[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

You see where I have an issue with this is that many of those decrying the excessive incomes of many high achievers/earners are uni students studying to become high achievers and in many cases high earners.

I see that as disparity and hypocricy unless of course they are planning to give a considerable portion of those higher earnings to the causes/people they defend on a regular basis - but I am inclined to believe a lot of it is just rhetoric. Youthful exhuberance, minus life experience, dotted with uninformed arrogance. They will learn.

I’m not exactly supporting the vulgar excessive salaries of some but we are a capitalist country who want to encourage entrepreneurs and doers to help improve our economy and that takes money. Money talks and all that.

People in general can be hypocritical about money, not just students. But from societal point of view such out of control disparaties are not healthy.
I'm saying there should be a ceiling. Say, 100 times. Unless the company is owned by those bosses, then that's nobody's business.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

i don't think letting unwashed people use the facilities is a particularly hygienic in a store that sell food and drink, and it is sure to put some off from using the place.

I see nothing wrong with organisations sponsoring public facilities though

I doubt they'd shuffle them behind the counter to start making chicken and rocket sandwiches though. It's helping the "unwashed" become the washed, by letting them use the bathrooms.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

People in general can be hypocritical about money, not just students. But from societal point of view such out of control disparaties are not healthy.
I'm saying there should be a ceiling. Say, 100 times. Unless the company is owned by those bosses, then that's nobody's business.

I don’t disagree - but we have offer a lot to get the brightest and the best. It’s just such a shame that people get so greedy and want more when they already have more than they could ever spend.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

I doubt they'd shuffle them behind the counter to start making chicken and rocket sandwiches though. It's helping the "unwashed" become the washed, by letting them use the bathrooms.

they will still have to walk though the coffee shop to access the toilets which are usually at the back? anyone who has suffered with a work colleague with BO will attest that it is not condusive to a pleasant atmosphere, and just having a 'wash' and putting unwashed clothes back on will make little difference, a dedicated unit with some showers, a few washing machines/dryers and some staff would make much more of an impact on lives.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

You see where I have an issue with this is that many of those decrying the excessive incomes of many high achievers/earners are uni students studying to become high achievers and in many cases high earners.

I see that as disparity and hypocricy unless of course they are planning to give a considerable portion of those higher earnings to the causes/people they defend on a regular basis - but I am inclined to believe a lot of it is just rhetoric. Youthful exhuberance, minus life experience, dotted with uninformed arrogance. They will learn.

I’m not exactly supporting the vulgar excessive salaries of some but we are a capitalist country who want to encourage entrepreneurs and doers to help improve our economy and that takes money. Money talks and all that.

To be fair Brillo... £150/hour is a high earner. £1000/hour is a very high earner. 9000/hour is insane.

For actual entrepreneurs who have built up something then sure. Even sports stars / actors is something different; they're basically freelance individuals hiring themselves out and people will pay what they pay.

But for corporate workers in a company where street-level staff are on close to minimum wage... A CEO earning more in two HOURS than most of their staff do in an entire YEAR is a massive kick in the teeth. Not least because most of these positions are gained through nepotism (having friends in the right places) rather than pure hard work.

Again like I said earlier in the thread... Especially if that CEO then tries to "put his foot down" and tell the customer-facing staff how to do their jobs, when most likely, he hasn't worked in a shop for decades (or probably ever). Protecting your billion(s) dollar company image and your own insanely high salary by putting your minimum wage staff at risk is just unforgiveable.


I just don't get people acting like this declaration about toilets is a victory for "the little guy". It's an absolute disaster. I'm not stereotyping homeless people or even saying that homeless people specifically will cause problems... Most will politely use the facilities and cause no hassle at all and those people SHOULD be allowed to use them... But that's not what this is about; it's about removing staff discretion and saying that ANYONE can use the facilities AT ANY TIME. 99.9% of people who use them will be totally fine but removing the staffs ability to say "lol no get out" to the other 0.1% I absolutely guarantee is going to make their jobs harder and in some cases straight up dangerous.

People in support of it mean well, I get that, but they are unfortunately wide of the mark on this occasion.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

To be fair Brillo... £150/hour is a high earner. £1000/hour is a very high earner. 9000/hour is insane.

For actual entrepreneurs who have built up something then sure. Even sports stars / actors is something different; they're basically freelance individuals hiring themselves out and people will pay what they pay.

