1st July 2025

When did it all go wrong?

After the various health travails that many, if not all of us, must go through as we get a bit older, I find myself having to have yet another blood test.

My GP told me that despite wanting to do some checks on my various medications he cannot do that blood test for many weeks as their nurse who does these things is off sick for a couple of weeks. Due to this I had to make an appointment at an NHS unit near me.

I booked for the first available appointment (some 3 weeks away) and accordingly turned up, early, to a huge building that used to be the HQ years ago for the Birmingham & Midshires, a place I had visited many times in my past life as an adviser.

This centre offered a myriad of services and has a great reputation in the area. I followed all the Sellotape or blu-tacked ‘home made’ signs directing me to the first floor. The first thing I see as I arrive at the ‘Blood Test’ entrance is the now almost compulsory ‘get your warning in first’ message of:

“Don’t abuse us”, another section of wall continued the theme with messages to tell me and anyone else that “It is not nice being threatened over the Phone” another message noted that “some days the abuse is really bad”

This is a very worrying trend, the sentiment is understood but why? As in every aspect of life these days there are two sides to consider and as that old Rod Stewart song went “Every picture tells a story”, in this  case the NHS  posters certainly tell one side.

The NHS is not alone. Most government departments chant the same mantras as I am sure anyone reading this will attest to. HMRC for starters?

This message of what will not be tolerated has spread to financial services with many big brand customer call centres often having this message as soon as a call is answered.

We accept this, sadly, as the norm, but how did it get to this.

I think that Covid and the arrival of ‘Working from Home may have to take some blame but why do so many firms have pre recorded warnings about abuse not being tolerated?

Many firms include such warnings for several important reasons—legal, ethical, and operational, here are a few reasons to consider.

Protecting Employees. Many companies have a legal and moral obligation to provide a safe work environment. Abuse—whether verbal, physical, or emotional—can harm employees and create a toxic workplace.

Such warnings, like the NHS’s, sends a message that it stands behind its staff and will act against mistreatment, especially in customer-facing roles (e.g., retail, call centre’s, healthcare).

Then for the lawyers, who can get quite rich on the back of abuse from customers. Employers can be held legally responsible if they knowingly allow abuse to occur or fail to intervene. Clear policies help mitigate legal risk and demonstrate due diligence.

DEI requires anti-abuse policies which can help with compliance related to workplace laws, like harassment and health & safety regulations.

Firms publicly committing to a zero-tolerance stance helps reinforce a company’s values and brand. Firms don’t want to be seen as tolerating mistreatment of staff or customers.

Employee Retention and Morale can get a boost as a firm that protects its people tends to have higher morale and lower turnover. Staff are more loyal and engaged when they know their wellbeing is prioritised, this gives the company grounds to take action if abuse occurs, such as denying service or removing someone from a space.

But what about the customer in all this, are they not allowed to express their feelings about the goods or services they have paid for that have come up to their expectation?

Unfortunately, there’s been an increase in reported abuse toward workers in many sectors (e.g., healthcare, transport, hospitality). Firms are responding by being proactive with signage and policies.

But one thing that all of these points fail to address is that in so many cases today, abuse as wrong as it is, is often caused by sheer poor communications, poor service, poor staff attitudes, poor products. These messages can pour gasoline on an already well lit fire.

But what are the trigger points for creating such angst?

Many abusive outbursts happen when people feel ignored, powerless, or stressed—especially in high-stakes environments like healthcare, welfare systems, product or  customer service issues.

This week we hear that serious bullying and harassment within financial advice firms will qualify as misconduct under rules confirmed by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).The FCA said there was “widespread support” for extending these rules in response to its previous consultation.

Any business, any public or governmental body not addressing these root causes should beware. The warning may appear performative—like it protects the system but in no way does it have any empathy with the people struggling within its web of entanglement. 

Simply saying “abuse won’t be tolerated” can really raise hackles. To the customer it just feels like a shutdown rather than an effort to understand or resolve underlying frustrations.

Systemic issues such as long call menu selection wait times, call accidental or deliberate disconnection, bureaucracy, confusing policies, or past poor customer experience can fuel anger. Many bosses will never had to use the same ‘contact us’ channels that their customers do, they should try it sometime! 

I could go on, but I hope this sharing of the unintended consequences of getting an NHS blood test has cast some light on a problem that a return to some nicer days when businesses and institutions provided good products and services, that phones were answered by a person and definitely not from in a call centre the other side of the world by somebody you cannot understand and that the business you were trying to call had a number you could call and get a human answer it, not just an e mail address.

And stop messages like ‘Your call is important to us’ when often it really seems it is not. To quote ’The Donald’, the customer view of this type of holding message will always be ‘they haven’t got a f*****g clue.

Panacea Comment