To Mask or not to two - Mask Megathread cont.

amadangomor

rob316 wrote: »

Run a retail shop, I've specifically instructed the staff not to challenge a customer if they don't wear a mask. Not up to us to police it.

Management not taking any real responsibility shocker. Grow up and be a responsible adult.

Zero backbone in people these days. Pass the buck and keep the head down.

runawaybishop

Poorside wrote: »

Shops only have to put up visible signs to satisfy their legal requirement.

Not according to the minister for justice. All the unions were up in arms about it at the time.

bucketybuck

Its strange to see the fear and hysteria in threads like this when you think of all those supermarkets open for months with nobody wearing masks but not even a hint of any cases associated with them.

Is it genuine fear, is it virtue signaling or it is some sort of desire to agitate the mob?

Its sad, is what it is.

Poorside

runawaybishop wrote: »

Not according to the minister for justice. All the unions were up in arms about it at the time.

It's all that is required as it acts as informing people. I've only managed shops for nearly 30 years, what would I know about the legal side of it?

GT89

GT89 wrote: »

Complete nonsense I work in a shop and have not been told to enforce any mask wearing requirement

Complete nonsense


“face covering” means a covering of any type which when worn by a person covers the person’s nose and mouth;

“relevant premises” means an indoor premises, or a part of such a premises, to which the public has access -

(a) where goods are sold directly to the public,"

"“responsible person”, in relation to a relevant premises, means each of the following:

(a) the occupier of the relevant premises,

(b) the manager of the relevant premises, and

(c) any other person for the time being in charge of the relevant premises;"

"4. (1) A person shall not, without reasonable excuse, enter or remain in a relevant premises in a relevant geographical location without wearing a face covering."

"(i) there is a screen that separates the responsible person or worker from other persons"

"(4) A responsible person shall take reasonable steps to engage with persons entering or in the relevant premises to inform them of the requirements of paragraph (1) and to promote compliance with those requirements."

As defined under Health Act 1947 (Section 31A – Temporary Restrictions) (Covid-19) (Face Coverings in Certain Premises and Businesses) Regulations 2020 and as amended with more recent acts.


So smartypants, what am I wrong about Mr shop worker?

Poorside wrote: »

It's all that is required as it acts as informing people. I've only managed shops for nearly 30 years, what would I know about the legal side of it?

Less than I. A sign is not taking reasonable steps. Its taking minimum steps.

rob316 wrote: »

Run a retail shop, I've specifically instructed the staff not to challenge a customer if they don't wear a mask. Not up to us to police it.

As per above, incorrect and as a manager you should be both aware of this, and implementing it.

amadangomor

Same at work with people looking for loopholes to not wear masks in certain circumstances.

Was surrounded by 5 people without masks in the changing area. They think it's OK to wait until outside changing area to put mask back on.

Management covered by sending around emails which people interpret to suit themselves and putting up signs. Place is rife with Covid unsurprisingly.

runawaybishop

Poorside wrote: »

what would I know about the legal side of it?

**** all? Do you know more about legislation than the minister for justice?

Grab All Association

Grab All Association wrote: »

If you are at risk of moderate or severe illness from covid-19, then YOU need to take whatever precautions YOU need to take to not contract the virus. It’s like complaining about dog s!!t on the footpaths, watch where your walking and it won’t affect you. If you’re so worried about contracting Covid-19, wear a hazmat suit.

Exactly. Same as if you don't want burglars, you shouldn't have windows on your house. It's not the fault of the person causing the issue, it's always the victims fault. Right-on!


:rolleyes:



But back in real life... It's a courtesy. Whether you believe the risk of contraction is higher, lower, or the same, when wearing a mask (vs not wearing one) is irrelevant. Shop workers (and other customers) have families and relatives, many of whom may have a person vulnerable to the disease.

To not wear a mask is beyond stupid, and selfish. It's a whole new level of 'feck everyone else, I'm more important' and is usually demonstrated by the least intelligent people in the area.

It should be made clear from government that businesses are responsible for policing their own premises. Shops are private property and can refuse service if they wish. Much like selling alcohol to an underage person, shops found to be serving unmasked people should face sanctions (closure and a severe fine).

amadangomor

Poorside wrote: »

It's all that is required as it acts as informing people. I've only managed shops for nearly 30 years, what would I know about the legal side of it?

Modern management is about ticking boxes to cover your arse so you are no doubt an expert in doing that instead of actually looking after the welfare of your staff and customers.

