POLL: Receipt - show or not?

[Texasmame]

Long overdue!   

No caveats - if it's just you and the guy - no line and you're not in a rush, etc. 

[shmokes]

I should note that I just chose yes, because given this scenario I have never actually refused to show my receipt.  In fact, the only time I've refused to show my receipt has been when there's a line to get out the door and I've only got a couple items and wasn't about to wait for all the people in front of me with cart-loads of stuff.  This has only happened a couple times and, in both cases, the door-person just pretended not to notice me.

However, if the poll read: Do you have the right to refuse to show your receipt, I would have answered the poll differently.   

[Texasmame]

I should note that I just chose yes, because given this scenario I have never actually refused to show my receipt.

 

[shmokes]

Trust me.  Sleep on it.  It makes sense.

[bfauska]

I CHOOSE to VOLUNTARILY show my receipt and items.  I don't believe it is legal for them to REQUIRE it though. 

[somunny]

I CHOOSE to VOLUNTARILY show my receipt and items. 

The Dude abides.

[Zero_Hour]

I CHOOSE to VOLUNTARILY show my receipt and items.  I don't believe it is legal for them to REQUIRE it though. 

Likewise, I show my receipt. It annoys me, but like George McFly "I'm not very good with confrontations" 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.

[Havok]

I choose to sneak by the guy - and only stop and show it if they yell at me...

 

[ChadTower]

I'll only bother to show them if I think there is some reasonable cause - like carrying a large unbagged item.  If I'm walking out with 1 or 2 bags of regular size and I just came from the cashier then no I'm not stopping for the receipt checker.

[Jouster]

I usually stop...unless I'm pressed for time, in a pissy mood, or only have a single small bag of stuff.  The people at the doors don't make the policy, they are just trying to get paid.  Some of yall need to stop taking things so personally.

Unless the door guy is a ---tallywhacker---...then I endorse an elbow to the nose on the way out.   

Jouster

[ChadTower]

Well, I did say in the other thread, I don't believe in being a dick to the $7/hr guy at the door.  I just say "no thank you" and keep walking.

[patrickl]

...
If I'm walking out with 1 or 2 bags of regular size and I just came from the cashier then no I'm not stopping for the receipt checker.

Actually, I always thought these receipt checks were to see if everything you bought is actually on the receipt (ie if the cashier is not helping you steal stuff)

[ChadTower]

Actually, I always thought these receipt checks were to see if everything you bought is actually on the receipt (ie if the cashier is not helping you steal stuff)

It is for that reason.  If I just walked 10 feet straight from the cashier I have not had the chance to place anything else in the bag.  I don't see any reason for a second person to need to verify that.  Note that this is different from coming out of the store with other bags or taking your bag in for some reason and taking it back out with you.

[SavannahLion]

Actually, I always thought these receipt checks were to see if everything you bought is actually on the receipt (ie if the cashier is not helping you steal stuff)

It is for that reason.  If I just walked 10 feet straight from the cashier I have not had the chance to place anything else in the bag.  I don't see any reason for a second person to need to verify that. 

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.

Fry's used to operate on this principle. They used to award bonuses (or whatever they called it) based on the value of the merchandise confiscated. The idea was was to instill honesty in cashiers by preventing them from letting merchandise "slide" through check out when a second employee was verifying the transactions. The checker had incentive to check those receipts and look for stolen goods. Fry's still checks receipts, but, as far as I know, they no longer have the incentive program.

The Home Depot had a similar program in place in regards to confiscating invalid receipts (what defined an invalid receipt is a bit long and convoluted). It was a flat rate program of X receipts from a certain month per month which translated to a small bonus in your paycheck. It was possible for some people to make an additional $200/month using this program. THD removed the incentive program but still require employees to confiscate invalid receipts. Wanna take guess on how many employees actually confiscate receipts now?

Oh, I voted no, but I generally do the same thing Shmokes describes. If there's a line, I don't wait. If there's no line, it depends on my mood. The only exception is if I'm with someone who doesn't understand their rights.

