Rude customers? Retail review gives us one star, at best
Women are most often the targets. In 2024, ANROWS (Australia's National Research Organisation for Women), in its 'Just Another Day in Retail' report, found that 38 per cent of sexual harassment in shops is from customers (the rest is from co-workers). As the Herald's investigation into the Merivale hospitality empire this week shows, the idea that 'the customer is always right' can take a dark turn in certain industries.
Rudeness from customers, which used to risk nothing more than being 'fired' by the retailer, has been unlawful in NSW for exactly two years. Since the Minns government's Crimes Legislation Amendment was enacted in mid-2023, 136 individuals have been charged, 64 convicted and 25 jailed for aggression against retail staff.
The world – by which I mean not Washington, Gaza or Ukraine but your neighbourhood mall – is demonstrably on a more aggressive trajectory. The big and small pictures seem related. Feeling impotent about climate change or the Middle East, you shout at the poor person in the call centre (who is probably living in a country prone to climate-related unrest and geopolitical violence).
Where is it headed? I'm not sure if the old-fashioned lessons of civil society work. I was brought up under middle-class Protestant rules: if a hot temper is your daily nemesis, first you exercise self-discipline and fume silently. Need to escalate? Swear under your breath. Still doesn't work? Take it out on (1) inanimate objects, (2) yourself, or (3) some vigorous activity like sport or gardening. What you absolutely mustn't do is boil over at a complete stranger or a service worker, because their opinion of you matters more than anyone else's.
Loading
This social order is, from the evidence, a thing of the past.
I don't think nostalgia is the answer. My friend J says we ought to blame the warning signs themselves. J, a customer who remains right after all these years, thinks the zero-tolerance signs just lower expectations about customer service. 'They're saying, 'We know we're going to be incompetent, so please go easy on us.'' According to J, the 'team' should be focusing on lifting its game, not on reporting you for showing your frustration.
There's probably a grain of truth in this, but shoving the blame back across the table only works in general if you have the world's strongest military behind you, and even then it only works for a day or two. If the other is seen simply as the opposite party in a deal, then you're always going to lose. Both of you.
What zero-tolerance signs, Lickert scales and most of tech-mediated transactions seem to miss is that the other side of your activity shares 99.9 per cent of their DNA with you.
When going into that shop is, for many, the only face-to-face human contact they have all day, when work and trade and even leisure have dehumanised them into economic units, they just forget that the person on the other side of the counter is a person.
Many of us are prone to that amnesia, and realise we're getting worse. But sometimes you get a wake-up call – from a human, not a talking clock. The other night I had to phone a service provider. I'd been dreading it and putting it off. But he – his name was Joselito – answered the phone quickly. His English, or mine, was heavily accented. As I explained my problem, I could hear his children screaming in the background. Our call dropped out. I was frustrated at having to start again with a different operator, but I got an immediate callback. It was Joselito! Then he fixed my problem, all while his kids were still making a racket. I tried to imagine where he lived, how old his kids were, what his home workspace looked like.
At the end, he asked if I would complete an online survey.
'Are you kidding?' I said. 'I want to get you a promotion.'
He paused. 'Just the survey is fine.'