But for corporate workers in a company where street-level staff are on close to minimum wage... A CEO earning more in two HOURS than most of their staff do in an entire YEAR is a massive kick in the teeth. Not least because most of these positions are gained through nepotism (having friends in the right places) rather than pure hard work.

Again like I said earlier in the thread... Especially if that CEO then tries to "put his foot down" and tell the customer-facing staff how to do their jobs, when most likely, he hasn't worked in a shop for decades (or probably ever). Protecting your billion(s) dollar company image and your own insanely high salary by putting your minimum wage staff at risk is just unforgiveable.


I just don't get people acting like this declaration about toilets is a victory for "the little guy". It's an absolute disaster. I'm not stereotyping homeless people or even saying that homeless people specifically will cause problems... Most will politely use the facilities and cause no hassle at all and those people SHOULD be allowed to use them... But that's not what this is about; it's about removing staff discretion and saying that ANYONE can use the facilities AT ANY TIME. 99.9% of people who use them will be totally fine but removing the staffs ability to say "lol no get out" to the other 0.1% I absolutely guarantee is going to make their jobs harder and in some cases straight up dangerous.

People in support of it mean well, I get that, but they are unfortunately wide of the mark on this occasion.

a BRILLIANT post T.S.

If I had not had Direct Personal Experience on this topic I would massively credit YOUR Direct Personal Experience when evaluating my position on this.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Cherie

they will still have to walk though the coffee shop to access the toilets which are usually at the back? anyone who has suffered with a work colleague with BO will attest that it is not condusive to a pleasant atmosphere, and just having a 'wash' and putting unwashed clothes back on will make little difference, a dedicated unit with some showers, a few washing machines/dryers and some staff would make much more of an impact on lives.

The bit I was replying to in particular was about it being hygienic to let "unwashed" folks use the facilities in an environment where food and drink is served.

I fully agree with you about what would work better, but the homeless have been cast off and away from society as it is, so an organisation attempting to bridge that gap always deserves credit. There are better solutions out there, but I disagree with the notion that unless we can do everything, then it's not worth doing anything.

[Marsh.]

Tbf I imagine staff will continue to use discretion when it comes to the very small minority.

If a manager questions it and they respond with "they were intoxicated so asked them to leave." Or "they were taking drugs so are barred from the premises". I doubt anyone would have an issue with it.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

To be fair Brillo... £150/hour is a high earner. £1000/hour is a very high earner. 9000/hour is insane.

For actual entrepreneurs who have built up something then sure. Even sports stars / actors is something different; they're basically freelance individuals hiring themselves out and people will pay what they pay.

But for corporate workers in a company where street-level staff are on close to minimum wage... A CEO earning more in two HOURS than most of their staff do in an entire YEAR is a massive kick in the teeth. Not least because most of these positions are gained through nepotism (having friends in the right places) rather than pure hard work.

Again like I said earlier in the thread... Especially if that CEO then tries to "put his foot down" and tell the customer-facing staff how to do their jobs, when most likely, he hasn't worked in a shop for decades (or probably ever). Protecting your billion(s) dollar company image and your own insanely high salary by putting your minimum wage staff at risk is just unforgiveable.


I just don't get people acting like this declaration about toilets is a victory for "the little guy". It's an absolute disaster. I'm not stereotyping homeless people or even saying that homeless people specifically will cause problems... Most will politely use the facilities and cause no hassle at all and those people SHOULD be allowed to use them... But that's not what this is about; it's about removing staff discretion and saying that ANYONE can use the facilities AT ANY TIME. 99.9% of people who use them will be totally fine but removing the staffs ability to say "lol no get out" to the other 0.1% I absolutely guarantee is going to make their jobs harder and in some cases straight up dangerous.

People in support of it mean well, I get that, but they are unfortunately wide of the mark on this occasion.

I pretty much agree with most of that - but they are a coffee shop - they are not in the business of providing public toilet facilities.

After a while the novelty value of putting up with ‘smelly’ patrons coming and going to use the facilities in a place where people eat and drink will wear off - I don’t mean that in a derogatory way, but is is what it is - people who have been homeless for a while will smell. And is not just the harmless ones. There will be bigger problems than that. It will eventually have a negative effect on the business.

