Main > Everything Else
POLL: Receipt - show or not?
SavannahLion:
--- Quote from: ChadTower on September 05, 2007, 02:25:46 pm ---
--- Quote from: SavannahLion on September 05, 2007, 02:19:00 pm ---No, what he means is that some store have the program in place to validate the honesty of the cashier in question. In other words, to ensure the cashier really did charge you for everything in your bag.
--- End quote ---
I can accept that they may want to do that but the honesty of their cashier is their problem, not mine, and I'm not willing to spend extra time in their store over it. I'm the customer, not an employee or stockholder.
--- End quote ---
I understand that, just because I know the why of it, doesn't mean I think it's right or even agreeable. It's just the way your comment is worded made it sound that that customers shoplifting is the primary reason whereas patrickl is talking about the store double checking their cashiers being the reason. Technically, both of you are correct in your stated reasoning behind the why, how right you are depends on which store you're talking about.
tommy:
Even this at the door is not fool proof. I recall a few times the lazy guy at the door looks at my receipt but does not look in my bag to see if it matches what i bought. Again, as stated above, the store's theft problem is their problem not mine. I am not part of their company and do not have to follow their rules.
Dmod:
Usually, the guy at the door doesn't even check what's in the bag against the receipt. I've always assumed that this is more of a psychological barrier to theft than actual protection.
I've always treated this as a 'store policy' and don't find it any more offensive than other policies like 'no shirts, no shoes, no service'.
Not sure what all the hype is about. I'd understand if the store was trying to detain you and violate your privacy by forcing you to submit to a personal search, but this is presumably a check of a bag they just handed to you. If looking at the items wasn't an invasion of privacy when the cashier looked at them, I'm not sure how it becomes an issue when the doorman does.
If you're unhappy with the store's policy, you can try to fight City Hall and argue with them. But I think you'll wield much more influence by doing your shopping somewhere else.
Texasmame:
--- Quote from: Zero_Hour on September 04, 2007, 11:14:37 pm ---
--- Quote from: bfauska on September 04, 2007, 10:52:52 pm ---I CHOOSE to VOLUNTARILY show my receipt and items. I don't believe it is legal for them to REQUIRE it though.
--- End quote ---
Likewise, I show my receipt. It annoys me, but like George McFly "I'm not very good with confrontations" :P The practice amuses the hell out of me though, knowing full well that the majority of "shrikage" these stores suffer is at the hands of their employees.
--- End quote ---
Very true. Employee theft is far and away the #1 problem in retail as far as losses goes.
shmokes:
Oh that's rich. Not only do you think we should put up with insulting searches that are likely (and definitely should be) unconstitutional. But you don't even think that there is an overriding public necessity for the searches. You don't even think that they are effective, or even address the actual problem of shrinkage that stores are facing. I mean, it IS a warrantless, suspicionless search. I'm sure you can agree with that. It is my private property and they want to force me to open it up to inspection. It seems to me that the ONLY remotely justifiable argument you could possibly make is that the public interest in curbing the problem of shoplifting outweighs any single person's 4th Amendment rights. Jesus, Texas, without that, what do you have? You honestly think that a retail store should be able to force you to submit to a suspicionless search, EVEN granting that these kind of searches are not even very effective?
That don't make no sense.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version