Who is in favour of face coverings being mandatory in shops?

Avatar Image
AB Editor | 09:34 Tue 14th Jul 2020 | News
105 Answers

This poll is closed.

  • Yes, I am. - 195 votes
  • 58%
  • No, I am not. - 81 votes
  • 24%
  • I am not sure. - 32 votes
  • 10%
  • I do not care. - 25 votes
  • 7%
  • This does not apply to me. - 2 votes
  • 1%

See final stats

Stats until: 02:34 Sun 14th Aug 2022 (Refreshed every 5 minutes)


61 to 80 of 105rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by AB Editor. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
that's interesting. I am assuming its an independent? Because of course the chain supermarkets will have to comply with whatever head office requires.
I would hazard a guess that the wearing of face coverings is not included in the H&S At Work Act in relation to illness. More to do with protection from work place hazards such as dust, smoke, fumes etc., not someone with a bad dose of the flu.
It is most definitely not an independent. It's one of the biggies. I'm not saying which one, because they may yet change their stance, but staff have been told, as in my previous post.
Your guess is wrong, 10CS. If the government says it's a requirement on health grounds then they are asking for trouble
10C they have to do a Covid risk assessment.
so has the store been told that NO ONE in any of the stores will have to wear face coverings or is it a local manager flapping his lip?
The H&SAW act doesn't specifically mention face masks for covid (or indeed flu which , bizarrely, some with their head in the sand, think is no different to covid), but that won't stop them being in breach
The union have also endorsed the action of the store and advised members of the union at the store, that they don't have to wear face coverings. I have seen it in writing from management and union.
In reply to Woofgang @ 21.46, there is nothing in that link that mentions face covering. I've read it, and I've read the PDF attachment guidelines for employers. Nothin there either.
I don't think anyone has said that staff must? Or that stores are responsible for enforcement? They can refuse entry to people who refuse to wear a face covering and can call the police in case of difficulty....nope...staff don't have to....sounds like a storm in a teacup to me
10 CS they have to do an assessment and ensure that their employees are safe. They can do that by a mixture of measures.
All of our local shops, including bookies have installed screens, one local independent newsagent and convenience store, has closed because the cannot or will not fund screens, however their paper boys and girls are still delivering.
//The take on it is that shop management are not the police.//

That is spot on. It has been made quite clear (as clear as anything is in these matters) that shop staff will NOT be called upon to police the wearing of face coverings (in the same way as they are not called upon to police anything else). Different stores will take different stances but I doubt they will get involved in wholesale argy-bargy with people who claim exemptions.

It has also been made clear that shop staff will not be compelled to wear face coverings. Mr Hancock said it would be "inappropriate." So it seems their customers must wear face coverings to protect the shop workers but the shop workers need not worry about their customers.
As I said elsewhere, right from the start, my local Waitrose has employed security staff to manage the queue and so on. It works very well.
//As I said elsewhere, right from the start, my local Waitrose has employed security staff to manage the queue and so on. It works very well.//

Three things:

1. I don't know how long it will take for your local Waitrose to catch up, but big supermarkets (all Tesco's because they've announced it and the two Sainsbury's and one ASDA near me) no longer have queues.

2. If shoppers are checked going in and they say they have a "reasonable excuse" for not wearing a covering there is nothing in the legislation (assuming it is similar to the public transport version) that says they must prove it (and some of the listed reasonable excuses are not easily proved anyway).

3. If they do enter wearing a covering there is nothing to prevent them removing it once inside.

The entire idea is unenforceable and might just as well remain voluntary, thus avoiding any unpleasantness.
NJ, its not a huge store and they limit the number of people in there at a time.
If we are not going to have social distancing in shops then yes.
-- answer removed --
Most stores have now abandoned queuing and yet people are still observing social distancing.
The queues and restricting how many people could enter the store were a completely false response, that caused a lot of unnecessary delay and disruption, and achieved nothing. It also encouraged panic buying and shortages.
Makes no odds to me, I can't wear one.

61 to 80 of 105rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Who is in favour of face coverings being mandatory in shops?

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.