Anyone who has worked in a customer facing job has probably had a run in with a rude or angry customer, disgruntled by the service.
Amid these more irate instances, there are also reports of cases of sexual harassment by customers and clients that staff are widely unable to protect themselves against.
From groping of waitstaff to inappropriate comments directed at shop assistants, a new amendment to the Equality Act 2010 could make employers liable to protect their staff against these actions.
The Worker Protection Bill is currently on the way to becoming a law, with cross party backing, but there are concerns about it being misused.
Discover, learn, grow. We are Curiously. Follow us on TikTok, Instagram, Facebook and Twitter.
Those against the Bill, such as Tory MP Christopher Chope, have said it could be used by other businesses to sue their rivals, but this has been criticised by Bill sponsor MP Wera Hobhouse as "oversimplified".
In a nutshell, the amendment means employers must put in place provisions to protect staff members against sexual harassment while on duty. The Bill makes companies legally liable for inappropriate behaviour faced by employees from customers and clients.
If a company fails to put reasonable steps in place then the harassed staff member is able to take legal action against the business, not just against the harasser. It also requires a boost in the compensation given in these types of cases.
One in 10 retail staff have faced sexual harassment such as inappropriate touching while at work, both from customers and co-workers.
A third of people working in the industry added that they felt their employer could have done more to prevent this.
Liberal Democrats Hobhouse and Baroness Burt of Solihull sponsor the amendment, which has passed through the Commons and is now on the committee stage in the Lords.
It still has a third reading in the House of Lords before it can become legally binding with the Royal Assent.
Hobhouse told Sky News: "This bill is being oversimplified by critics... employers will not be expected to take extreme steps, shut down conversation, or employ 'banter bouncers'."
This was in response to Toby Young, from the Free Speech Union, who said workers would report sexist language from customers - suggesting places like pubs would have to put up "no banter" signs.
Hobhouse clarified that this is not the intention, instead the Bill "aims to create workplaces where people treat each other with respect and where third parties are expected to do the same".
"The hurdles employees have to jump when holding their employers to account for failing to protect from harassment are too high and victims feel silenced," she added.
In the Equality Act 2010 there was a three strike policy included to support staff and make employers liable but this was repealed by the Coalition government in 2013 - the new Bill would reinstate some protection.
The Worker Protection Bill had one amendment made during an early reading, expressly removing liability for companies in the instance of overheard conversations about "protected characteristics" such as race, religion, gender and sexuality.
Even with this amendment, overheard conversations that constitute as sexual harassment are still under the liability of employers.
Do you have a story to share? We pay for stories. Email us at yourmirror@mirror.co.uk
