The way the agitated grocery store manager was talking, I was wondering if I should be expecting two bulky security guards to appear and grab me by the elbows. No, I hadn’t seen any sign at the entrance. (I checked on my way out and items stacked for sale were partially blocking it from some angles.) No, I had never heard it was illegal to be walking bare footed. (It isn’t. I came home and did research to verify this.) And, no, I’m not interested in a creative rendition of government health codes regarding customers’ bare feet. (Double checked afterward to be nonexistent.) A mantra of “no shirt, no shoes, no service” was rapidly recited to me, then quickly restated. The manager seemed to get embarrassed at the no shirt clause (I was wearing one….), and modified his accusation. He was coming across as panicked, caught between treating me as a customer and a criminal (from his misinformed perspective). I said I would like to at least finish my grocery shopping (I was about ¾ of the way done with a major grocery shopping effort). He glanced nervously at my cart and asked, “Five minutes?” “More like 10,” I replied. My request was granted and I wondered if I was going to be shadowed for the remainder of my time there.
I understand the whole private property thing. I know that going around with bare feet is not all that common, but I am ready to have intelligent conversations about it. What gets under my skin the most is the bold faced lie of a sign at the store entrance and the way this affects other people’s view of me. I’m pretty sure it was another customer that “turned me in,” judging by the way the first employee ran up to me to tell me I couldn’t have bare feet. The sign claims that it is “the law” that shoes are required. At first, I gave Winco the benefit of the doubt. I did some follow-up research to find good resources about the law and I emailed their corporate offices. I described my experience and included the links about the lack of laws about foot wear or feet. Their response made it clear that they know it is a lie. They fell back on the liability argument.
There is no logical reason to be concerned about bare feet as a unique liability issue. There are more potential problems with bare hands. Do they monitor whether customers are washing, using clean techniques in bulk bins, or not smashing fingers? Hands are much more at risk in a grocery shopping experience. That doesn’t even include factors like spreading germs. What about dirt under my fingernails? Is it their responsibility to monitor everyone who comes in the doors for potential contagious germs? How many times have you seen a sick person in a grocery store? Why don’t they tell them to go home for public health and liability reasons? What about the liability of selling certain foods to people who, according to health codes, should be losing weight? (I’m sorry, miss, our lawyers advise us that we can only sell you lettuce and carrots)
It is like saying they might be liable if I drive too fast in their privately owned parking lot. This excerpt from A Case for Bare Feet, as published on barefooters.org, gives an idea of the weakness of this concern:
In fact, business owners who post signs requiring footwear in their stores for “liability reasons” might be opening themselves up for “duty of care” lawsuits. These signs could be interpreted as the business owner proclaiming a duty of care in assuring the safety of a customer’s footwear (by deeming one type of footwear unsafe and not allowed, the business owner has taken under his or her wing the whole range of possibly unsafe footwear). If a customer on high heels or platform shoes were to severely sprain their ankle because of their shoes, the business owner might be liable, since he or she has proclaimed by his or her sign a “duty of care” interest in customers’ footwear.
If these were real issues, there should be a shoe inspector at the door. What about the problems caused by shoes? If the whole foot cannot be used well, the customers are at risk of everything from falling to long term back injury. Is this the store’s responsibility? There are many other “what IF’s” that could be talked about. What IF I’m not dressed “right” for the weather and catch a chill? What IF my legs are showing and I get cut by … something. What IF something falls against my arms or someone runs into me with their cart and my knees get banged up? The fact is, sandals are not going to protect feet from much, IF anything. (Ever had a rock get into your sandal?) And shoes will give you fungus! The world is not a safe place.
If it is a matter of corporate aesthetics, any sort of sandal should be considered “gross” since pretty much the whole top of the foot can be seen. The same part that is seen when someone has bare feet. Why not a uniform that everyone puts on when they come in the door, so that touchy customers won’t be offended by the fashion choices of other customers. Maybe we should all wear sacks on our heads, with little peep holes for eyes, so that any potentially dirty or unkempt hair is under wraps. (Have you seen everyone on windy days?)
Back to the issue of businesses lying about bare feet being illegal. I am not claiming any “right” to go bare foot. I don’t believe government laws about discrimination help anyone in the long run. Any government codes about business practices make prices go up simply by the fact that there must inherently be an army of regulators paid to monitor everything (and the effectiveness of that oversight is dubious). One could argue that it is because of such regulations that many people have wrong ideas about whether it is legal to have bare feet at all! It is because there are SO many such laws and regulations that no one can keep track. And some other customer can be misled into turning me in, like we live in Nazi Germany or something!