The Lickert scale wasn't enough, but the survey left me room to write a short love letter. It probably meant nothing and only got read by an AI, and all I was doing was writing a message in a bottle. But customer relations are so rarely like that, it's worth making a record of them when they are.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
2 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
‘Sheep do not judge their shepherd': Sermon after child abuse conviction shocks victims
'Sheep do not judge their shepherd, irrespective of who he is,' the priest said. 'To judge clergy means to judge Christ himself. So be very, very careful.' Ignatievsky told the Herald his comments warned against judging 'other clergy' who had been accused of supporting, facilitating or covering up for Rosentool. Boikov said survivors and their families were shocked by Ignatievsky's comments. In the years after the abuse, Rosentool moved to Bombala in southern NSW and set up a monastery in the countryside. Five days after Rosentool was found guilty last month, his Bombala monastery quietly replaced its governing document on the Australian government's charity register. But in the files of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, there are traces of the original governing document from 2007, signed by Rosentool among other church figures. 'Fear the abbot as your lord and love him as your father,' Rosentool's document says of himself. 'When you are abused, be quiet. Offend no one and when you are offended, bear it patiently. Put no hope in vain plans and dreams, but be firm in Christ.' The document denounces the evils of women's company and orders them to remain silent unless spoken to by Rosentool. 'As from poison flee conversation with women, if you hope to keep yourself in such talk is concealed the ruinous venom of the serpent,' the document instructs. 'It is better to jump into a raging fire than to draw near to a young woman.' Rosentool was taken into custody to await sentencing on June 20, meaning someone else probably updated the monastery's document. The governing documents were circulated within Boikov's social media channels and verified by the Herald. Neither the monastery nor the Australia and New Zealand Diocese overseeing the broader ROCOR church responded to detailed questions about the document and Ignatievsky's sermon. The diocese last week published a statement apologising unreservedly for the hurt caused to Rosentool's victims. The diocese also apologised 'for any action or inaction to respond appropriately and mitigate the abuse of trauma caused', vowing to take immediate steps, including offering support and 'trauma-informed training' for all clergy. Child protection organisation Bravehearts told the Herald it was sadly common to see religious institutions 'formalise silence' as in Rosentool's monastery document. 'Where there is a culture of silence, or where an organisation works to protect those who have harmed, this creates an environment of vulnerability,' director of research Carol Ronken said. 'It means that other children or young people may be victimised, and that other victims and survivors do not feel that they can speak out and disclose.' The monastery's lack of support, and silence, was unacceptable, Ronken said. 'For some survivors, forgiveness feels incompatible with their sense of justice. They may feel it is important to hold the perpetrator responsible rather than absolving them.'
The Advertiser
9 hours ago
- The Advertiser
It is shameful governments waited so long to roll out childcare safety measures
Australians have rightly been outraged and dismayed this week following shocking revelations about babies and toddlers allegedly being sexually abused in childcare centres in Melbourne. In response, we have heard ministers in the Australian and Victorian governments commit to implementing some long-delayed measures that had been recommended by various royal commissions and inquiries of the past. While this is a positive outcome, there is much more to do to build safer childcare in this country. Those royal commissions and inquiries have told us what is needed to keep children safe. Many of us are now asking why it has taken so long for governments across the federation to act on serious child safeguarding gaps? The risks to child safety have been known for decades, and the evidence-based recommendations have been sitting on a shelf. Over the last few years, we have been collectively horrified by the notorious case of Ashley Griffith who abused children in childcare centres in Queensland and NSW. And now we have these terrible allegations coming out of Melbourne. How did we end up in this place where governments knew what to do to help fix the problems and keep our children safe, but did not act? To answer these questions, it is necessary to understand that the federation structure splits responsibilities across different levels of government, and that there is no one accountable for child safety and wellbeing in the Australian government. In contrast, we have had ministers for women for decades, and "women and women's safety" is listed as a key priority for national cabinet, which is where the prime minister and state and territory leaders work together on "issues of national significance". The complete absence of visibility and accountability for child safety and wellbeing at the national level has allowed the risks to remain unaddressed and the solutions not implemented. This is despite endless media exposés and tragic stories of abuse of children. We cannot allow the federation to be an excuse for not acting urgently on the safety and wellbeing of our children. The latest scandal is taking place in childcare centres, but this is not just an issue for the early