Kids in Cafes

TSMGUY

Elliott S wrote: »

Christ on a bike. The operative word here is 'waiting'. They don't give those places out like sweeties and I assume you are still awaiting your LC results. You'll be needing 600 points which I don't think anyone automatically assumes they'll get. And even if you do get the full complement of points, you're still not guaranteed a place. Hold your stallions there, Mister.

You and Lexi will be the first ones I PM when I get in. And don't tell me to hold my stallions. You have no problem with Lexi demonizing me for being "unemployed" but the minute I challenge her and illustrate I actually have some potential you're quick to jump in with the snark. Guys like you just make success all the sweeter. Keep slinging mud, though. Good to see you can find the time in your busy adult employed life to pick fights on boards.

Elliott S

TSMGUY wrote: »

You and Lexi will be the first ones I PM when I get in.

I have PMs switched off so sadly I'll be missing out on that bulletin.

And why are you unemployed? Most post-LC students seek out summer work. Being 19 is a hardly a reason.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Can you recieve pms from people on ignore?

Elliott S

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Can you recieve pms from people on ignore?

Happily no.

kunst nugget

Deleted User wrote: »

That's pretty depressing.

I have siblings who had the no kids rule at their weddings. I have siblings who had kids at their wedding. We had 2 afair, the page boy and flower girl. I can't remember one type as being particularly better or worse. But staying away because of the kids thing is making a very strong statement.

Same as yourself.
The fact they couldn't set aside their differences and celebrate the wedding with their brother in the manner that he and his bride chose to would suggest to me that his family are petty and vindictive. Trying to dictate how the couple should celebrate their wedding and then boycotting it when they refuse to toe the party the line is a shítty thing to do imo. Like I said already, it says more about his family than it does about her.

Robsweezie

LexieOnRale wrote:

Can you recieve pms from people on ignore?

Taylor and Kanye who?

anewme

TSMGUY wrote: »

So, if you've never had a truly disruptive kid at your salon and their only transgression is getting bored at a 2 hour consultation, what's the problem? Kids get bored at dentists, doctors, therapists, hospitals and pretty much every other location that provides a service which involves them waiting. A salon is in the service industry and many of these women can't afford to hire a minder just because someone who used to "hate kids" dislikes them getting bored in the reception. Given salons provide exorbitantly priced services to women, many of whom are low-income, single etc., it's part and parcel with your job to have kids in the reception where, surprise surprise, you're expected to be receptive. If highly qualified doctors/psychologists/dentists are happy to accommodate kids, why shouldn't a salon? Not bringing kids to a wedding - fair enough. Hiring a babysitter every time you go to a salon - insane, idiotic and costly. It seems like you still "hate kids."

That's just pure nonsense. It is in no way the job of a Beauty Salon to operate a mini creche in reception.

I would also say that there would be legalities surrounding this also.

As you say, Salons & Spas can be and are expensive places. I've no children, I go there to relax, and take some time out it should be a relaxing experience, its not a place for children.

If I went to my local salon to relax and chill and there were a load of kids there expecting to be kept amused, I'd be pretty quick to complain to management.

Smondie

TSMGUY wrote: »

LexieOnRale wrote: »

:cool:
I think I have a low tolerance for parents who ignore kids acting up. Most of my friends have kids, and while I would say I'm not an overly child loving person, I am definitely the favourite "fake auntie" to all my close friends kids. I've had enough experience with kids to know they're little feckers when it comes to boundries but they're not bad. They'll play up when they're bored, annoyed or tired.

It's parents ignoring kids being bold I have a problem with. A few years ago, I was in aldi (I think) when this yummy mummy came along with two kids in her trolley. Maybe 6 and 3. I was down by the fruit, and there was this older woman, big lady, clearly didn't take great care of herself appearance wise. The oldest boy started "mommy, that woman's so fat and ugly". :eek: I of course stood around to see what was happening next, the child repeats it a few times, mothers ignoring him, just browsing through what's on display. The lady obviously heard him and turned around, and told him he was a nasty little brat. The mother just started to wheel the trolley away then, never made any eye contact with the lady, didn't apologise, and the child looking shell shocked in the trolley, roaring that he wasn't a nasty little brat.

I work in a salon where women come for treatments, and sometimes the treatment can take up to 2 hours. I'm always amazed at how many parents bring their little kids to a salon and expect us to watch them and keep them amused at reception. Now we've never had a truely disruptive child in the salon, but they do get fed up and bored waiting, and we are not babysitters.

