Profit Over Profitability

Some time ago a colleague of mine was in a Tesco Express situated at an Esso Garage. Whilst waiting to pay, she witnessed a customer struggling with the chip and pin machine because it was secured to the base with a cable tie and could not be removed. The gentleman became quite frustrated and yet the staff did nothing to assist. Eventually, he said he would pay by cash.

When my colleague’s turn came, she pointed out to the cashier that she was somewhat shocked by this incident and that it may be deemed unreasonable under the Disability Discrimanation Act 1995.

When discussing this incident with me, her reaction was one of disbelief. Firstly, the cashier appeared to have no idea what the DDA was and therefore expressed the belief that it didn’t matter as most people would not find it an issue. She pointed out that this was not what was important but the paramount concern should have been that this may be a barrier to disabled customers. Upon asking to speak to the Manager, she was told he was unavailable and it became clear that the cashier did not think her concern was warranted.

Over the following weeks, she regularly used the same Tesco Express and on every occasion asked to speak to the Manager who always appeared to be unavailable.

At the week-end, she again saw another customer struggling with the equipment whilst the cashiers looked on unconcerned.

Deciding she had had enough, my colleague was determined to speak to the Manager to make him aware of this unreasonable barrier. After a wait, the Manager was located and she presented her concerns to him.

The Manager listened patiently and responded that they had experienced a number of thefts of the machines and therefore the need to secure the chip and pin machines in this manner was necessary and they could not keep wasting profits on replacing them. Pointing out that these were a barrier to disabled customers particularly those with a visual impairment, my colleague was shocked to hear him say that there were not enough customers with issues to be a worry. He also stated that if the customer told the cashier that they had an impairment the cable tie could be cut so that they could use them.

What...... Are you as shocked as I am?

There are many issues surrounding this on-going issue that cause concern, so lets look at them all individually:-

1. The original cashier did not know what the DDA was and therefore could see
no reason why he should even consider the access needs of disabled customers.
This attitude must surely show that providing Disability Equality Training is
clearly not being implemented within the store’s training programme and should
be addressed immediately.

2. If the Manager of any service provider has scant concern for access needs than
this will be reflected through the whole organisation. Managers must set the
correct tone and implementation to ensure that their staff have a strong role
model and the necessary guidelines in place.

3. The Manager clearly puts the profit of his store before his access
requirements and did not see the need to change as, in his opinion, it
affected so few of his customers. Under the DDA, the number of customers
affected is irrelevant. A service provider must provide their service in such
a manner that no customer is treated less favourably than others.

4. The statement that any customer experiencing a problem should make the cashier
aware of their disability or impairment is, in itself, outrageous. The Social
Model of Disability determines that any disability or impairment is personal
to the individual and is not a matter for idle chit-chat or gossip. As such, a
disabled person should never be put in a position whereby they have to
discuss their disability or impairment unless they wish to.

At the end of her discussion with the Manager, my colleague felt that he had no real incentive to deal with the matter. She pointed out to him that he could be heading towards a claim under the DDA and yet still he seemed unconcerned. Asking if he had even considered other options, he stated that he did not feel he had to.

In total disbelief, she left the matter but she informed him that she would take the matter further by contacting his head office. His response was purely to do that if she felt it necessary.

This level of dismissal of the DDA is shocking but not uncommon. For many, making access changes are second to profits and therefore something that can be pushed to the sidelines – an out of sight, out of mind attitude is still prevalent along our high streets and until strong action is taken, like that against the Royal Bank of Scotland, many will continue to dismiss the need for change.