childhood education and care sector. The failure to prioritise child safety and wellbeing and implement child safeguarding measures affects all children everywhere: in schools, after-school care, out-of-home care, youth detention, sporting clubs and holiday programs. Anywhere you find children, there will be child safety risks that must be addressed. Former royal commissioner Robert Fitzgerald said this week that it was "shameful" that we have failed to implement the detailed recommendations to strengthen child safety from a decade ago. He is correct, and now we need to face up to why this has been allowed to happen. It is shameful that the advice of experts continues to be ignored and the risks to the safety and wellbeing of our children are neglected. We don't need more royal commissions and inquiries. We know what to do. Core recommendations in our Help Way Earlier! report tabled in Parliament last year were about governments across our federation working together on reform and making child wellbeing a national priority, at national cabinet. READ MORE: Right now, there is an absence of national leadership and co-ordination. Child wellbeing is not a priority for national cabinet, and there is no cabinet minister for children. These gaps have allowed a lack of accountability to persist, leading to critical reforms not being implemented. For our youngest children, we need a childcare industry with stronger regulation, independent monitoring and oversight, and comprehensive enforceable child safeguarding measures. Everyone involved needs to make child safety their number one priority, from the boardroom to the sandpit. This week has shown that the public wants more than just cheaper childcare. We demand safer childcare. And importantly, our children, our youngest citizens, must not be sidelined and kept waiting for critical reforms that we know will help to keep them safe. The new term of Parliament is the opportunity to demonstrate to the Australian public that child safety and wellbeing will be a national priority from now on. Australians have rightly been outraged and dismayed this week following shocking revelations about babies and toddlers allegedly being sexually abused in childcare centres in Melbourne. In response, we have heard ministers in the Australian and Victorian governments commit to implementing some long-delayed measures that had been recommended by various royal commissions and inquiries of the past. While this is a positive outcome, there is much more to do to build safer childcare in this country. Those royal commissions and inquiries have told us what is needed to keep children safe. Many of us are now asking why it has taken so long for governments across the federation to act on serious child safeguarding gaps? The risks to child safety have been known for decades, and the evidence-based recommendations have been sitting on a shelf. Over the last few years, we have been collectively horrified by the notorious case of Ashley Griffith who abused children in childcare centres in Queensland and NSW. And now we have these terrible allegations coming out of Melbourne. How did we end up in this place where governments knew what to do to help fix the problems and keep our children safe, but did not act? To answer these questions, it is necessary to understand that the federation structure splits responsibilities across different levels of government, and that there is no one accountable for child safety and wellbeing in the Australian government. In contrast, we have had ministers for women for decades, and "women and women's safety" is listed as a key priority for national cabinet, which is where the prime minister and state and territory leaders work together on "issues of national significance". The complete absence of visibility and accountability for child safety and wellbeing at the national level has allowed the risks to remain unaddressed and the solutions not implemented. This is despite endless media exposés and tragic stories of abuse of children. We cannot allow the federation to be an excuse for not acting urgently on the safety and wellbeing of our children. The latest scandal is taking place in childcare centres, but this is not just an issue for the early childhood education and care sector. The failure to prioritise child safety and wellbeing and implement child safeguarding measures affects all children everywhere: in schools, after-school care, out-of-home care, youth detention, sporting clubs and holiday programs. Anywhere you find children, there will be child safety risks that must be addressed. Former royal commissioner Robert Fitzgerald said this week that it was "shameful" that we have failed to implement the detailed recommendations to strengthen child safety from a decade ago. He is correct, and now we need to face up to why this has been allowed to happen. It is shameful that the advice of experts continues to be ignored and the risks to the safety and wellbeing of our children are neglected. We don't need more royal commissions and inquiries. We know what to do. Core recommendations in our Help Way Earlier! report tabled in Parliament last year were about governments across our federation working together on reform and making child wellbeing a national priority, at national cabinet. READ MORE: Right now, there is an absence of national leadership and co-ordination. Child wellbeing is not a priority for national cabinet, and there is no cabinet minister for children. These gaps have allowed a lack of accountability to persist, leading to critical reforms not being implemented. For our youngest children, we need a childcare industry with stronger regulation, independent monitoring and oversight, and comprehensive enforceable child safeguarding