I used to always declare I hated kids, but I've finally figured out I don't hate kids. When I'm around kids, they can wrap me around their tiny little fingers. Ive been confusing bad kids with bad parents for a long time. It's not the kids I dislike. It's how parents handle, or don't handle a situation.

A screaming child is just that. A child. If they're left to scream that's not their fault. It's their parents for not dealing with it or removing a child from a situation.

So, if you've never had a truly disruptive kid at your salon and their only transgression is getting bored at a 2 hour consultation, what's the problem? Kids get bored at dentists, doctors, therapists, hospitals and pretty much every other location that provides a service which involves them waiting. A salon is in the service industry and many of these women can't afford to hire a minder just because someone who used to "hate kids" dislikes them getting bored in the reception. Given salons provide exorbitantly priced services to women, many of whom are low-income, single etc., it's part and parcel with your job to have kids in the reception where, surprise surprise, you're expected to be receptive. If highly qualified doctors/psychologists/dentists are happy to accommodate kids, why shouldn't a salon? Not bringing kids to a wedding - fair enough. Hiring a babysitter every time you go to a salon - insane, idiotic and costly. It seems like you still "hate kids."

I hope it's not the children's allowance money they're spending getting thier pajaja's waxed while the children sit bored.

lawred2

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I think I have a low tolerance for parents who ignore kids acting up. Most of my friends have kids, and while I would say I'm not an overly child loving person

no sh!t

TSMGUY

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Can you recieve pms from people on ignore?

Interesting seeing as you sent me a friend request 10 hours ago:eek:

ScumLord

LexieOnRale wrote: »

It's an event for a couple to celebrate their commitment to each other, and the start of their lives together. It is not about your child, and the bridal party are not spoilt princesses for deciding to keep it adult only.
If someone is spending in excess of 20k on a wedding, it's THEIR day. Not yours, not your child's. If you want a family event your child can attend, organise your own.

A wedding is not just about the bride and groom, in this day and age maybe it's become a self aggrandizing indulgence but it's meaning was legitimizing a relationship in front of a community and a license to start popping out sprogs.

Not inviting children to a wedding is a pretty low and pathetic act as far as I'm concerned. Children are people too, they are part of the family, it's tantamount to telling all the men they couldn't attend. If the couple want to have "their day" do it in the privacy of their own own. If they want to have a traditional public event, then put up with the public.

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I am a manager of a beauty salon. I am not a child minder. I have no qualifications to take care of others children. I am not trained in first aid nor am I garda vetted. They are not paying me for my childminding services, we run a salon and not a crèche and quite frankly, the services we provide include peace and quiet for those ladies who do leave their children with a minder.

Just ban anyone under the age of 16. But you know you can't do that or you will lose a lot of your customers. Kids are part of the world, they're a major part of a lot of your customers lives and rather than fight against that reality it's about time you just find a way to live with it.

TSMGUY

ScumLord wrote: »

A wedding is not just about the bride and groom, in this day and age maybe it's become a self aggrandizing indulgence but it's meaning was legitimizing a relationship in front of a community and a license to start popping out sprogs.

Not inviting children to a wedding is a pretty low and pathetic act as far as I'm concerned. Children are people too, they are part of the family, it's tantamount to telling all the men they couldn't attend. If the couple want to have "their day" do it in the privacy of their own own. If they want to have a traditional public event, then put up with the public.



Just ban anyone under the age of 16. But you know you can't do that or you will lose a lot of your customers. Kids are part of the world, they're a major part of a lot of your customers lives and rather than fight against that reality it's about time you just find a way to live with it.

Really? Not according to this thread there not. There seems to be the same antipathy towards kids ITT as there is for foreigners in UKIP. Maybe a new UKIP will form - United Kids Independence Party.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

ScumLord wrote: »

A wedding is not just about the bride and groom, in this day and age maybe it's become a self aggrandizing indulgence but it's meaning was legitimizing a relationship in front of a community and a license to start popping out sprogs.

Not inviting children to a wedding is a pretty low and pathetic act as far as I'm concerned. Children are people too, they are part of the family, it's tantamount to telling all the men they couldn't attend. If the couple want to have "their day" do it in the privacy of their own own. If they want to have a traditional public event, then put up with the public.



Just ban anyone under the age of 16. But you know you can't do that or you will lose a lot of your customers. Kids are part of the world, they're a major part of a lot of your customers lives and rather than fight against that reality it's about time you just find a way to live with it.

There is a no children policy in the salon, and it's a pretty popular policy in most salons and spas as its not a suitable environment for children. 95% of the clients respect it, but you'll always have the few that don't.

