If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Chicago Trib)   Woman surprised to learn you can't bring a hungry kid to the National Restaurant Association trade show   (chicagotribune.com) divider line 180
    More: PSA, Chicago, McCormick Place, Clearly  
•       •       •

8841 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 May 2014 at 6:15 AM (17 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



180 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-19 12:17:03 PM

Satan's Bunny Slippers: The Flexecutioner: Satan's Bunny Slippers: The Flexecutioner: Satan's Bunny Slippers: The Flexecutioner:  This is simply a rule inflexibly taken to extremes.


rule
rool/
noun
1.
one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.

Words.  They mean things.

Yep.  I love it when a 6 year old is expelled from school for making a gun gesture with his fingers.  Zero tolerance is totally legit.  Totally.

/meanings have meaning

Ah, another strawman generator.  I shall farkie you as such.

One of those has absolutely nothing to do with the other, but you go ahead, you disingenuous farker, you.

likewise.  you didnt actually put forth a genuine sentiment but a condescending ridicule, an extrapolated irrational connotation to what EVERY rule must adhere to based on one of many interpretive definitions of 'rule'.  it is so common you arent even worth a farkie, you disingenuous farker, you.


yes, yes, run along.


by all means, dont refute your hypocrisy.
 
2014-05-19 12:18:50 PM

ConConHead: I work in disability and maternity leave laws so I can say a few things in regards to the baby...

Standard post-partum recovery is 6 weeks, 8 for a C-Section.
Her employer may not be obligated to offer Maternity Leave/Family Medical Leave if their company is under 50 employees, which a winery would likely be. (I'm not counting the people picking the grapes.)
Her employer may not be obligated to offer her Maternity/FML if she's a "Key" employee, meaning nobody can replace her.

That said,  she was out of line in assuming she'd be excempt from the "no children" rule without first asking if this could be allowed. But honestly, if I had a baby 10 days ago, I'd not want to be up on my feet dealing with trade show attendees all day long. Not to mention the noise, germs, and constant interruptions to feed said baby or change nappies... Bad choice on her part all around.


After all that concern-mongering, you must be exhausted.

Oh no, not germs. Not diaper changes. Why what a terrible mother she must be to expose her baby to the public after a mere 10 days out of the womb. Why in the history of motherhood, well, I never heard of such.

tsk, tsk tsk.

I think you'll be putting your hand to your forehead and saying, "I swan," any moment now.
 
2014-05-19 12:22:46 PM

Doc Daneeka: Accidents happen, particularly in a crowded place with heavy equipment, fire, and knives.  I'm not even talking about the infant doing anything.  You people lack imagination.  Scalding liquids can be spilled, knives can be dropped, people can turn and collide, people can trip and fall, etc.  The baby doesn't have to do or cause anything, it is easy to imagine how injuries could happen to a child.  Particularly in a crowded place, with a new mother who isn't accustomed yet to getting around with a child strapped to her.


If the risks of serious injury due to blades or burns are as great as you indicate the event seems to be violating OSHA regulations by not requiring all attendees to wear appropriate personal protective equipment.

I also note that all your objections would apply in restaurants - probably even moreso, where women in IL do have the right to breastfeed.
 
2014-05-19 12:39:47 PM

Target Builder: The My Little Pony Killer: eggrolls: a 10 day old baby isn't a baby. It's a omnipresent parasite in a pink blanket. You can't not feed the little monster. And she shouldn't be penalized for it's presence.

Except in the event that it's presence was clearly stated as not being allowed, as it was in this situation.

Whether the event organizers are legally allowed to set that rule is debatable - the Lawyer in TFA says the law allowing a woman to breastfeed anywhere where she is legally allowed to be can be overruled by safety concerns, however by the standard the trade show is applying ("It's too dangerous - there are knives in the same building!") seems more stringent than the safety exemption would have been intended for.

Given the law does protect women in restaurants, where there are frequently both knives and open flames in close proximity to infants, the NRA may have over-stepped valid safety claims in this instance.


Except the breast feeding is totally irrelevant to the story.  If she and the infant were allowed to be in the show and were evicted due to breast-feeding then yes, it's a point that must be addressed.  But she is allowed in and the infant is not.  Plain and simple.  The baby isn't a get away from the rules and do whatever I want because I may need to nurse it at some point in time card.
 
2014-05-19 12:40:32 PM

fredklein: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: What about a two-year-old? Or a five-year-old loaded up on sugar?

They should be banned.

Would your version of these rules say "No body between the ages 16 and n (where n is the age at which a child first becomes difficult to manage) admitted"?

No. But there would be an exception for babies.