However, just because a business is free to make a choice about providing service on private property based on hat style, choice of breath mints, or waist size, does not make it good. Just because they are free to discriminate, doesn’t mean it is wrong for me to be irritated by it. It is not wrong for me to expose their lies and demonstrate how they are misinformed.
I have been in other places, in my town, in other places in the USA, and other countries, where people with bare feet are welcomed. There is something mistakenly arrogant about excluding people who want to have bare feet. It reminds me of someone who has moved up in the world putting on airs to prove their superiority, when it only proves they are snobs. If someone thinks wearing shoes makes them a better person, they probably have some other strange ideas about the real worth of people.
[box]Looks like I already need to mention that comments that are rude, name calling, or just generally mean spirited will be deleted. We can discuss facts, concerns, and opinions, but if it isn’t done with consideration for others, then it will not stay in the thread.[/box]
You covered the entire issue very thoroughly. Thank you for the reminder that just because free markets are best, it is not necessary to passively concede to all the rules business owners make. Fortunately there are still other places to shop! Feeling the power of the consumer again? ;D
If I owned a store, I’d refuse barefoot entry too.
My main concern would be the fairly high chance of broken glass, or slippery residue, that might lead to increased risk of injury to someone with bare feet. It is not my job to judge whether you are a barefoot athlete or a hippy stoner or homeless and shoeless, but it is my job to address the hazards I perceive in my store.
Put some shoes on, or shop elsewhere.
Thanks for coming by Neil. I get the impression that you have not really paid attention to the discussion or looked into any of the links. The concerns about injury are not likely and negligible in comparison to all the other “risks” when entering a store. The implications of how you categorize people who choose to go barefoot also imply lack of desire to look at the real facts about who goes barefoot and why.
Can’t see why bare feet makes some people angry.
Your bare feet don’t make me angry in the slightest. You can wear whatever you like. What does make me a little bit annoyed is when a small demographic of people with fringe ideas choose to launch some kind of political crusade against normal people making what are essentially perfectly rational choices.
My hypothetical store does not have glass on the floor. My conscientious hypothetical staff are very good at cleaning up spills. But even hypothetical staff cannot clean up a spill before it happens. This is why I want my customers to have shoes on in my store.
The problem is that I can’t guarantee a floor that is safe for all bare feet, all of the time. Accommodating barefoot people is not in the operating brief of my store any more than accommodating cat owners that wish to practise their hobby under my roof.
Personally my own attitude is ‘wear what you like, and if you slip or cut yourself, that’s your own stupid fault’, but I’ll bet the legal system (and general public) in your jurisdiction isn’t that pragmatic.
Perhaps the store owner has the policy BECAUSE they’ve already been sued by a barefooted person who trod on a grape and slipped?
Wear shoes to the store. Get angry about something that matters.
“What does make me a little bit annoyed is when a small demographic of people with fringe ideas choose to launch some kind of political crusade against normal people making what are essentially perfectly rational choices.”
Nope. We (the barefoot) simply want to be left alone.
“Perhaps the store owner has the policy BECAUSE they’ve already been sued by a barefooted person who trod on a grape and slipped?”
Ironically, this very thing has happened – to a shod person. And it’s been reported more than once that barefoot persons detect spills and alert staff. Listen, based on your comments, everything you think you know about shoes and feet is 180 degrees backwards. But I certainly don’t blame you for that, it’s what you’ve been told all your life.Thankfully, there are those fringe groups that often alert the larger population to the logical fallacies they accept as common sense.
~Barefoot Professor, author of The Barefoot Book: 50 Great Reasons to Kick Off Your Shoes.
Thank you for your response to this!
Please do some research. Slip/fall/injury lawsuits from barefoot customers are almost nonexistent. Such lawsuits from those wearing high heel shoes or flip flops number in the thousands. Not to mention that me making the choice to enter a store barefoot pretty much removes any chance at an injury claim that might involve my feet or lower extremities (not that I would even attempt to make such a case as I know the risks).
And any barefoot person is not going to slip from stepping on a grape. Could certainly happen with a hard-soled and/or slick-bottomed shoe.
Yes, Patrick! it would seem to follow through consistently, there would need to be an inspection of all soles, as well as someone deciding about heel height!
have to mention that adressing hazards in a hypothetical store would seem to include ensuring the area is free of broken glass and slippery residues, not restricting entry to those you perceive as more vulnerable to hazards.
Fairly high chance of broken glass in a store you might own?
I’m guessing you’d be certain to fail in your venture.
“Put some shoes on”? (edit)
Luckily for barefooters, you only represent 10% of the population at best. Sure, we are only a fraction of 1%, but at least 90% of the public accepts barefooting as is.
Hi, Leo – While I would agree that his comment came across rude, I feel I must be even handed and edit some name calling on “our side” too.
