![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-318831-100x100.png\")
All a store needs to do to keep customers out of the restroom is leave a bear trap or two lying around. So what if they lose the odd employee now and then?
![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
@Difdi: And, hey, it'll help lower unemployment rates as such places will be constantly in need of replacement employees!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-543146-100x100.png\")
@Difdi: I'd just rig a shotgun to go off when the door is opened. That way no one could accidentally fall on it; the person opening the door would have no one to blame but themself.
OUT OF MY WAY I HAVE TO POOP!!!!!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1367843-100x100.png\")
I worked at a RadioShack where the restroom was directly across from our Electronics cage. I had a guy swear to me on his life that he was gonna have a bowel movement on our floor if I didn't let him use our restroom. I let him use it, but didn't tell him I was gonna wait right outside out of view. The toilet never flushed and I watched him walk over to the cage and start stuffing digital cameras in his pants.
He left with mall security, and I never let anybody use our bathroom again.
I'm curious as to how we're going to expect the minimum-wage employee behind the counter to read and understand a diagnostic report from a physician. Or will there be some kind of frequent-crapper card?
Why is it that Consumerist posters always think that just because someone works for a wage, they are illiterate or stupid?
@aguacarbonica: Because, clearly, sitting at a keyboard wining about how they can't afford stuff (while getting paid zilch) makes them superior in every way?
so one needs to carry a poo license with them at all times? equality my ass. It's a step in the right direction, but although I'm not legally disabled, when I gotta go really badly I often feel as though I am
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1312305-100x100.png\")
@discounteggroll:
equality?? No one can be forced to let you use their employee restroom. This law gives sick people the authority to force companies to allow them to use their employee restroom.
The non sick people out there will still have to find somewhere else to crap.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1224797-100x100.png\")
A person has to show proof?? I suppose that goes in the same slot in the wallet as the car insurance ID.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-389492-100x100.png\")
good luck with that... i nearly had to use pliers to get a letter from my endocrinologist's office stating that i cannot at any time be separated from my insulin pump in airport security and i can't turn it off when i am on an airplane.
i haven't actually tried to fly with it yet, but i had plans to at one point and i had heard horror stories.
but the physician's assistant couldn't understand why someone in the world might not have heard of an insulin pump and know all about it, since she has to deal with them every day.
not all doctor's offices may be willing to write something like this. or if they are like two of my five doctors, they might charge for it. a letter like this from my primary care physician is $20.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-943594-100x100.png\")
@catastrophegirl: I can't believe your doctors would charge $20 for a letter for this. I mean - they of all people should know that it is in your best interest to keep that pump in place, and should be doing everything in their power to make sure that you don't have to remove / turn off the thing. christ. Someone needs a smack upside the head.
@subtlefrog: my endocrinologist doesn't charge for them separately. he just. i just have to ask for it weeks in advance. but my primary care physician charges $20 for any paperwork and my gynecologist charges $10.
@catastrophegirl: $20 is pretty standard for paperwork. It's pretty sad they can't even write a fraking note these days without charging for it...
/Good thing medical expenses are tax deductible...
@aedude01: only if they are more than ... what is it, 7% of your income? since i have really good insurance with low copays and no deductible, my medical expenses never quite hit the magic number.
@catastrophegirl: Normally I would defend a person charging for a service... but $20 to have a desk jockey copy and paste a form letter is disgusting. It's not just about the $20... it speaks volumes about the MD's attitude towards his clients..
I'm willing to bet that he also charges $25 if you cancel your appointment with less than a week's notice (24 hours I can understand...)?
@RedwoodFlyer: no, it's a 24 hour cancellation. it's $20 for any paperwork. it was $20 for the note to go back to work after getting out of the hospital, $20 for my FMLA documentation.
this kind of explains why i don't see him that often. my endocrinologist just pads that into the bill for the insurance company so i only have to pay my copay
@catastrophegirl: I have potentially fatal food allergies and I've never had a problem getting a doctor's note so I can bring my Epi-pen on a plane. The only time I had trouble with it was when I flew out of a small terminal in Paris and they had no idea what any of it was.
@catastrophegirl:
I have a good friend who never had much of a problem except once in AMERICA. We travelled throughout Europe (my friends and I) and she went to a million countries on her year abroad. It was only coming back to England after Christmas that caused issues. She was asked to take it out completely and put it on the belt. They didn't even understand it - even with the doctor's note. Being without it wouldn't kill her (for a few minutes),so she had to do it in front of everyone, so she had to do it.