You see, if you're concerned about kids 'running around' and getting into trouble, then that, by definition, doesn't apply to a baby, who cannot run (or even crawl).


But it could be an insurance issue.  They get a cheaper insurance rate if they check the "no children" box.  Having an infant would mean that their ARE children present, and change their insurance rates.
 
2014-05-19 12:44:38 PM

Target Builder: The My Little Pony Killer: eggrolls: a 10 day old baby isn't a baby. It's a omnipresent parasite in a pink blanket. You can't not feed the little monster. And she shouldn't be penalized for it's presence.

Except in the event that it's presence was clearly stated as not being allowed, as it was in this situation.

Whether the event organizers are legally allowed to set that rule is debatable - the Lawyer in TFA says the law allowing a woman to breastfeed anywhere where she is legally allowed to be can be overruled by safety concerns, however by the standard the trade show is applying ("It's too dangerous - there are knives in the same building!") seems more stringent than the safety exemption would have been intended for.

Given the law does protect women in restaurants, where there are frequently both knives and open flames in close proximity to infants, the NRA may have over-stepped valid safety claims in this instance.



My guess that the "safety concerns" were defined by the insurance company they is providing the liability insurance for the event.  IF children are in attendance, they might have to pay more for insurance.  So to prove that they don't have legitimate safety concerns would be also proving that the insurance company has no reason to charge more.   Good luck with that.
 
2014-05-19 12:45:23 PM

BizarreMan: Except the breast feeding is totally irrelevant to the story.  If she and the infant were allowed to be in the show and were evicted due to breast-feeding then yes, it's a point that must be addressed.  But she is allowed in and the infant is not.  Plain and simple.  The baby isn't a get away from the rules and do whatever I want because I may need to nurse it at some point in time card.


Relevant text of the law:

" Sec. 10. Breastfeeding Location.  A mother may breastfeed her baby in any location, public or private, where the mother is otherwise authorized to be, irrespective of whether the nipple of the mother's breast is uncovered during or incidental to the breastfeeding; however, a mother considering whether to breastfeed her baby in a place of worship shall comport her behavior with the norms appropriate in that place of worship. "

She was authorized to be there.

I'd be interested to see the relevant section of law that provides an exemption if the venue says children are not permitted. I'm having a hard time finding it - perhaps you can help me out.
 
2014-05-19 12:49:39 PM

Satan's Bunny Slippers: Why are so many people ITT bringing up breastfeeding?  Breastfeeding was never the issue with this woman.  The fact that she brought her CHILD to an event that did not allow CHILDREN is the issue.

No one cares about her tits except her kid.


Not true.  She brought it up in the article as a defense for why she brought the baby, and why they should have let her stay with the kid in the convention.
 
2014-05-19 12:53:26 PM
No kids allowed, including babes in arms. That much is clear, but as for breastfeeding offending sensibilities, get over it.

While the prudish countries of the world wring their hands about whether breastfeeding is a body function, the rest of the world ignores it, smiles at it, and openly supports it.

Three days ago, a woman sat down in front of me on the metro with her child, pulled out her boob and started to breastfeed in a standing room only rush hour train car. At least 15 people saw part of her boob, and more knew what she was doing.

There was not even a pause in conversation. No one cares, nor should they.

This is in South America, but I have also had this happen in Europe, where I am from.

I have only ever heard people from the States, Canada, British Isles, or Australia give a damn about the fact that boobs are primarily for feeding the young or that women don't want to feed their kids in the bathroom. (why don't you go eat your dinner 3 feet from a smelly stall in a public bathroom and see how you like it)

The woman in the article was wrong to bring her kid, but those complaining about breastfeeding need to grow the hell up and get over it.
 
2014-05-19 01:05:21 PM

bigbobowski: yes, the time hollowed fark thread where one self entitled b*tch is outraged because she can't whip her t*t out and start lactating wherever she wants. oh god. other people have sensibilities too. maybe you could respect those.


It's not really so much about breastfeeding here. It's more because she KNEW that children under the age of 16 weren't permitted at the trade show because of safety issues (open flames, knives, etc.). She wasn't denied entry to the trade show because she was breastfeeding. She was denied entry because she had a child with her.
 
2014-05-19 01:05:32 PM

J.Shelby: Satan's Bunny Slippers: Why are so many people ITT bringing up breastfeeding?  Breastfeeding was never the issue with this woman.  The fact that she brought her CHILD to an event that did not allow CHILDREN is the issue.

No one cares about her tits except her kid.

Not true.  She brought it up in the article as a defense for why she brought the baby, and why they should have let her stay with the kid in the convention.