measures. Everyone involved needs to make child safety their number one priority, from the boardroom to the sandpit. This week has shown that the public wants more than just cheaper childcare. We demand safer childcare. And importantly, our children, our youngest citizens, must not be sidelined and kept waiting for critical reforms that we know will help to keep them safe. The new term of Parliament is the opportunity to demonstrate to the Australian public that child safety and wellbeing will be a national priority from now on. Australians have rightly been outraged and dismayed this week following shocking revelations about babies and toddlers allegedly being sexually abused in childcare centres in Melbourne. In response, we have heard ministers in the Australian and Victorian governments commit to implementing some long-delayed measures that had been recommended by various royal commissions and inquiries of the past. While this is a positive outcome, there is much more to do to build safer childcare in this country. Those royal commissions and inquiries have told us what is needed to keep children safe. Many of us are now asking why it has taken so long for governments across the federation to act on serious child safeguarding gaps? The risks to child safety have been known for decades, and the evidence-based recommendations have been sitting on a shelf. Over the last few years, we have been collectively horrified by the notorious case of Ashley Griffith who abused children in childcare centres in Queensland and NSW. And now we have these terrible allegations coming out of Melbourne. How did we end up in this place where governments knew what to do to help fix the problems and keep our children safe, but did not act? To answer these questions, it is necessary to understand that the federation structure splits responsibilities across different levels of government, and that there is no one accountable for child safety and wellbeing in the Australian government. In contrast, we have had ministers for women for decades, and "women and women's safety" is listed as a key priority for national cabinet, which is where the prime minister and state and territory leaders work together on "issues of national significance". The complete absence of visibility and accountability for child safety and wellbeing at the national level has allowed the risks to remain unaddressed and the solutions not implemented. This is despite endless media exposés and tragic stories of abuse of children. We cannot allow the federation to be an excuse for not acting urgently on the safety and wellbeing of our children. The latest scandal is taking place in childcare centres, but this is not just an issue for the early childhood education and care sector. The failure to prioritise child safety and wellbeing and implement child safeguarding measures affects all children everywhere: in schools, after-school care, out-of-home care, youth detention, sporting clubs and holiday programs. Anywhere you find children, there will be child safety risks that must be addressed. Former royal commissioner Robert Fitzgerald said this week that it was "shameful" that we have failed to implement the detailed recommendations to strengthen child safety from a decade ago. He is correct, and now we need to face up to why this has been allowed to happen. It is shameful that the advice of experts continues to be ignored and the risks to the safety and wellbeing of our children are neglected. We don't need more royal commissions and inquiries. We know what to do. Core recommendations in our Help Way Earlier! report tabled in Parliament last year were about governments across our federation working together on reform and making child wellbeing a national priority, at national cabinet. READ MORE: Right now, there is an absence of national leadership and co-ordination. Child wellbeing is not a priority for national cabinet, and there is no cabinet minister for children. These gaps have allowed a lack of accountability to persist, leading to critical reforms not being implemented. For our youngest children, we need a childcare industry with stronger regulation, independent monitoring and oversight, and comprehensive enforceable child safeguarding measures. Everyone involved needs to make child safety their number one priority, from the boardroom to the sandpit. This week has shown that the public wants more than just cheaper childcare. We demand safer childcare. And importantly, our children, our youngest citizens, must not be sidelined and kept waiting for critical reforms that we know will help to keep them safe. The new term of Parliament is the opportunity to demonstrate to the Australian public that child safety and wellbeing will be a national priority from now on. Australians have rightly been outraged and dismayed this week following shocking revelations about babies and toddlers allegedly being sexually abused in childcare centres in Melbourne. In response, we have heard ministers in the Australian and Victorian governments commit to implementing some long-delayed measures that had been recommended by various royal commissions and inquiries of the past. While this is a positive outcome, there is much more to do to build safer childcare in this country. Those royal commissions and inquiries have told us what is needed to keep children safe. Many of us are now asking why it has taken so long for governments across the federation to act on serious child safeguarding gaps? The risks to child safety have been known for decades, and the evidence-based recommendations have been sitting on a shelf. Over the last few years, we have been collectively horrified by the notorious case of Ashley Griffith who abused children in childcare centres in Queensland and NSW. And