Penny Tration

TSMGUY wrote: »

I suggested you get a "different job", not a job. Once again, your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired, assuming that wasn't just a pretext for insulting me.

I'm a 19 year old who finished his Leaving Cert two months ago and is waiting for a place in Cambridge. You're a salon manager, presumably in your late twenties. Believe me when I say you have no grounds for condescending to me.

I was a 17 year old, who was offered a place in Trinity College. That doesn't mean anything. It means you did a decent Leaving Cert - nothing in the grand scheme of things.


I hope Cambridge (which you're bragging about having only APPLIED to) teach you how to conduct yourself a bit more politely.


Also, you're 19 and you've sat on your backside unemployed all summer? Why? Surely at the age of 19, you should have some work experience.

Pablodreamsofnew

I just went to my local cafe (Left my toddler at home with his dad) to get some paper work done. Usually when I am in a cafe I am so focused on my own family and making sure toddler isn't too loud that I don't notice other people but being on my own was a different story. The adults on their own were making the most noise. One women was talking so loud to her friend that I heard the whole conversation from across the room. Another couple of grown up were laughing like hyenas. Think I'll bring my 3 year old next time to distract me.

osarusan

All these personal digs on both sides are truly pathetic.

Winterlong

Penny Tration wrote: »

Surely at the age of 19, you should have some work experience.

There must be a job going in the local cafe?

TSMGUY

Penny Tration wrote: »

I was a 17 year old, who was offered a place in Trinity College. That doesn't mean anything. It means you did a decent Leaving Cert - nothing in the grand scheme of things.


I hope Cambridge (which you're bragging about having only APPLIED to) teach you how to conduct yourself a bit more politely.


Also, you're 19 and you've sat on your backside unemployed all summer? Why? Surely at the age of 19, you should have some work experience.

God, just because Lexie's your friend, doesn't mean you have to be quite so sycophantic. Sorry for not grovelling at her feet and feeling ashamed for being unemployed. A decent LC means nothing but not having a job is shameful? Very anti-intellectual and strange mentality you have there. I hardly bragged by defending myself against a snide personal attack.

anewme

ScumLord wrote: »

Just ban anyone under the age of 16. But you know you can't do that or you will lose a lot of your customers. Kids are part of the world, they're a major part of a lot of your customers lives and rather than fight against that reality it's about time you just find a way to live with it.

No place for children in a Beauty Salon orSpa. Many of them actually do ban children under 16.

A SPA that operated minding children in their Reception would have a very poor shelf life, lets be honest.

I actually wonder if you are taking the p, if you do not see that the whole idea of a SPA or Salon is to have some "me time" "quiet time" and "pampering". While children do form part of peoples lives, you dont become joined at the hip to them once you have them and the majority of adults need time out from their own children.

Anymore than you'd see babies or toddlers wandering around on a Golf Course.

Some people must be just here for a wind up.

TSMGUY

osarusan wrote: »

All these personal digs on both sides are truly pathetic.

I agree and I was ardently committed to sticking to the topic at hand but the ad hominem reared its ugly head. It's becoming tiresome and I really wanted no part of it.

Sofiztikated

ScumLord wrote: »

Just ban anyone under the age of 16. But you know you can't do that or you will lose a lot of your customers. Kids are part of the world, they're a major part of a lot of your customers lives and rather than fight against that reality it's about time you just find a way to live with it.

The spa in the hotel I work at is strictly over 16's.

And while yes, you might loose some custom, there are plenty of others that want to go there, and leave the kids at home.

Christ on a bike, I won't understand why some people think that kids should be brought everywhere.

Penny Tration

TSMGUY wrote: »

God, just because Lexie's your friend, doesn't mean you have to be quite so sycophantic. Sorry for not grovelling at her feet and feeling ashamed for being unemployed. A decent LC means nothing but not having a job is shameful? Very anti-intellectual and strange mentality you have there. I hardly bragged by defending myself against a snide personal attack.

First, I'm not Lexie's friend.


I said nothing anti-intellectual. I said that, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't mean anything. Which it doesn't.

Not having a job isn't shameful, but your assumption that Lexie is somehow lesser than you, a mere college applicant (not even an attendee!) on the basis of her job - that's nasty.


Like I said, I hope Cambridge teaches you some decorum.

TSMGUY

Penny Tration wrote: »

First, I'm not Lexie's friend.


I said nothing anti-intellectual. I said that, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't mean anything. Which it doesn't.