True in that she was NOT told to leave because she was breastfeeding.  That was a non issue.  The issue is there are no children allowed at the event, and a 10 day old baby is still a child, therefore not allowed at the event.

She only brought up breastfeeding as her excuse to exempt herself from the attendance rules of the event without checking in advance to see if that would indeed be the case.

So, no, it's not about breastfeeding.
 
2014-05-19 01:10:04 PM

gulogulo: You are quite defensive to being asked to back up your statements of insider knowledge. That's interesting.


You are failing to counter my arguments and are *only* questioning my knowledge.

That`s boring.
 
2014-05-19 01:22:19 PM

Rain Fall: No kids allowed, including babes in arms. That much is clear, but as for breastfeeding offending sensibilities, get over it.

While the prudish countries of the world wring their hands about whether breastfeeding is a body function, the rest of the world ignores it, smiles at it, and openly supports it.

Three days ago, a woman sat down in front of me on the metro with her child, pulled out her boob and started to breastfeed in a standing room only rush hour train car. At least 15 people saw part of her boob, and more knew what she was doing.



So in other words....she exposed a group of people to her bodily fluids which may or may not be contaminated with bloodborne pathogens including, but not limited to, Hep-B or HIV.
 
2014-05-19 01:23:06 PM

ConConHead: I work in disability and maternity leave laws so I can say a few things in regards to the baby...

Standard post-partum recovery is 6 weeks, 8 for a C-Section.
Her employer may not be obligated to offer Maternity Leave/Family Medical Leave if their company is under 50 employees, which a winery would likely be. (I'm not counting the people picking the grapes.)
Her employer may not be obligated to offer her Maternity/FML if she's a "Key" employee, meaning nobody can replace her.

That said,  she was out of line in assuming she'd be excempt from the "no children" rule without first asking if this could be allowed. But honestly, if I had a baby 10 days ago, I'd not want to be up on my feet dealing with trade show attendees all day long. Not to mention the noise, germs, and constant interruptions to feed said baby or change nappies... Bad choice on her part all around.


Yeah, while I think it's kinda rotten that she was kicked out AFTER being let in WITH the baby, I too think she's either very dedicated to her business, to the detriment of her own and baby's well-being, or just a glutton for punishment.
 
2014-05-19 01:31:30 PM

dready zim: gulogulo: You are quite defensive to being asked to back up your statements of insider knowledge. That's interesting.

You are failing to counter my arguments and are *only* questioning my knowledge.

That`s boring.


Yup.

/Would people really do that? Just go on the internet and lie?
 
2014-05-19 01:35:11 PM

BizarreMan: Target Builder: The My Little Pony Killer: eggrolls: a 10 day old baby isn't a baby. It's a omnipresent parasite in a pink blanket. You can't not feed the little monster. And she shouldn't be penalized for it's presence.

Except in the event that it's presence was clearly stated as not being allowed, as it was in this situation.

Whether the event organizers are legally allowed to set that rule is debatable - the Lawyer in TFA says the law allowing a woman to breastfeed anywhere where she is legally allowed to be can be overruled by safety concerns, however by the standard the trade show is applying ("It's too dangerous - there are knives in the same building!") seems more stringent than the safety exemption would have been intended for.

Given the law does protect women in restaurants, where there are frequently both knives and open flames in close proximity to infants, the NRA may have over-stepped valid safety claims in this instance.

Except the breast feeding is totally irrelevant to the story.  If she and the infant were allowed to be in the show and were evicted due to breast-feeding then yes, it's a point that must be addressed.  But she is allowed in and the infant is not.  Plain and simple.  The baby isn't a get away from the rules and do whatever I want because I may need to nurse it at some point in time card.


So why did they let her in with the baby in the first place?
 
2014-05-19 01:41:40 PM
dopekitty74:

So why did they let her in with the baby in the first place?

I have no proof, but having been to a couple of trade shows, both as exhibitor and attendee, I'd guess (and it's only a guess) that in the chaos of getting through the back exhibitor entrance, she basically slipped through.  Pretty much once you get your exhibitor ID tag (usually in advance) around your neck in plain view, no one really pays attention to you unless you're doing something weird.  A baby that old wouldn't be hard to semi-conceal under a loose shawl/babby carrier/sling thing.

Like I said, just a guess, but I'd be willing to put up a soft drink for it.  :)
 
2014-05-19 01:57:00 PM

Target Builder: BizarreMan: Except the breast feeding is totally irrelevant to the story.  If she and the infant were allowed to be in the show and were evicted due to breast-feeding then yes, it's a point that must be addressed.  But she is allowed in and the infant is not.  Plain and simple.  The baby isn't a get away from the rules and do whatever I want because I may need to nurse it at some point in time card.

