shortfatbalduglyman wrote:
Someone at work said that the reason why Home Depot installed a lock on the bathroom door, was b/c some homeless were "bathing in the sink". (which I have never seen. maybe they allegedly did that when I was not there.) It is legal to say "customers only" or "employees only". But saying "no homeless" is "socioeconomic discrimination."
Considering the fact that homeless people rarely have enough money to be customers, "Customers Only" keeps the property cleaner and in better repair.
shortfatbalduglyman wrote:
Besides, plenty of customers that look homeless, are not homeless. Some homeless do not look homeless. Things are not always the way they appear.
This is not about appearances, but about keeping bathrooms clean and intact for the paying customers.
shortfatbalduglyman wrote:
Those of you that have worked in buildings that had code locked bathrooms, what were the good and bad parts of code locked bathrooms?
Good: Clean facilities in good repair. Bad: ???
shortfatbalduglyman wrote:
What kind unusual things have other people done, when you were in the bathroom?
Engaged in sexual activities, bathed, shot up drugs, threatened violence, vomited, slept.
shortfatbalduglyman wrote:
What is a better way than the code locked bathrooms, to minimize bad and wrong things from happening?
Rounding up homeless people and placing them in residence facilities.
_________________
The previous signature line has been cancelled.