@colorisnteverything: I'm curious, what airport did this occur at and when exactly did it happen? I work for TSA, and even the biggest moron I work with knows that you can't require a person to remove a medical device such as an insulin pump. More often than not the pumps will not even set off the medical detector if positioned correctly (right in front where your belt buckle would sit). If it is even noticed, we do an Explosive Trace Detection swipe on it.
@colorisnteverything: which is why i got the note. the stories i had heard included people who were asked to turn it off for the entire duration of the flight.
plus, my infusion set detaches but not all of them do, someone might have to take the whole site out, throw away the infusion set [at up to $15 apiece!] and put a new one in later.
i can just imagine search through my bag for alcohol wipes to sterilize the port connecter after touching that nasty belt or grey plastic bin, before reattaching it! ewww....
I have bad asthma and couldn't imagine if someone took out just the small bottle inside of my inhaler and just tossed it in that bin and it doesn't even touch my mouth - but it does send out a spray lol. Thinking about something you insert inside yourself makes me shiver!
Ick. Just being in an airport makes me feel germy. Travelling just sucks :-P
@HogwartsAlum: yeah, i'm a big fan of it. before i was taking 10 or more shots a day. and since the long acting insulin didn't work for me, i had to wake up twice in the night to take insulin too. ugh
My 6 year old had to go diarrhea and the store we were in wouldn't let him use the restroom, so he went in his pants before we would find him a bathroom. That was really really awful.
The customer requesting access to the employee restroom presents written evidence, issued by a licensed health care provider, that documents that the customer suffers from an eligible medical condition;
Oh good farking Bull Seit.
Little kids after a day of shopping mall food?
Mommies with food poisoning after eating shopping mall food?
(2) A public restroom is not immediately accessible to the customer;
Who says? How close is accessible? Is the public restroom across the commons at the shopping mall, a distance of 312 yards, considered close enough?
(3) At the time that the request for access to the employee restroom is made, three or more employees of the retail establishment are working;
Working where? What about a grocery store with 2 employees in the front and 6 in the stock room? Is that more than 3 or just 2 employees?
and
(4) The employee restroom is located in an area of the retail establishment that does not present an obvious risk to the health or safety of the customer or an obvious security risk to the retail establishment
Risk? Who decides risk? Visiting your local tire store and there is this nasty sign about risk and customers in the work area. Guess where the restroom is located at my local tire store? Yep, in the work area. Are we going to let insurance companies decide the risk?
@StanTheManDean:
Risks are identified by the company.
Any retail establishment would never have a risk that would violate that law otherwise people could not work there without personal protective equipment or other controls.
Now when it comes to any place that would require personal protective equipment (safety googles, steel toes, non slip shoes, certain protective clothing, etc) then they would not have to let you go into their bathroom.
This is a farking \"appeasement\" law. Makes the government look good without actually doing anything.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-406173-100x100.png\")
I disagree. It creates an awareness for companies to train employees on this issue. Whereas in the past, most employees would automatically say NO for fear of reprisal from their employer, now most employees will say YES.
And yeah, employees fear doing just about anything they're not told to do because that's the typical kind of retail environment for most workers.
That's my take...
@twophrasebark: The problem is it doesn't establish any protection for the employee from the employer. If I've got a restroom that you need to walk through a backstock area to get to, I'm still not going to be likely to allow a customer through, b/c my employer could deem it was unsafe, and due to most states right to work laws you could be fired on the spot for that if ownership disagreed with your assesment.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-24730-100x100.png\")
Here's what's going to happen. Mr. X's gotta go, so he asks for the restroom and flashes his card. Employee says no. Mr. X says \"It's the law, I can go in your restroom or on your floor.\" Employee laughs, Mr. X drops pants and leaves the employee to have fun learning why he should have obeyed the law.
It's going to take many incidents like that for people to understand this is a serious thing.
@Xerloq speaks Portuguese, too...: Mr. X has only demonstrated (1), unfortunately there are loopholes in the form of (2), (3) and (4)
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1153-100x100.png\")
Yeah, given that in small stores, the bathroom is in the same area as overstock, they're all going to claim #4.
I really think this law is a good compromise. Whenever a pooping story comes up here, people go crazy about how stores shouldn't be exposed to liability. The most important part of this law is that it limits the liability of the owners. That's a big deal, really. Now a compassionate employee can say yes without fear of a lawsuit. (Nothing in the law requires 3 people to be on the clock - that's just for the part regarding violating the law.)