now we have these terrible allegations coming out of Melbourne. How did we end up in this place where governments knew what to do to help fix the problems and keep our children safe, but did not act? To answer these questions, it is necessary to understand that the federation structure splits responsibilities across different levels of government, and that there is no one accountable for child safety and wellbeing in the Australian government. In contrast, we have had ministers for women for decades, and "women and women's safety" is listed as a key priority for national cabinet, which is where the prime minister and state and territory leaders work together on "issues of national significance". The complete absence of visibility and accountability for child safety and wellbeing at the national level has allowed the risks to remain unaddressed and the solutions not implemented. This is despite endless media exposés and tragic stories of abuse of children. We cannot allow the federation to be an excuse for not acting urgently on the safety and wellbeing of our children. The latest scandal is taking place in childcare centres, but this is not just an issue for the early childhood education and care sector. The failure to prioritise child safety and wellbeing and implement child safeguarding measures affects all children everywhere: in schools, after-school care, out-of-home care, youth detention, sporting clubs and holiday programs. Anywhere you find children, there will be child safety risks that must be addressed. Former royal commissioner Robert Fitzgerald said this week that it was "shameful" that we have failed to implement the detailed recommendations to strengthen child safety from a decade ago. He is correct, and now we need to face up to why this has been allowed to happen. It is shameful that the advice of experts continues to be ignored and the risks to the safety and wellbeing of our children are neglected. We don't need more royal commissions and inquiries. We know what to do. Core recommendations in our Help Way Earlier! report tabled in Parliament last year were about governments across our federation working together on reform and making child wellbeing a national priority, at national cabinet. READ MORE: Right now, there is an absence of national leadership and co-ordination. Child wellbeing is not a priority for national cabinet, and there is no cabinet minister for children. These gaps have allowed a lack of accountability to persist, leading to critical reforms not being implemented. For our youngest children, we need a childcare industry with stronger regulation, independent monitoring and oversight, and comprehensive enforceable child safeguarding measures. Everyone involved needs to make child safety their number one priority, from the boardroom to the sandpit. This week has shown that the public wants more than just cheaper childcare. We demand safer childcare. And importantly, our children, our youngest citizens, must not be sidelined and kept waiting for critical reforms that we know will help to keep them safe. The new term of Parliament is the opportunity to demonstrate to the Australian public that child safety and wellbeing will be a national priority from now on.
Sydney Morning Herald
10 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Who killed Sydney heiress Juanita Nielsen? ‘Mr Sin' points finger from the grave
Notorious Sydney crime figure Abe Saffron played his cards close to his chest. He didn't talk to the media, turning down countless requests for interviews, despite accusations he was involved in prostitution, drugs, bribery and corruption. The only time he did speak was at an impromptu press conference after he'd been named in the South Australian parliament as 'Mr Sin' – a major figure in Australian organised crime. It was a tag he hated and, along with the accusations against him, vehemently denied. At the 1983 inquest into the disappearance of Juanita Nielsen, he essentially said he knew nothing. But now, almost 20 years after his death, he has 'spoken from the grave' and named the man behind her murder: his one-time business associate James McCartney Anderson. It seems the confines of Parliament House, Canberra, loosened his tongue. It was there on a late Spring day in 1992 that he was ushered into a first-floor committee room for a secret meeting with the joint committee on the National Crime Authority. The committee's hearings had been sparked by an article in the Herald published in November 1990 that questioned why the NCA had used Anderson as an informant in a tax evasion case against Saffron but had turned a blind eye to evidence about his role in the murder of Nielsen. The explosive claims Saffron made that day have remained hidden behind federal parliamentary rules for the past 33 years, but the Herald believes that on the 50th anniversary of Nielsen's murder there is clear public interest in the evidence that Saffron, and then Anderson, gave before the committee being revealed. Under questioning by committee members – perhaps fascinated to be sharing a room with someone with such a scandalous reputation – Saffron zeroed in on Anderson and Victoria Street property developer, Frank Theeman. Saffron said Theeman had paid Anderson $25,000 to have Nielsen killed. And then, in the years that followed, Anderson blackmailed the developer for more money. Asked about Nielsen's activities, Saffron told the committee: 'I knew nothing of her existence until her disappearance. Nothing at all. 'I did not know that she had a newspaper even, until I read it in the paper.' Evidence at the 1983 Nielsen inquest pointed to Anderson ordering Eddie Trigg, the night manager of the Carousel Cabaret in Kings Cross, to lure Nielsen to the club, where she was killed. Saffron said that after her disappearance on July 4, he had quizzed Anderson about her visit to the Carousel. 