Preferred pronoun badges at the Halifax bank.

Bad eyesight can’t read the name badges so I ll continue to refer to everyone by what I see in front of me

BlueBelle

Bad eyesight can’t read the name badges so I ll continue to refer to everyone by what I see in front of me

Well, that is interesting, because having a name badge presenting information for people to read and act upon does rather presume that people will be able to read that information.

Here's the original StarDreamer

mobile.twitter.com/HalifaxBank/status/1541692892175110146

I can't remember the last time I went into a bank branch, as I do it all online. Even if I get a cheque, I can take a photo from the app, and pay it in that way.

Can't say it'll affect me, one way or another.

I can’t see the point. When speaking to a bank employee I might need to say You, as in Could you give me my balance please? ( though a machine can do that). Why would I need to refer to a third person?
There is simply no need. I just don’t see why gender comes into a transaction anyway.

And for light relief, here's the Natural History Museum telling us that reptiles can be LGBTQ, or that people are the same as reptiles, or something.....

mobile.twitter.com/NHM_London/status/1542189644984492032

I am only interested in banking and what benefits eg interest I will get a company. Quite frankly I am fed up with all the pc correctness life can be complicated enough.

(Posted too soon) from a company!

What a load of old pronouns. I never address a person in the third person anyway. And,

I am female.
I identify as female.
But, according to Sainsbury’s Sticky Toffee Pudding, I am a family of four.

How do you mean please?

FarNorth

Here's the original StarDreamer

mobile.twitter.com/HalifaxBank/status/1541692892175110146

Thank you.

Cannot see why it’s not just the name on the badge, over complicating the issue.

Yes indeed. No need to use pronouns then.

Daddima me too with the Tiramisu. ?

maddyone

^Cannot see why it’s not just the name on the badge, over complicating the issue.^

Yes indeed. No need to use pronouns then.

Not necessarily.

For example,

Robin Smith

Male or Female?

My thoughts about this are, informing customers something along the lines of "if they don't like this new development they can take their accounts elsewhere" is foolish imo, that comment is a trigger for some people to do just that! I don't think any business can be too cavalier particularly when showing a distain towards their client base, it puts me in mind of when, many years ago, Gerald Ratner, anyone remember him? said something along the lines of "the jewellery I sell is rubbish/tat" that offhand remark resulted in a massive downturn in his profits, in fact if I remember rightly his business collapsed.

Sago

Go woke go broke.

John Ringo coined this phrase. He's a Science fiction writer.

His point was that businesses that focused on social justice would drive away conservative clients. He didn't comment on how they would attract non conservative clients.

Evidence suggests that companies with a strong corporate social responsibility do much better in terms of staff attraction and retention and long-term financial performance.

StarDreamer
Because if the name is Robin, the person is referred to as Robin. No need for pronouns at all.
Having said that, on the rarest times that I actually go into a bank and speak to a person, I find I have no need to use either their name or their pronouns.

distain disdain

maddyone

StarDreamer
Because if the name is Robin, the person is referred to as Robin. No need for pronouns at all.
Having said that, on the rarest times that I actually go into a bank and speak to a person, I find I have no need to use either their name or their pronouns.

Well, yes.

Surely a strong sense of social responsibility should include equal rates of pay for both sexes.

Couldn't agree with you more Ilovecheese.

RichmondPark

Sago

Go woke go broke.

John Ringo coined this phrase. He's a Science fiction writer.

His point was that businesses that focused on social justice would drive away conservative clients. He didn't comment on how they would attract non conservative clients.

Evidence suggests that companies with a strong corporate social responsibility do much better in terms of staff attraction and retention and long-term financial performance.

I remember before the referendum when many who could not vote, for example, some companies, were making statements urging people to vote Leave, when Tesco was asked for its opinions, Tesco responded that the decision is for the people and whatever the result Tesco would continue to supply goods and services to the public.

That seemed to me to be quite correct.

Also, it seemed to me to be a good policy because if an urging had been made one way, whichever way, it could have upset some of Tesco's customers.

I sometimes wonder how many people voted Leave because lots of "the bosses" were urging vote Remain.

Tesco would continue to supply goods and services to the public.

Except Heinz products it seems.

I sometimes wonder how many people voted Leave because lots of "the bosses" were urging vote Remain.

I'd always hoped people had weighed up the information available, considered the facts and made the choice based on that rather than making such a crucial decision based on some kind of anti-boss stance...but you are perhaps right.

I suppose for the Halifax it was cheaper to print a few badges than to give equal pay.

I didn't vote in the referendum.

I gave it a lot of thought, but I could not decide which way to go.

There had been no world war in Europe for many years, so it had worked in helping prevent war.

A petition to remove VAT from veterinary treatment was refused action (for the purported reason of) because of a treaty which came into effect in 1973.

So if the room with green seats cannot even consider a decision such as that, where is this leading?

Yet there had been no world war, with the EU and its earlier versions helping that.

So, which way to go?