Your right, Boots have their head office,factories etc; in Nottingham and East Midlands. Their security system may have had good reason not to permit this person access to a strict secured area and probably suggested a simple alternative.mo1905 said:
MaudieG said:Well let's not just jump on the wagon together here we can see it could be a problem! It's giving the freedom to the worker to suck sweets when he/she wants; even though he/she is diabetic and may need sugar. They would no doubt however have come up with an alternative and maybe they did and we just didn't hear that side of it. It's unlikely they would just say no without a discussion on it don't you think?
They are trying to maintain their focus on customer and how a sweet sucking member of staff would be perceived. It's more than likely they had made some other option for the diabetic person but it has failed to be reported. So hang on and see what more is said.
We know when a hypo is coming on and we know that if we don't eat at certain times we are more likely to get a hypo. I don't think having diabetes is a reason to lean on it. There are sensible options for that situation at work and I'm sure that boots (no I'm not a boots worker or anything like that), would have offered a solution that was rejected.
Find out the facts before condemning boots. If it turned out they didn't want to discuss something further on the subject, then ok, then you'd be right to shout about it. 8)
Morganator said:The Uni should have informed you beforehand.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?