I need 4 question answered please

Should Store Managers Force Employees to Pierce Kids' Ears Against Their Wishes? Chapter 13 A former Claire's employee in Edmonton, Canada, Is calling out the accessories chain for its piercing policies to the company asking them to "Please do better and Raylene Marks believes store employees should update their policy to address children's domain over their bodies. She says corporate has since informed respect children's boundaries with regard to their bod- her that they are reviewing and revising their policy les. She described a recent distressing situation in and investigating how Marks' store manager handled which o 7-year-old child's mother continually pres. the incident sured her to allow Marks to plerce her ears. "The girl pleaded and sobbed for 30 minutes not to be plerced. "Despite mom saying, "Honey, we can What Would You Recommend to go home whenever you want, she was not letting her Claire's Regarding Their Store Policies daughter go home. She was putting a great deal of on Piercing? pressure on her daughter to go through with the plerc ing." said Marks. She added that the child was "articu 1. Claire's policy doesn't specifically address child late, smart and well aware of herself and her body" consent, but it is ambiguous enough to allow for and "expressed that she didn't want us touching her employees to use discretion in such cases with out fear of termination. Morks manager simply that we were standing too close, that she was feeling uncomfortable." Marks says the child "made it clear Interpreted the policy Incorrectly. Claire's should do a better Job training their managers in the she no longer wanted to get her ears pierced." application of company policies The mother eventually left the store without forcing her child to have her ears pierced. Marks later informed 2. Stores should be allowed to come up with their her manager that she would not have consented to do own policies and parents should be left to par the plercing without the child's express consent to and ont as they see fit. The manager wasn't breaking any laws or violating company policy, therefore comfort with the procedure. Morks says her manager she was correct in telling Marks that her job told her the job required her to pierce children's anns would have required her to pierce without the even if they were being physically restrained by guard child's consent. Claire's should not have to lans and in clear distress revise its policy. Policy 509 in the company's manual states that "We 3. Claire's should revise its policy to clearly reserve the right to refuse ancor piercing if a succOSS- ful one cannot be done." but Marks says the policy address child safety concerns. No child should makes no mention of physical restraint or employees be forced to be pierced against their will, and rights to refuse to pierce due to child welfare concerns omployees should have the discretion to refuse to pierce children's cars for these reasons Marks quither job at Claire's after the conversation with her manager. She says any subsequent refusals of 4. Invent other options this sort would have resulted in her being disciplined and potentially fired. Marks has written an open letter