Relevant text of the law:

" Sec. 10. Breastfeeding Location.  A mother may breastfeed her baby in any location, public or private, where the mother is otherwise authorized to be, irrespective of whether the nipple of the mother's breast is uncovered during or incidental to the breastfeeding; however, a mother considering whether to breastfeed her baby in a place of worship shall comport her behavior with the norms appropriate in that place of worship. "

She was authorized to be there.

I'd be interested to see the relevant section of law that provides an exemption if the venue says children are not permitted. I'm having a hard time finding it - perhaps you can help me out.


The law is clearly intended to allow a mothers to breastfeed in any location that she and her child are authorized to be.

It cannot be the case that the breastfeeding law is intended to enable mothers to bring small children into places that children are not allowed (whether for safety, security, or other reasons), because that would be an absurd loophole.  There are many places that children are not allowed to be for any number of reasons.
 
2014-05-19 02:37:33 PM

Target Builder: BizarreMan: Except the breast feeding is totally irrelevant to the story.  If she and the infant were allowed to be in the show and were evicted due to breast-feeding then yes, it's a point that must be addressed.  But she is allowed in and the infant is not.  Plain and simple.  The baby isn't a get away from the rules and do whatever I want because I may need to nurse it at some point in time card.

Relevant text of the law:

" Sec. 10. Breastfeeding Location.  A mother may breastfeed her baby in any location, public or private, where the mother is otherwise authorized to be, irrespective of whether the nipple of the mother's breast is uncovered during or incidental to the breastfeeding; however, a mother considering whether to breastfeed her baby in a place of worship shall comport her behavior with the norms appropriate in that place of worship. "

She was authorized to be there.

I'd be interested to see the relevant section of law that provides an exemption if the venue says children are not permitted. I'm having a hard time finding it - perhaps you can help me out.


So she is free to breastfeed all she wants.  That isn't the issue.  The infant was not allowed to be there.  So the infant had to leave.  As the infants caretakers, that means she had to leave with the baby.
 
2014-05-19 02:44:34 PM
My wife was breastfeeding our son one day and some jackass cop decided to try to give her a ticket.  If I had known that there was a law stating "A mother may breastfeed her baby in any location, public or private, where the mother is otherwise authorized to be..", I would have told her to ignore the cop and keep driving.
 
2014-05-19 03:22:06 PM
ts4.mm.bing.net
Add kids+ wood spoons and we got hell.
 
2014-05-19 04:04:23 PM
Osborne, 31, knew about the trade show rule that does not allow children under 16, she said, but did not think it would apply to her sleeping, 10-day-old baby wrapped closely to her chest.

What?  When you say "no children", you mean *my* children?

lol
 
2014-05-19 05:20:53 PM

fredklein: skozlaw: fredklein: What about...

What about "all children for safety reasons" is confusing to you?

There is no issue here. At all. No matter how hard you try to make one. All children. Because sharp knives and fire.

End of story.

How, exactly, can a baby, strapped to mommy, get ahold of a knife (not to mention magically grow the muscles and coordination needed to grab it)??

How, exactly, can a baby, strapped to mommy, wind up wandering around to crawl into an oven, or get burned??

I agree the ban on children is a good one- kids can get into all sorts of trouble... But not a 10 day old baby strapped to mommy.


I have worked retail and have seen parents with babies do the most insane, unthinking, dangerous things. And I've gone to Walmart and seen far worse.

I watched a woman with a newborn (later revealed to be 1 week old) try to haul a heavy box, balancing part of it on the baby in the sling so she could pull it off the shelf.

I watched another woman, frustrated by the slow meandering pace of her toddler, yank the leash, causing the kid to fall, and then DRAG him about 10 feet.

Another fool dashed for the revolving door lugging a toddler and didn't get the timing right.

I've also had babies puke on books, sneeze all over the salad bar, etc.

Parenting definitely isn't for everybody, and even the smart ones can't be omniscient and omnipresent.

Unless it's a specifically family-friendly show that welcomes kids, the child will be a problem for liability and for adding to the mix of noise and distraction. Rules exist for a reason.
 
2014-05-19 05:23:19 PM

fredklein: dready zim: fredklein: dready zim: Also, this is the insurance company saying `we will only insure the over 16 at your event` which is stated pretty plain and does not have a baby exclusion clause...

Over 16? fine.
under16? sorry, no admittance.

It`s pretty simple stuff and no reason to get your panties in a twist.

What about a pregnant woman? Does the baby count as 'under 16'??

Strawman. There is no baby, a pregnant woman is one entity for insurance purposes.