Not having a job isn't shameful, but your assumption that Lexie is somehow lesser than you, a mere college applicant (not even a tender!) on the basis of her job - that's nasty.


Like I said, I hope Cambridge teaches you some decorum.

Oh pull the other one, you saw her sneer at me for being "unemployed" and the minute I posted a reply that showed even a modicum of self-esteem I'm branded the haughty one. Your bias couldn't be clearer. I have a great deal of decorum and I'd hope someone your age wouldn't see an unemployed person as lesser. I make no apologies for having self-respect.

Penny Tration

TSMGUY wrote: »

Oh pull the other one, you saw her sneer at me for being "unemployed" and the minute I posted a reply that showed even a modicum of self-esteem I'm branded the haughty one. Your bias couldn't be clearer. I have a great deal of decorum and I'd hope someone your age wouldn't see an unemployed person as lesser. I make no apologies for having self-respect.

She said it's ironic that an unemployed person is telling her to get a job - that IS ironic.


Self respect and thinking you're above everyone else are totally things, and you'd do well to learn the difference.

How you even know my age, I won't ask. :pac:

ScumLord

LexieOnRale wrote: »

There is a no children policy in the salon, and it's a pretty popular policy in most salons and spas as its not a suitable environment for children. 95% of the clients respect it, but you'll always have the few that don't.

Just kick those lot out. If you have a policy that 95% of your clients follow and prefer, there shouldn't be any problem. Are you giving in to them when they show up with kids?

From the original post I had an image of a salon overrun with children and parents that practically encouraged them to run amok. But it sounds like it's actually that children come in very rarely.

The problem for parents that have their children in tow is often that they simply could not find anyone to mind the children while their doing errands. They probably don't want the kids there any more than you do.

TSMGUY

Penny Tration wrote: »

She said it's ironic that an unemployed person is telling her to get a job - that IS ironic.


Self respect and thinking you're above everyone else are totally things, and you'd do well to learn the difference.

How you even know my age, I won't ask. :pac:

A) I suggested she get a different job, not a job. If you can't understand the distinction you should return to education immediately. I imagine she could and she was just being facetious as a pretext for insulting me. So no, it's not ironic.
I don't think I'm above everyone else. I don't, however, believe I'm beneath "working people" and when provoked I will happily assert my worth.
C) You'd do well to stop talking lecturing me.
D) I don't know your age. I presume you're older given your preachy tones.

anewme

TSMGUY wrote: »

Oh pull the other one, you saw her sneer at me for being "unemployed" and the minute I posted a reply that showed even a modicum of self-esteem I'm branded the haughty one. Your bias couldn't be clearer. I have a great deal of decorum and I'd hope someone your age wouldn't see an unemployed person as lesser. I make no apologies for having self-respect.

I think the bite back over being unemployed was for the fact that you wrote a wordy and condescending response telling someone running a Beauty Salon how they SHOULD be running a Beauty Salon and pointing out all of the "tertiary duties" that go alongside it when in reality you have zero idea of how a Beauty Salon should be or is run in the real world.

Dont teach Granny how to suck eggs.

Penny Tration

TSMGUY wrote: »

A) I suggested she get a different job, not a job. If you can't understand the distinction you should return to education immediately. I imagine she could and she was just being facetious as a pretext for insulting me. So no, it's not ironic.
I don't think I'm above everyone else. I don't, however, believe I'm beneath "working people" and when provoked I will happily assert my worth.
C) You'd do well to stop talking lecturing me.
D) I don't know your age. I presume you're older given your preachy tones.

:pac:

ScumLord

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Christ on a bike, I won't understand why some people think that kids should be brought everywhere.

I don't think anybody said children should be brought everywhere. But this moving directly to the extreme end of the argument happens a lot in After hours these days.

My point has been people can't expect to go to public places or events and expect types of people they don't like to be banned. If that public place has a policy banning a certain section of society that's fine, that's their business. But children being loud is not an injustice, it's just the way of the world.

TSMGUY

anewme wrote: »

I think the bite back over being unemployed was for the fact that you wrote a wordy and condescending response telling someone running a Beauty Salon how they SHOULD be running a Beauty Salon and pointing out all of the "tertiary duties" that go alongside it when in reality you have zero idea of how a Beauty Salon should be or is run in the real world.

Dont teach Granny how to suck eggs.

I don't have to run a salon to critique a salon manager for the same reason you don't have to be a restaurant owner to criticize a restaurant or a programmer to criticize a ****ty app. Lexi isn't a parent but she seems to have no problem telling parents how to raise/supervise their children. You lack rudimentary logical thinking skills.

Banned.