Poorside

runawaybishop wrote: »

**** all? Do you know more about legislation than the minister for justice?

Oh right, you're an idiot, why didn't you tell me that so I didn't have to waste time with you.

bucketybuck

bucketybuck wrote: »

Its strange to see the fear and hysteria in threads like this when you think of all those supermarkets open for months with nobody wearing masks but not even a hint of any cases associated with them.

Is it genuine fear, is it virtue signaling or it is some sort of desire to agitate the mob?

Its sad, is what it is.

Why does everyone always say this? No prrof from shops, no proof from travel, no proof from home.

The cases arent falling out of the sky!

Poorside

amadangomor wrote: »

Modern management is about ticking boxes to cover your arse so you are no doubt an expert in doing that instead of actually looking after the welfare of your staff and customers.

Lot of people seem to think they know my job and how it works, lot of people are well wide if the mark.
The Dunnes manager is a very old trope and most modern managers have moved on from that.
Ask any of my staff from the last 30 years and they'll tell you I always had their welfare at the forefront of my mind.

bucketybuck

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Why does everyone always say this? No prrof from shops, no proof from travel, no proof from home.

The cases arent falling out of the sky!

They say it because shops were open for months with nobody wearing masks and cases remained negligible the entire time.

Thats why they say it.

runawaybishop

runawaybishop wrote: »

Any liabilities that arise due to facilitating the violation of the legislation. I am not here to imagine scenarios, it is a fact that mask wearing is legislated for and the shop does not have a credible defense if they did not take reasonable steps

I think your definition of ‘reasonable steps’ is a little off. It means signage etc, not getting some 18 year old to try to throw out an anti-masker

Poorside

Deleted User wrote: »

I think your definition of ‘reasonable steps’ is a little off. It means signage etc, not getting some 18 year old to try to throw out an anti-masker

No no, these lads KNOW it means you have to escort everyone in and around the shop.

runawaybishop

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think your definition of ‘reasonable steps’ is a little off. It means signage etc, not getting some 18 year old to try to throw out an anti-masker

It means whatever is reasonable. It is not unreasonable to ask someone to wear a mask, nor to request that they do.

It is the gardai who would be responsible for escorting the anti-masker out.

odyssey06

bucketybuck wrote: »

They say it because shops were open for months with nobody wearing masks and cases remained negligible the entire time. Thats why they say it.

Many shops were closed for months...

And the risk in shops is a factor of whether there is widespread community transmission or not. Given the state of our contact tracing & testing back then, we simply don't know where the cases were happening back then.

Beasty

Threads merged

nthclare

It's very simple if one wants to be safe follow the guidelines, if you're wearing a mask and it's supposedly protective.
Then one person without a mask isn't going to wipe yourself and everyone off the face of the earth.

Anyhow a mask doesn't filter out the virus, picture a tennis net and get a packet of frozen peas.
Break up the peas and hit a fistful of them with a tennis racket towards the tennis net.
You'll see how the peas will not bounce off the tennis net, probably the odd one will hit the net.
Most of the peas will go through, that's about same volume difference between a mask and the virus.

I wear the bloody things in shops out of respect, but I think social distancing and sanitation and hygiene is the best way.


Going around moaning about people not wearing masks and suggesting someone wants to kill everybody is very lefty, sjw and ultra liberal.
The sort of picks who guilt shame people on Facebook and twitter.

I don't give a toss whether you're wearing a mask or not.
Just keep your distance and we'll get along OK.

odyssey06

nthclare wrote: »

It's very simple if one wants to be safe follow the guidelines, if you're wearing a mask and it's supposedly protective.
Then one person without a mask isn't going to wipe yourself and everyone off the face of the earth.

No. You are being mandated to wear a mask as a barrier to contain your droplets from infecting other people. Not to directly protect you.
It's like a filter fitted to the exhaust of your car, it is most effective at source.

The direct protection angle is hazy at best unless you are wearing medical level masks exactly right.

So it does matter if other people aren't wearing a mask.

nthclare

odyssey06 wrote: »

No. You are being mandated to wear a mask as a barrier to contain your droplets from infecting other people. Not to directly protect you.
It's like a filter fitted to the exhaust of your car, it is most effective at source.

The direct protection angle is hazy at best unless you are wearing medical level masks exactly right.

So it does matter if other people aren't wearing a mask.

Mandated to wear a mask, you probably realise that I'm not a social achiever and follow the herd over the metaphorical cliff of insanity.

I used to wear one of the best masks that covered my whole face and it had charcoal filters for spraying roundup.
And I assure you that glyphosate is still getting in one way or the other.

