Your situation was so far up the page, I didn't even recall it. You quoted Mike Farley and I responded with that post as the sole context.
You now the irony is if the cashier was on the phone the customer would be fuming that the cashier wasn't giving them their full attention. It works both ways, unlesss that phone call is a matter of life and death (which it isn't or you wouldn't be shopping) call them back.
^^^ I worked at a major retailer last year. We had this one customer who decided I was his personal shopper or something -- he kept asking me questions (which is fine) and then ordering me to put the stuff he wanted in his cart (that's not how it works, buddy). After the first item, he answered a phone call ("I have to take this") and stayed on the phone for the rest of the visit. (Didn't stop him from insisting I help him with everything, though.) When we got to the register, he totally ignored the poor cashier and she and I had to resort to yelling at him to tell him his card had been declined -- he'd turned his back to her as he carried on his phone conversation. Incredibly rude and entitled.
maybe they flirting with you ? A few weeks back I had a Walmart cashier - comment on almost everything, I bought, she saw the dog food and proceeded to tell me about her rescues, when she got to sewing pattern and asked if sew, I lied -I was then a bit of a jerk and told her I am in hurry, raport builidng is not done at the cashier line -
Came across this news story Cashier refuses to serve customer who is on mobile phone. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23158579 Now whilst i think it was wrong to refuse the customer service, I would say that the customer was being rude by not giving the cashier their full attention. If the roles had been reversed and the Cashier was on the phone, the customer would likely consider the cashier rude. It works both ways.
While both examples would certainly be rude (especially if the customer is ignoring the cashier in favor of paying attention to the call) excepting some emergency, if you're trying to suggest that there's some equivalency in rudeness between an employee talking on a cellphone during work hours and a customer doing so while shopping, then there's no comparison at all. The customer is not obligated to do anything, it's simply polite to do so. The employee is obligated to serve the customer, however, barring some kind of abusive behavior, and for them to take personal calls at the expense of helping the customer would be totally out of line.
There's no need for customers to give cashiers their full attention. If they are holding up the line by not expediting their business then that's out of order, otherwise cashiers have no reasonable expectations of having a customer's full attention. I don't even think it is impolite really, it's a functional transaction, not a social club.
It's not an unreasnable expectation for you to give another human your full attention when they are providing you with a service. Be it in a shop, bank, restaurant etc... It's simply good manners. If you must take a phone call/make one whilst you are at the point of service, 99% most of the times a simple "Exucse me but I have to take this call" or something similar will suffice. It shows you are acknowledging the person in front of you not ignoring them.
Why should it matter to a cashier whether they are being payed attention to or not if such attention is not actually required to complete the transaction? Why isn't it considered rude to take somebody away from their personal business when there is no need to?
Sometimes the cashier has a question and therefore does need the attention of the customer. They shouldn't have to compete with someone on the other end of a phone call to get it.
As long as you are paying enough attention to see if a problem has occurred, I don't see the issue. You don't need to end a phone call just to keep one eye on what is going on.
Then why should it matter to the customer if the assistant doesn't give them their full attention? Customers expect quite rightly that the person assisting them gives them their full attention. It's not unreasonable that the asssitant would expect the same curtesy. If she didn't want to interact with an asssitant, we have these marvellous devices now in the big supermarkets they are called self-scan checkouts. You can use them to your hearts content with minimal interaction with an assistant. Agreed, highlighting that an item is on a BOGOF deal or that a bigger size is actually cheaper at the moment, or checking if you accidently picked up say 2 of the same paper.
Perhaps you don't understand the concept of being employed to do a job, versus that of being a customer somebody is employed to serve?
Oh I fully understand, it's just that I was brought up with good manners and feel it is only right to give my attention to the person serving me.
But that has nothing to do with the cashier's need to pay attention to the customer, which is something they are paid to do. A cashier doesn't pay attention to a customer because they have good manners, they do it because that is their job. The equivalency you suggest does not exist. This is hyperbole, taking a phonecall while you are also chucking things in a bag is not treating someone like a serf or taking them for granted, it is letting them do their job while you get on with what you want to do.
Hyperbole is feeling that folks who need to respond to that cell phone like Pavlov's dog should just have the thing nailed to their heads. Civility is not hyperbole, nor is enabling selfish and callow disregard of others something I care to support.
Selfish and callow disregard? Ramping up the hyperbole even further hasn't really made your point. We are talking about a minor social foible here, not treating somebody like a slave, or insulting them. Some people are just very busy. Not me as it happens, but I certainly don't think less of people just because they want to take a phone call at a checkout.