 I was in the same useless position as the checkers (and cashiers, returns and whatever) so I try not to make it hard on the employees. If a situation ever develops, I don't ---fudgesicle--- around, I escalate it immediately to the manager or higher authority. I'm also of the same camp that it's not a minimum wage earners responsibility to deal with irate customers, it's the managers. Minimum wage earners can't do ---Cleveland steamer--- for you anyways, they're jcan only do exactly what the manager tells them to do (I was a manager once as well), nothing more.

[ChadTower]

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.

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.

[SavannahLion]

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.

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.

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]

I CHOOSE to VOLUNTARILY show my receipt and items.  I don't believe it is legal for them to REQUIRE it though. 

Likewise, I show my receipt. It annoys me, but like George McFly "I'm not very good with confrontations" 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.

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.

[Texasmame]

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.

Just read your tag.      

Anyone can be asked to do anything - it's up to you if you want to.


Hmm. . . show the receipt or maybe try not to and deal with some hassle.

Easy choice for me.

Sure, do I give up the "right" to not let them look at my bag - yeah.  But, really, what skin is it off ---my bottom--- to, back to my initial premise - let the guy do his job?

[tommy]

Good thing that "one" lady never let it go to avoid a hassle when she was asked to sit in the back of the bus. Who knows what might have changed, or not changed if that never happend. I don't think she knew she was writing history and it must have seemed like a very silly thing to do at the time with really nothing good to come of it, besides feeling better about herself. 

[Texasmame]

Good thing that "one" lady never let it go to avoid a hassle when she was asked to sit in the back of the bus. Who knows what might have changed, or not changed if that never happend. I don't think she knew she was writing history and it must have seemed like a very silly thing to do at the time with really nothing good to come of it, besides feeling better about herself. 

I was waiting who would get the (insert random insult here) Award for making that comparison. 

Congrats.  Your high school civics teacher would be very proud.   

[tommy]

Good thing that "one" lady never let it go to avoid a hassle when she was asked to sit in the back of the bus. Who knows what might have changed, or not changed if that never happend. I don't think she knew she was writing history and it must have seemed like a very silly thing to do at the time with really nothing good to come of it, besides feeling better about herself. 

I was waiting who would get the (insert random insult here) Award for making that comparison. 

Congrats.  Your High School civics teacher would be very proud.   

That's it? That's your only response. Nothing to defend your silly ideas about letting someone treat you like a thief as you walk out of a store?

[Texasmame]

Good thing that "one" lady never let it go to avoid a hassle when she was asked to sit in the back of the bus. Who knows what might have changed, or not changed if that never happend. I don't think she knew she was writing history and it must have seemed like a very silly thing to do at the time with really nothing good to come of it, besides feeling better about herself. 

I was waiting who would get the (insert random insult here) Award for making that comparison. 

Congrats.  Your High School civics teacher would be very proud.   

That's it? That's your only response. Nothing to defend your silly ideas about letting someone treat you like a thief as you walk out of a store?

This has been covered but one more time for you. . .

I don't see it like that.  A guy has been given a task by his boss.  The task is to check receipts at the door.  I don't take offense to it since I understand it's just some guy doing what he has to to earn a buck.

No skin off my azz - just helpin' the guy get thru his day.

And, really.  Anyone who thinks this is "being treated like a thief" has led a very, very sheltered life.

It's called cooperation.  Polite people tend to do it.

Didn't you watch Sesame Street?    

[tommy]

It's not about the random guy who is following orders, it's about the company thinking they have the right to do what they are doing and making him do what he's doing. I wonder what else you are willing to let some guy do to you at the door as you leave.

[Joystick Jerk]

Good thing that "one" lady never let it go to avoid a hassle when she was asked to sit in the back of the bus. Who knows what might have changed, or not changed if that never happend. I don't think she knew she was writing history and it must have seemed like a very silly thing to do at the time with really nothing good to come of it, besides feeling better about herself.