'I said 'what's going on?' 'He said 'everything is in order. She came up just on normal business'.' Saffron told the committee he was 'an acquaintance' of developer Frank Theeman, having met him at the Hakoah Club in Bondi. Anderson, on the other hand, was 'very close with him'. Theeman's proposal to demolish historic terraces and build high-rise units in Victoria Street had been vigorously opposed by Nielsen. Saffron said that at one point Theeman had approached him, pleading for help. He wanted $25,000 in cash. Theeman had said: 'I have given a cheque to Jim Anderson for $25,000. It is important I get it back and I do not have the cash.' According to Saffron, Theeman had been 'quite agitated'. Saffron said he refused his friend's plea, saying he didn't have that sort of money lying about at home and adding: 'I do not want to get involved, Frank, in such a transaction.' Asked the purpose of the $25,000 payment to Jim Anderson, Saffron told the parliamentary committee: 'My personal opinion now is that it was to do with her disappearance. I think there is absolutely no doubt he was paid to get rid of Juanita Nielsen.' Saffron added that Jim Anderson was also involved in the 1973 kidnapping of Victoria Street resident and activist Arthur King. 'There is no doubt in my mind that he was involved in that.' King survived the harrowing three-day ordeal but immediately left the street. Asked if he believed Nielsen's death was intentional, Saffron said: 'In my mind, no doubt – no doubt at all that that was the intention. 'There was some talk among the talkative people in Kings Cross that Anderson had arranged this disappearance and that it was because of the problems that Theeman was experiencing in Kings Cross with his development. There was some basis for that thought.' Appearing at the same hearing, Saffron's solicitor, Peter Wise, said he told Saffron he could not imagine Frank Theeman wanting Nielsen deliberately killed. But Saffron had been definite and told him: 'No, he did not want her just out of the way or frightened. He wanted her killed.' Saffron said Theeman had complained to him that he was being blackmailed, saying: 'I have given him [Anderson] so much money.' Saffron replied: 'Well, it is your business if you have given him money, Frank. That is nothing to do with me.' Theeman had responded: 'Well, I cannot afford any problem about the Juanita Nielsen disappearance.' Saffron's evidence needs to be seen against his bitter falling-out with Anderson, who the National Crime Authority had used to mount a case of tax evasion against him. With Anderson giving evidence in the 1987 trial, Saffron was convicted of using two sets of books for his Kings Cross nightclubs and restaurants between 1969 and 1981 to defraud the Commonwealth of $1.5 million in taxes. While he strongly denied the case against him, he was sentenced to three years jail. In a moment of reflection, he shared his thoughts about his one-time business associate with the committee: 'It was a sad day that I ever met him.' On December 21, 1992, it was the turn of Anderson to give his side of the story. Perhaps somewhat theatrically, he was accompanied by a bodyguard as he entered federal parliament. Not surprisingly, he denied having anything to do with Nielsen's murder. He also said he was 'a little bit miffed' about reports 'that I tried to blackmail Frank Theeman because of the Juanita Nielsen incident'. 'I am categorically telling you that at no stage was I ever involved in anything to do with Juanita Nielsen. Allegations have been made and continue to be that I am the person that murdered her, but I somehow managed to manipulate and craft an alibi. I never needed an alibi because I had nothing to do with it.' He asserted that it was 'implausible' that Frank Theeman was behind the murder because 'the building was up, his apartment was up'. Members of the parliamentary committee reminded him that this was incorrect as the development was stalled and costing Theeman $3000 a day in interest payments. Anderson was adamant: 'I do not believe that Victoria Street had anything to do with Juanita Nielsen's disappearance or death, if she is dead. I would assume that she is dead, pretty confidently, after this length of time.' Anderson said that to his knowledge, Frank Theeman and Abe Saffron had no financial connections or business dealings in property. He then changed the focus of his testimony, alleging that a corrupt former NSW police officer, Fred Krahe, who had worked for Theeman, was Nielsen's killer because, implausibly, 'she had to have fallen over something that either he was directly involved in or he represented the people who were involved in it'. Anderson recalled that after Nielsen disappeared, he had a conversation with Saffron, who was 'as emotional as I have ever seen him'. Saffron had said: 'This is terrible. People are saying it is me.' Anderson said he replied, 'well, if it's not you, you've got nothing to worry about, have you?' Loading Anderson told the committee that relations between him and Saffron had turned sour in the late 1970s. Reflecting on the animosity that marked the breakdown, Anderson speculated to the committee that 'Abe Saffron hasn't got the balls to kill me, but he would have me killed. He then boasted: 'To be perfectly truthful, if I wanted to kill Abe Saffron, I could kill him. It sounds a bit cold-blooded and self-effacing to say I could have killed Abe Saffron any time I wanted. 'Normal people do not say that. So-called sensible people certainly would not say it in front of a committee like this. I would do it to him personally. The last thing he would see would be me smiling at him.'
