SIGN UP

Halifax 'Inclusion' Policy Sets Twitface On Fire ... Again ..

Avatar Image
andy-hughes | 17:45 Thu 30th Jun 2022 | News
104 Answers
News followers may be aware of the latest furor about 'inclusion', this time involving the Halifax Bank.

The bank has decided to offer name badges to its employees with pronouns to advise their preferred pronoun address -

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/halifax-staff-pronoun-badges-customers-threaten-close-accounts

The badges are voluntary.

The company advises that this is about inclusivity, and ensuring that no-one is accidentally 'mis-gender identified'.

It also advises that anyone who does not agree with the policy is welcome to take their business elsewhere.

I feel that a simple reality check may be in order here.

I have been a Halifax customer for over thirty years, and in that time, as in every other walk of my life, I have never 'mis-gender-identified' anyone, probably because I am capable of telling the difference between a man and a woman in any social or professional setting where it matters - and personal in-branch banking interaction has never been one of them.

So I remain bemused but utterly disinterested in the notion that an employee thinks that their gender identity is important enough to me that they need to identify it via a badge on their front.

But, and this is where I am seriously bent out of shape -

If the company pushing this nonsense wants to confirm its 'inclusivity' by terminally excluding me if I choose not to agree with its policy, then I feel seriously motivated to take them up on their offer and move my account elsewhere.

They seem to forget, they are a service industry, and I can take my account anywhere I choose any day i fancy, and it's surely in their interests to ensure that I stay, not to push me away with their snotty 'my way or the highway' approach to my embracing their latest woke piffle.

I conduct my business without the need even to know the name of the person I am dealing with, and I have yet to feel the need to know which 'pronoun' they prefer to be addressed by.

I am all for inclusivity, but not when it only includes people who see the world their way, that is not my definition of the term, and I am not interested in dealing with an organsation that thinks it has a right to dictate my views on its staff policies.

Any thoughts?

Answers

21 to 40 of 104rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by andy-hughes. 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.
things move on and old people do not move on with them. It was ever thus.
As sanmac says, married women used to be referred to by their husband's name. now if someone called me Mrs (husband's name) bednobs, instead of my actual name, i'd like that about as much as i'd like to be referred to as "the wife" (ie not a jot). Im glad things move on. If i were getting married now, i might consider keeping my surname (or becoming double barrelled). when i actually did get married, it was the norm to change your name. Not so much now.
gingejbee,18:12
It says Halifax over their door,and on their windows.
Canary hair brained has been an equally acceptable spelling along with hare brained for hundreds of years.
Bednobs - I wouldn't mind being called by my husband's name (as it is perfectly correct) but as it happens I use both my maiden name and my current married name. It doesn't worry me. This happened because when I was in France and divorced from husband No.1, I discovered that it was the norm for a woman to keep her birth (family) name for legal business. In somewhere around 2010 this custom became enshrined in law so that all women keep their name for legal and financial use. One's married name is a courtesy title.

I embraced this wholeheartedly and still do - although it is more awkward in the UK. This is not too much of a problem usually.

Usually if one is unsure of Miss or Mrs. one can use the first name on the badge without specifying and I can't think anyone would be upset if you got it wrong. Anyway I read the question as going deeper than that. The company is trying to force customers into its mould and that is simply wrong. They are there to serve the customer.
Then there is the question of gender identity - which is another issue. I would not address a chap with a beard, for instance, as Miss or Mrs. I suspect that this is behind the moves by the Halifax and others.
Isn't the Halifax a building society anymore ?, I remember the Halifax building society buying out the Leeds building society some years ago. I sold my shares with the Leeds to the Halifax on takeover and name change.
No, its a Bank.

I couldnt agree more with you AH. I suspect this has come from the 20+ millennials running the TwitFace account rather than the CEO. He needs to address this quickly or it could become a Ratner moment.
-- answer removed --
^^^I prefer twitter.
Bloody predictive text…

I prefer twitter
-- answer removed --
TwitFace
TwitFace
TwitFace
-- answer removed --
I just don't join in with this ***, I use he/she him/her etc end of.
So do I, TTT.
Question Author
ginge - // My thoughts...it's really not important enough to get into a tizzy about. People can wear whatever name badges they choose - it doesn't affect me. //

Just to be clear - the sheer attention-seeking woke nonsense of pronoun badges matters less than not at all to me.

I have not reached this age without being able to swerve the self-aggrandising nonsense of the woke minority and treat it for the pointless puffed up brainless nonsense that it is.

My anger is caused by the arrogance of the Twitter poster who advised me that if i did not agree with the policy, I was free to take my business elsewhere.

First of all, I don;t need some pimply teenager with a keyboard and an undeserved sense of moral superiority to tell me that I can take my business elsewhere.

As a customer in a service industry, that right is mine any time I may choose to exercise it.

My anger is reserved for anyone who wants to preach 'inclusivity' at me, and in the same breath, exclude me if I exercise my moral and legal right to disagree with their approach.

I am not willing to be patronised so aggressively by anyone, anywhere, ever, and I am still considering my future options.

I strongly suspect that this nonsense has been put into the wider world by someone who does not have the sanction of agreement of the real decision makers at the top end of the company, who will have arrived there by understand the basic concept in business that alienating your customer base is never a good idea.

At best, said idiot will have their company social media access curtailed with immediate effect, since they clearly lack the maturity to use it properly.

And as I write, the execs at Halifax will be working out how to climb out of this public relations black hole into which their idiot employee has dropped them, and see what sort of damage limitation they can get up and running before the end of the day.

The moral of the story - stop giving company social media access to employees until their suitability has been thoroughly established.
You said, "They seem to forget, they are a service industry, and I can take my account anywhere I choose any day i fancy" yet when they make it very clear they've not forgotten and folk CAN go elsewhere, you're not happy still.
i still fail to understand your tizzy about this.
How often do you conduct your business in branch anyway?
Also interested to know how you know you've NEVER mis-gendered anyone in your life
Question Author
Corby - // ou said, "They seem to forget, they are a service industry, and I can take my account anywhere I choose any day i fancy" yet when they make it very clear they've not forgotten and folk CAN go elsewhere, you're not happy still. //

That is not what they are saying, and i think you know that.

They are not saying "You are welcome to take your business elsewhere whenever you feel like it ...", which is an obvious given for any business with any customers anywhere at any time.

What they are saying is - "If you don't agree with our pointless woke nonsense, we don't want you as a customer ..." and that is unacceptable.
no they are not! At least not how i read what you wrote.
"you are welcome to take your custom elsewhere" is not the same as "agree with us or leave"
How is reminding you and other like-minded folk you can go elsewhere, arrogance from a, "pimply teenager with a keyboard and an undeserved sense of moral superiority"?

21 to 40 of 104rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Halifax 'Inclusion' Policy Sets Twitface On Fire ... Again ..

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.