But these masks were wearing are a joke, you might as well wear a rain jacket made a tissue paper, at the edge of liscannor pier and a southwestern gale force wind at 100kp and rain lashing against you... And keep dry.

The masks are useless, I wear one but I know from observation and working with chemicals over the years.
The only mask is an industrial style one.

Graham

nthclare wrote: »

I used to wear one of the best masks that covered my whole face and it had charcoal filters for spraying roundup.
And I assure you that glyphosate is still getting in one way or the other.

But these masks were wearing are a joke, you might as well wear a rain jacket made a tissue paper, at the edge of liscannor pier and a southwestern gale force wind at 100kp and rain lashing against you... And keep dry.

Tosh

The masks are to stop droplets escaping in your breath as you breath/talk/cough. Something which they're rather effective at.

If somebody approaches you with a knapsack sprayer filled with coved-laden spit it might be a different story. I somehow doubt that happens on a regular basis.

nthclare

Graham wrote: »

Tosh

The masks are to stop droplets escaping in your breath as you breath/talk/cough. Something which they're rather effective at.

If somebody approaches you with a knapsack sprayer filled with coved-laden spit it might be a different story. I somehow doubt that happens on a regular basis.

Right back at you, don't say it spray it...

I don't be spraying myself with a knapsack.
I trained people how to use knapsacks a calibrate them for fine mist.

You're spraying up against the wrong tree or leg...

Woff Woff

bucketybuck

bucketybuck wrote: »

They say it because shops were open for months with nobody wearing masks and cases remained negligible the entire time.

Thats why they say it.

Shops were not open. The majority were closed. The few that were open allowed a small amount of people in at any given time and during that time, cases were being reported.

Poorside

Poorside wrote: »

No no, these lads KNOW it means you have to escort everyone in and around the shop.

Who said that? No one. No one suggested it.

It's been said that the premises has to take reasonable steps and if those steps are ignored, call Gardai. Asking people to put their masks on is perfectly reasonable and it's happening all over the country.

That's in reply to the 'retail experts' here who claimed there was absolutely zero laws on the issue and the store could be in trouble for asking people to mask up. A completely incorrect assertion.

But hey, it will be great when your store that's ignoring it all, gets closed again and your staff get sick.

NovemberWren

I just reckon it is time that the areas that are the highest-compliance of mask wearing are highlighted.

Areas that have hospitals, etc.,i.e. - areas where there will be a high housing concentration of Unionised workers, be they Unionised Medical or Unionised Clerks, connected to the State finance;- have the highest deference to and compliance for, the mask.

I think an 'extra'? 4 Billion? was given in the Budget to 'health'. [probably buying the Pro-Mask Union Votes?]

GT89

GT89 wrote: »

It's the same in Tesco, Lidl and Aldi

Don't know about Tesco, but I've mates who worked for Aldi and Lidl who said they were grand to work for unlike Dunnes.

NovemberWren

NovemberWren wrote: »

I just reckon it is time that the areas that are the highest-compliance of mask wearing are highlighted.

Areas that have hospitals, etc.,i.e. - areas where there will be a high housing concentration of Unionised workers, be they Unionised Medical or Unionised Clerks, connected to the State finance;- have the highest deference to and compliance for, the mask.

I think an 'extra'? 4 Billion? was given in the Budget to 'health'. [probably buying the Pro-Mask Union Votes?]

You listening to gems again ya poor thing.

bucketybuck

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Shops were not open. The majority were closed. The few that were open allowed a small amount of people in at any given time and during that time, cases were being reported.

Supermarkets, as in the place that this thread was about before it got merged, have never closed at any point.

They were open right the way through, including when cases were at their peak and the government decided on a total lockdown. They remained open when everything else was closed. And they remained open when masks not only were not mandated, but were actually discouraged.

Nothing I have just said is an opinion.

Poorside

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Who said that? No one. No one suggested it.

It's been said that the premises has to take reasonable steps and if those steps are ignored, call Gardai. Asking people to put their masks on is perfectly reasonable and it's happening all over the country.

That's in reply to the 'retail experts' here who claimed there was absolutely zero laws on the issue and the store could be in trouble for asking people to mask up. A completely incorrect assertion.

But hey, it will be great when your store that's ignoring it all, gets closed again and your staff get sick.

For a start, my store is rigorous with the guidelines, and secondly it was in response to someone saying signs weren't reasonable.
I'd love to have the staff to have someone stand at the door and ask people to mask up, I don't, I have a bloody huge sign outside and a lot more dotted around the shop.