My fiancee has one of the qualifying health issues. He's been denied access many times, and yes, he has used a bucket in the parking lot of the places that deny him, as there is NO WAY for him to go a few stores down when he has to go. He's never complained, as he's worked retail and he gets it that people are going to say no. But if this law stops him from the shame of having to use a bucket 1 out of 5 times, well that's great.
So will my \"I Can't Wait\" card from the Crohn's & Colitis Foundation be enough.
I couldn't find a pic of the US one, but here's the link to the Australian one:
[t3.gstatic.com]
@Greasy Thumb Guzik:
I believe this is the American version. BTW the picture you posted is too small to read and you can't zoom in.
@Consumer01:
1. I didn't post a picture, I posted a link.
2. Your link goes to a page not found on this server.
I'd put a safe in the bathroom. Doesn't have to be the one i use but just would tell the government I like to count my money while taking a poop.
I hope the law requires the unwanted user clean the restroom when done.
When these emergencies happen from health reasons the people can literally explode. The sad part is when these people destroy a bathroom they quickly leave instead of cleaning it up.
@catastrophegirl:
$20 for a letter after you already paid??? WTF
Are they charging to write down your perscriptions now?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1237948-100x100.png\")
So basically, nothing changed. The public still will not have access to public bathrooms in Connecticut. Why even bother to make this law.
I feel bad for the people who have bowel disorders, but shouldn't it be the responsibility of the person to prepare themselves for the possibility that they could crap themselves at any moment? It seems easier to wear an adult diaper than force through legislation which in most cases is not going to assist you in getting to the bathroom before you crap yourself.
\" three or more employees of the retail establishment are working\"
Um, I can't recall the last time a small retailer I visited had 3 or more employees working. Many are lucky to have one running the register and perhaps another stocking shelves.
I see this law will cause 2/3 of small businesses to still not provide restrooms to those with medical problems. Add to that the ones who's bathrooms are in remote areas of the store not safe for customers to get to.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-782863-100x100.png\")
This law is typical of many that are passed in Connecticut ... full of qualifications and loopholes that let people evade them. This allows legislators and the governor to appear to be doing something to solve a problem, yet basically leaving the status quo in place. (The status quo is all-important here in CT ... we aren't called \"the Land of Steady Habits\" for nothing!)
Point #4 — all by itself — could be used to justify never allowing customers in, rendering the new law useless.
I must congratulate my legislators once again on a job well done ... you guys have managed to spend time on and pass a law that basically changes absolutely nothing. Way to go!
I'd like to add that from the store owners perspective it's not just a liability issue with regard to the potential injury to the customer, but also the fact that allowing customer access to a bathroom that may be behind the area yoru employees work makes for a potentially unsafe environment for your workers (ie. I demand to use bathroom, enter it, have access to work area (and all that entails like workers, cash registers, phone lines, etc.)A perfect example would be the tux shop I used to work at. if me and two buddies had been forced with this issue while we had a busy floor we would have to concede access to the cash register, security camera and recording box, all computers, phones lines, needles, scissors. And we wouldn't be able to see the bathroom while on the floor. In short someone could have tried to use the restroom and come out with a perfectly great way to rob us, and I don't think that most people would classify the bathroom as presenting an obvious risk. My point is this is a bathroom was designed to be used only be employees it should be used only by employees because to allow the hoi polloi to use it could present a bad situation even it it's not readily apparent that it might. At the job I have now for example the bathroom is right near the employee break room, and we've actually had customers steal our employees food from their lunches, a law like this would increase these types of incidents.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-38607-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1238020-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1504-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-488475-100x100.png\")
![[t3.gstatic.com]](\"http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ugWr_cuui41Q2M:http://www.crohnsandcolitis.com.au/content/Can%27t%2520Wait%2520cards.JPG\"){kind=link}
![this is the American version.](\"http://www.glovesandclover.com/coppermine/albums/userpics/10003/card_ccfa.jpg%20\"){kind=link}
So this law does nothing then since numbers 3 and 4 are the main reasons that people are denied...
@JRules: New design criteria for any non-food serving business - make sure the restroom is in a place that is risky for the staff.
Nasty, but you know they will think about it.
@JRules: Yeah, that'd create an issue with the store that I work in. We rarely have 3 people looking unless it's between 1-6PM on weekends, and it'd be incredibly easy to rip off our backstock by visiting our restroom unless someone stayed in the back with the customer.
@JRules:
I suppose you'd expect a retailer to close and lock their front door so they can escort a (probably non) customer to the rest room in the back of the store?
@JRules: I'd add \"2\" to that since they often say there's a McDonalds down the road