So, one second it's "a single person", but a few minutes and a little pushing later it's an unacceptable insurance risk. Nice.


Take it to the abortion threads where it belongs. 

This is about whether there is one body or two -- if the womb is occupied, that's one person.
 
2014-05-19 06:43:55 PM
I read the first maybe third of the comments, and some of you people are such self-entitled a-holes that I thought I'd better chime in and set you dumbfarks right.

How about an emergency occurs at the event and there is a mad scramble.  She's top heavy what with swollen knockers and a baby in a sling thing, and thus takes a tumble in a mad scramble to escape.  The baby, with it's still-forming skull, is severely injured, far more than any adult would be in a similar situation.  Who pays for his extensive future medical care, when a sane policy could have been put in place to protect the child (as it was, in this case, by excluding children)?

Or how about I provide a solution to the whole thing:  She's in town for a few days, apparently, for a multi-day trade show (correct me if I'm wrong about that.  So, she obviously has a hotel room in town.  How about the husband and two other kids come along and he can watch them all day while she works?  Or maybe you bring some neighbor kid with you to babysit?  Or maybe you find child care in Chicago for a couple of days?  No can do?  OK, then I guess you can't make the reality of your life match what you want to do with your career.  Tough.  That is, by definition, life.  Not everything works out just so.
 
2014-05-19 06:49:50 PM

dopekitty74: BizarreMan: Target Builder: The My Little Pony Killer: eggrolls: a 10 day old baby isn't a baby. It's a omnipresent parasite in a pink blanket. You can't not feed the little monster. And she shouldn't be penalized for it's presence.

Except in the event that it's presence was clearly stated as not being allowed, as it was in this situation.

Whether the event organizers are legally allowed to set that rule is debatable - the Lawyer in TFA says the law allowing a woman to breastfeed anywhere where she is legally allowed to be can be overruled by safety concerns, however by the standard the trade show is applying ("It's too dangerous - there are knives in the same building!") seems more stringent than the safety exemption would have been intended for.

Given the law does protect women in restaurants, where there are frequently both knives and open flames in close proximity to infants, the NRA may have over-stepped valid safety claims in this instance.

Except the breast feeding is totally irrelevant to the story.  If she and the infant were allowed to be in the show and were evicted due to breast-feeding then yes, it's a point that must be addressed.  But she is allowed in and the infant is not.  Plain and simple.  The baby isn't a get away from the rules and do whatever I want because I may need to nurse it at some point in time card.

So why did they let her in with the baby in the first place?


Because somebody made a mistake and it was later corrected.
 
2014-05-19 08:51:25 PM

Man On A Mission: What part of "no children allowed" did she not understand?

/ yes, the rules DO apply to you


Done in one. Don't see a problem here. If it's clearly posted that no children are allowed, and she clearly acknowledged it, then it's a non-story. The only, only reason we're seeing anything about it here is that the initials "NRA" are involved.
 
2014-05-19 11:52:24 PM
FTA:

who takes charge of marketing for her family-owned Spring Valley winery, Four Daughters Vineyard


I now think there was another ploy - any publicity is good publicity. Guess who I am going to advocate boycotting?
 
2014-05-20 12:50:25 PM

JustLookin: I read the first maybe third of the comments, and some of you people are such self-entitled a-holes that I thought I'd better chime in and set you dumbfarks right.

How about an emergency occurs at the event and there is a mad scramble.  She's top heavy what with swollen knockers and a baby in a sling thing, and thus takes a tumble in a mad scramble to escape.  The baby, with it's still-forming skull, is severely injured, far more than any adult would be in a similar situation.  Who pays for his extensive future medical care, when a sane policy could have been put in place to protect the child (as it was, in this case, by excluding children)?

Or how about I provide a solution to the whole thing:  She's in town for a few days, apparently, for a multi-day trade show (correct me if I'm wrong about that.  So, she obviously has a hotel room in town.  How about the husband and two other kids come along and he can watch them all day while she works?  Or maybe you bring some neighbor kid with you to babysit?  Or maybe you find child care in Chicago for a couple of days?  No can do?  OK, then I guess you can't make the reality of your life match what you want to do with your career.  Tough.  That is, by definition, life.  Not everything works out just so.


Or the rest of the world could just stfu while the infant quietly sleeps on her chest at the goddamned trade show.

See how farking simple that was. One sentence even.

/assholes
 
2014-05-20 05:11:34 PM

Hermione_Granger: Or the rest of the world could just stfu while the infant quietly sleeps on her chest at the goddamned trade show.


Because that's what babies do, they quietly sleep.  They never scream and throw a fit bothering everyone around them.
 
Displayed 30 of 180 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report