What I object to most though is the bullying PC culture that has created this whole scenario. Tbh I think PC bullying will end up having a negative effect in many ways as some people can become hostile to such tactics and will be driven too far the other way out of anger and frustration. Bullying is bullying and PC bullying of this nature is no more acceptable than any other kind and is not as productive as the PC bullies like to think.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

I pretty much agree with most of that - but they are a coffee shop - they are not in the business of providing public toilet facilities.

Except they are, because they do.

Most businesses open to the public are in the business of providing public toilet facilities.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Except they are, because they do.

Most businesses open to the public are in the business of providing public toilet facilities.

For paying customers only.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

For paying customers only.

And non-customers as most of them, especially chains, allow those to use the facilities too.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

For paying customers only.

Yes,why don't people get that I would never ever walk into a place just to use their loos,how rude is that ? If I was desperate I would ask, if they said no I'de probably be a bit miffed but I would never insist,if you are polite they usually let you in an emergency anyway, I have done it once ,when my daughter wanted a pee she was only about 5,but even then, I brought a cake on the way out for her.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Yes,why don't people get that I would never ever walk into a place just to use their loos,how rude is that ? If I was desperate I would ask, if they said no I'de probably be a bit miffed but I would never insist,if you are polite they usually let you in an emergency anyway, I have done it once ,when my daughter wanted a pee she was only about 5,but even then, I brought a cake on the way out for her.

So it's rude, unless you do it.

What point are you making exactly?

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Except they are, because they do.

Most businesses open to the public are in the business of providing public toilet facilities.

Many businesses have signs saying facilities for customer use only, as well as you can’t eat your own food here

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

And non-customers as most of them, especially chains, allow those to use the facilities too.

What 'chains' are these marsh as I don't know of any, I know people sneak in without the owners probably noticing,like a supermarket or something,but they are not invited to use them as far as I have seen.I think they just trust people that use their facilities to shop there.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

So it's rude, unless you do it.

What point are you making exactly?

Where did I say 'unless I do it' I did it once when my daughter was desperate,I didn't like asking them but I did for her sake and as I said I brought something on the way out, Imo it's rude to EXPECT to just walk in somewhere and have a pee.some people don't even ask, but some people think the world owes them a living.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Many businesses have signs saying facilities for customer use only, as well as you can’t eat your own food here

But a hell of a lot do. Taking your own food into an eating establishment is a separate topic.

And I find the constant reference to "smelly patrons" vile. Not you, but within the thread.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Yes,why don't people get that I would never ever walk into a place just to use their loos,how rude is that ? If I was desperate I would ask, if they said no I'de probably be a bit miffed but I would never insist,if you are polite they usually let you in an emergency anyway, I have done it once ,when my daughter wanted a pee she was only about 5,but even then, I brought a cake on the way out for her.

And starbucks have changed their rules regarding their loos. Why don’t people get that?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

What 'chains' are these marsh as I don't know of any, I know people sneak in without the owners probably noticing,like a supermarket or something,but they are not invited to use them as far as I have seen.I think they just trust people that use their facilities to shop there.

Coffee shops, fast food restaurants etc.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Withano

And starbucks have changed their rules regarding their loos. Why don’t people get that?

People do as far as I know,what's your point ?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Where did I say 'unless I do it' I did it once when my daughter was desperate,I didn't like asking them but I did for her sake and as I said I brought something on the way out, Imo it's rude to EXPECT to just walk in somewhere and have a pee.some people don't even ask, but some people think the world owes them a living.

"Its so rude. I wouldn't do it. Unless I was desperate"

Well... It's either one or the other regardless of if you're desperate or not.

Homeless people with no access to their own private toilet think the world owes them a living by using a public toilet that in most cases is open to all?

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

"Its so rude. I wouldn't do it. Unless I was desperate"

Well... It's either one or the other regardless of if you're desperate or not.

I wasn't desperate,my 5year old was and I felt bad, hence I brought something,that is my opinion, I think it is rude to walk in a somewhere just to use their loo.blimey it's not rocket science.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

I wasn't desperate,my 5year old was and I felt bad, hence I brought something,that is my opinion, I think it is rude to walk in a somewhere just to use their loo.blimey it's not rocket science.

No it's not rocket science so having double standard views makes the discussion confusing.

It's either rude or it isn't.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

No it's not rocket science so having double standard views makes the discussion confusing.

It's either rude or it isn't.

Yes it's rude,I am rude infact I am a terrible person