Christ, maybe compare it to civil rights if they were requiring everyone leaving the store to submit to cavity searches, but until then, reaching into my bag and producing a piece of paper doesn't bother me at all. And yes, it is worth doing this a thousand times over to avoid a hassle.

This is like those nobs that exercise their right to refuse a breathalyser test. Sure they're exercising a right they have, but the difference is they get taken down to the station and waste 6 hours while the officers perform due diligence, and I get to go on my way and get on with my life. Letting things like this slide is fine, as it's not going to lead to police executing people on the side of the road for possible drunkenness. Civil rights aren't all black and white, where if you don't uphold every single one then society slides into chaos. It's all shades of grey.

[jbox]

Just curious - when was the last time you heard of a receipt smashing into someone else's shopping bag and killing four people? 

[shmokes]

Texas, you seem to be missing the point.  Nobody is angry at the guy at the door.  He is, of course, just doing the menial job given to him by his boss.  It's the boss who we're unhappy with, of course.  And as far as I can tell, not a single person here has a problem with people who voluntarily cooperate with the searches.  If the store wants to institute a policy of asking every customer to submit to such a limited, unwarranted search, so long as they are on the up-and-up about it and don't try to make people feel like it's a requirement, then by all means . . . sympathize with the store-owner's plight.  Cooperate in the fight to reduce shrinkage, and maybe in your own way you're helping reduce prices as well.

There is NOTHING WRONG WITH SUBMITTING TO THE SEARCH.  But that doesn't change the fact that the store doesn't (or shouldn't) have a de facto right to search people's private property without a warrant or at the very ---smurfing--- least reasonable suspicion.  Seriously dude, how can you have a problem with that proposition.  How can it possibly seem wrong to you to have a rule that your person or private belongings cannot be searched without a warrant or probable cause.  Doesn't that just seem like an obvious truism?

Nobody is saying that they shouldn't be able to ask you to submit to a search.  We are saying that, as a matter of the most basic civil rights, and yes Joystick Jerk, it is a civil rights issue, nobody should be able to force you to have your person or personal property searched without a warrant and probable cause or granting exigent circumstances at least probable cause.

Surely you can see that's a reasonable position.  I mean, if you say that the public need to curtail shoplifting simply outweighs your personal privacy rights, that's reasonable.  I disagree with you.  I put a great deal of value on the 4th Amendment and I don't think this practice is anywhere near effective enough to justify it.  But the position is at least reasonable.  Surely you can see the reverse.

[shmokes]

Just curious - when was the last time you heard of a receipt smashing into someone else's shopping bag and killing four people? 

A few acquaintances of mine in high school met their end in that way.  I wasn't really close to them, but I knew them and saw them daily so it was still pretty shocking and left me with a feeling of emptiness for a few weeks.  I think most the kids in the school felt pretty anxious about going shopping for quite a while after that.

[Joystick Jerk]

Just curious - when was the last time you heard of a receipt smashing into someone else's shopping bag and killing four people? 

That's the point. It's not about actual drunken people, it's about those same people that are perfectly sober but still refuse a breathalyser test because they're standing up for their rights. If you've done nothing wrong, just go along with it so you can get along with your life. Same with receipts; if you've done nothing wrong, produce your receipt and be on your way in a few seconds rather than stand up for your rights and waste a few hours.

[shmokes]

Yes, and if you have nothing to hide, why not let police search your home without a warrant.  And while we're at it, why forbid bible study in public schools?  I mean, who can argue with the ten commandments.  And why complain if they add prayer to it?  Just sit there and don't join in.  Tune it out, if you want.  It's only a couple minutes per day of your life.  And how important, really, is the second amendment these days?  I mean, back then there were countries that could potentially invade and defeat us.  And god knows, if you went to war you were gonna bring your own gun.  Not to mention that many people actually had to hunt and kill their own game to survive.  Given the might of todays army, is it really that big a deal if we can't buy guns anymore?  And what about wiretaps?  Hell, you don't even know they're there.  They don't inconvenience you in the slightest little bit.  If you have nothing to hide, after all, if you aren't a criminal, I see no reason to oppose warrantless wiretaps.   