Looks like I already need to mention that comments that are rude, name calling, or just generally mean spirited will be deleted. We can discuss facts, concerns, and opinions, but if it isn’t done with consideration for others, then it will not stay in the thread.
You know me and know I’m not trying to make trouble… 🙂 If theoretically the company policy was to simply request/require customers to wear shoes and did not resort to lies and unsupportable justification would your response would have been eye-rolling, useless-flip-flop-wearing compliance or(and?) still irritated? Obviously it would still be a dumb policy, but would a simple, polite statement of “store policy requests…” still be offensive? Because yes, dumb policy and yes, consumer’s choice, but also yes, private property? I’ve just been trying to hash it out in my head all day and I guess I’m kind of stuck there. 🙂
I think I would try to have a conversation with them about their policies and see if they might understand that their position is not necessary or beneficial. I have heard of this making a difference sometimes. Sometimes it doesn’t. People are not always ready to be swayed by facts if they have opinions.
Worth trying!
The problem with the whole “shoes required in case there is broken glass, etc.” is that if you are going to consider this a potential hazard, then footwear appropriate to the potential hazard must be worn.
If there is enough glass and liquids on the floor in this hypothetical store to warrant the wearing of footwear for protection then enclosed toed footwear with slip resistant soles should be worn.
Given the (flawed) logic of the “shoes required just in case” argument, any type of footwear magically protects against any potential hazard. If I wear my moccasins as an example (soft soled) and step on a piece of jagged glass, the soft leather will offer only marginal protection from any glass.
A large piece of class would puncture the side of a foot in flip-flops.
Spilt vegetable oil will put down someone faster in high heels than someone barefoot.
And just as an aside, I’m a Texan living and working in Egypt. I have no problems with being barefoot over here and have never been denied entry into any establishment because of my barefeet.
It is only in the “Land of the free, home of the brave” that I have problems.
Thank you, Randal.
Hey Laura, interesting discussion. It really seems to matter where you live. Here in western Florida, I go barefoot into all sorts of stores all the time and no one pays attention. Even though some supermarkets have a standard “shirts and shoes required” decal sign on all of their stores, few appear to enforce it. I see someone else barefoot in a store about once a week or so. Even see some barefoot and shirtless once in a while. For example, one day last year there were 5 barefoot customers in a local supermarket along with me, and 3 were not wearing shirts either.
But what I would really like to bring up as a topic of discussion is that how the description of a “small demographic of people with fringe ideas” was not so small and not so fringe to those of us who remember the 1960’s and 1970’s. It seems that anyone who was not around then has no idea just how common going barefoot in public was back then. It was quite the fad, though it was started by hippies, it quickly became an “anti-fashion” trend among the college crowd for a few years. And I think we should tell those who are young that this was once fairly common all across much of the US and that those anti-barefoot signs originated during that time as a way to keep hippies out of stores – or what were perceived to be hippies by the “squares” of the day. Informing them of this may not change their minds, but it is another piece of the puzzle that will increase their knowledge about the subject, and may really surprise those who grew up in our current shoe-obsessed society.
Yes, TimeTraveler – when I have visited more tropical regions, being barefoot has not only been common, but encouraged in a happy sort of way by the store owners!
Why stores want to keep out anyone who is willing to spend money there, is beyond me! Possibly they thought it would dissuade other customers from entering, but if that is the case, I believe Walmart would be going out of business. So much variety in there. 🙂
I’m with you, Laura! When a store manager (or clerk) tells me they don’t want me shopping there barefoot, I politely say “oh, no problem, I’ll shop at (competitor store) from now on. Have a good day!”
I would have liked to see the expression on the store person’s face if you had said that you would take your business elsewhere that would welcome your bare feet and left them with a full shopping cart to put back.
Nice to have you drop by, Erica. This was my first such encounter and as such was more shocking than subsequent encounters have been. However, I have not been back to the store since then. I think I am getting better at the few confrontations I have had, but it is always disappointing to have them end poorly.
I have done that Erica, I was told to leave because I was barefoot, and when I said I would take my business elsewhere, the manager just replied “ok”.
One person doing so, would not change their rules, they need to lose a lot of customers to understand they can not byte the hand that feeds them.
I never understood the “No shoes, no service” mentality. Granted, here in the West Valley region of Arizona, walking around barefoot is a horrible idea most of the year 😛 The closest I get to being barefoot in public these days is with my Vibrams.
Hi, John. Yes, Arizona would have some challenges with heat tolerance! My husband thinks that mantra got started when people began to associate bare feet with rabble rousers and drug addicts. Not necessarily fair or accurate, but culture can be like that. I am personally seeing attitudes in my immediate circle change some and other people actually become interested in the advantages of being barefoot, so not all experiences are as bad as this one. 🙂