sexual harassment. Surely this is illegal? Is there not some fundamental human right being breached here? Surely, companies are not allowed to circumvent their responsibilities in this area simply by getting employees to sign a waiver - they must have a more fundamental set of responsibilities to their employees under H&S legislation at least that can't be waived? How, in any case, do they define sexual harassment - are waitresses expected to put up with being touched for example? I can't believe waitresses sign away their rights to basic physical protection at work.

Anyone know any more about this?

Treats, I agree with you and can't believe it is true (that they can get away with it that is, not that they would try it, I can totally believe that ). From the little I know about law from a tiny bit of training, you are quite right you can't sign away your rights. Although saying that there was some thing here in the UK I seem to recall where you could sign away your rights to work a maximum number of hours wasn't there , but I would have thought that was a special case rather than the norm.

I think though (only think) that the signing away your rights thing has been done in the USA rather than here (?), where I can believe more it might be true you can. So I am not sure that this is possible in UK/EU law, therefore I don't know whether it is happening here. Maybe it has just not been challenged?

I don't get how they can have only female waiting staff here too either. An employer has to be excluded from legislation (like a women's refuge) to not consider both genders. I wonder how lap dancing clubs get away with it, or is that why they don't actually employ the women and make them pay to be there instead. Then they aren't employees

www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=156041544425143#!/group.php?gid=156976027654098&ref=ts

We have set up a Facebook group for people to join, so we can hopefully show M&S the strength of support there is for those of us who oppose them supporting Hooters.

Please join the group and post anything suitable you can think of there. Please also send the link round to anyone you know who may also be willing to show their support by officially boycotting M&S.

Thanks!

www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=156041544425143#!/group.php?gid=156976027654098&ref=ts

Sorry, I'm new to this site and didn't post the link properly - will try again.

Thanks!

Hi AliceWorld
I think strip clubs can get away with it because they can claim that it is a "genuine occupational qualification". See definition on Wikipedia here. And, as you say, strippers are effectively self-employed anyway.

As you can see on the list, waitress isn't listed!

I'm sure they try and get around it by saying that men and women are employed (because they have men behind the bar) but the reality, as we all know, is that this isn't the case.

There have been class action suits in the US for both sex discrimination and sexual harrassment but, as far as I am aware, all have been resolved out of court so far.

As for the contract, the US one is the one that has posted on The Smoking Gun. It will be interesting to see the one that is being offered to UK employees.

Hi MumofRachel
Thanks for posting the link to the group.

Perhaps we could also use it to post and compare the responses (or lack of!) that we've had from M&S.

AliceWorld - You're referring to the Working Time Directive which is EU legislation. The UK secured a concession that employees were able to sign a waiver to opt out of it if they wished. But the waiver only applies to this regulation - it can't be used to waive other rights. Small companies are sometimes let off other responsibilities, but these tend to be financial rather than employment-related.

I hope you're right that it's only in the US that they do this (although it's obviously shit for the US employees), but in that case it must be even more compelling that there's a legal case here for discrimination, safety at work, something.......

JessinAvalon - x posted. Interesting that there have been actions in the States - but, settled out of court, what a surprise.

We should keep an eye out for the recruitment literature to see how it's worded. And we should definitely raise merry hell if vacancies are advertised in the Job Centre.

It's pure speculation that the Hooters UK employment contract contains a harassment waiver. Assuming it does, then I would say it is probably unlawful and therefore unenforceable - it wouldn't prevent the employee from bringing a claim.

Likewise, any accusation that their hiring policy is discriminatory needs to be tested - someone who was refused employment would have to bring a claim to court or an employment tribunal.

As I see it, their hiring policy is self evidently discriminatory. However, there are exemptions, and my view is that Hooters will have written the job description in such a way as to exploit these. Without seeing the actual UK 'hooters girl' job description it is impossible to say with any certainty that no exemption applies.

My guess is that a 'hooters girl' is not employed as wait staff, rather that they describe the role more as an entertainer. This would potentially allow them to claim that being female is a 'Genuine Occupational Qualification' as can be the case with modeling, acting and indeed stripping.

This us only my opinion, and I'm sure you will disagree. However, you can't escape the fact that it needs to be tested in court... not on an internet message board.

Also, I find it hard to believe that Mr McTaggart was stupid enough to take on such a controversial franchise without seeking the opinion of specialist legal counsel. But you never know, its about time you guys caught a break.

Thanks both.

Notice anything fishy about that wikipedia list ? That last one looks a teensy bit out of place ("When the manager of a striptease club seeks strippers."), all the others are in formal speak and the last one isn't. And oddly enough, a list posted on a solicitor's website misses it off:
* where the job calls for a man for reasons of physiology (excluding physical strength or stamina) or, in dramatic performances or other entertainment, for reasons of authenticity
* for reasons of decency or privacy
* where a job is in a private home for example in relation to a personal carer
* where the accommodation is single sex
* in hospital, prison or other establishment for men
* welfare services which can most effectively be provided by a man
* in countries outside the United Kingdom whose laws or customs are such that the duties could not, or could not effectively, be performed by a woman (a tribunal will look carefully at the evidence to support any assertion of a GOQ on this basis) and
* discrimination where the job is one of two to be held by a married couple or a couple in a civil partnership.

The delights of wikipedia. It was added 9th Feb 2010. I wonder what agenda the person who added it had

I don't think they can separate out jobs like that, all have to be open to all genders surely? But if it has never gone to court then that may be why as our legal system is all to do with precedent isn't it?

Just to clarify, my 'thanks both' was directed solely to Jess and Treats. X-posted with another post.