You stand up for your rights, Joystick Jerk, because your rights are a pain in the ass for other people, like the police and Circuit City.  Regardless of where the line is drawn, those people will ALWAYS be pushing at it, trying to encroach on them just a little bit.  That line will ALWAYS be just a little bit unreasonable to the people that would abridge those rights for their own convenience or benefit.  They will always be trying to convince everyone that the line needs to be pushed back, just the tiniest bit.  But, those bits add up.  When searching of bags at the CC door becomes common place and universally acceptable, they will not stop and say that the line is finally drawn in the right place.  There will still be shoplifting to stop, and if they could just check your pockets, purses, and other bags, they sure could put a dent in the problem.  It's not that big of a hassle, after all, and there is a genuine public need to reduce crime.

You can bet that Circuit City isn't going to watch me violate their rights in the smallest way and let it go.  They're not going to see me shoplifting a $5 clearance DVD and say, "You know what . . . is it really worth the hassle for $5?  I mean, the cost of man-hours alone just in paperwork is going to be more than the DVD is even worth.  Let's just let this one go."  Because you know what I'm going to do if I find out I can get away with stealing a $5 DVD from Circuit City?  I'm going to see if I can make off with a $10 DVD.  Then maybe a game.  Or maybe I'll just keep stealing $5 DVDs over and over again.  The point is, if Circuit City sleeps on their rights, their rights will be taken away from them.  Same as mine.




edit: fixed a sentence that made no sense.

[Joystick Jerk]

Yes, and if you have nothing to hide, why not let police search your home without a warrant.  And while we're at it, why forbid bible study in public schools?  I mean, who can argue with the ten commandments.  And why complain if they add prayer to it?  Just sit there and don't join in.  Tune it out, if you want.  It's only a couple minutes per day of your life.  And how important, really, is the second amendment these days?  I mean, back then there were countries that could potentially invade and defeat us.  And god knows, if you went to war you were gonna bring your own gun.  Not to mention that many people actually had to hunt and kill their own game to survive.  Given the might of todays army, is it really that big a deal if we can't buy guns anymore?  And what about wiretaps?  Hell, you don't even know they're there.  They don't inconvenience you in the slightest little bit.  If you have nothing to hide, after all, if you aren't a criminal, I see no reason to oppose warrantless wiretaps.   

You stand up for your rights, Joystick Jerk, because your rights are a pain in the ass for other people, like the police and Circuit City.  Regardless of where the line is drawn, those people will ALWAYS be pushing at it, trying to encroach on them just a little bit.  That line will ALWAYS be just a little bit unreasonable to the people that would abridge those rights for their own convenience or benefit.  They will always be trying to convince everyone that the line needs to be pushed back, just the tiniest bit.  But, those bits add up.  When searching of bags at the CC door becomes common place and universally acceptable, they will stop push further.  There will still be shoplifting to stop, and if they could just check your pockets, purses, and other bags, they sure could put a dent in the problem.  It's not that big of a hassle, after all, and there is a genuine public need to reduce crime.

You can bet that Circuit City isn't going to watch me violate their rights in the smallest way and let it go.  They're not going to see me shoplifting a $5 clearance DVD and say, "You know what . . . is it really worth the hassle for $5?  I mean, the cost of man-hours alone just in paperwork is going to be more than the DVD is even worth.  Let's just let this one go."  Because you know what I'm going to do if I find out I can get away with stealing a $5 DVD from Circuit City?  I'm going to see if I can make off with a $10 DVD.  Then maybe a game.  Or maybe I'll just keep stealing $5 DVDs over and over again.  The point is, if Circuit City sleeps on their rights, their rights will be taken away from them.  Same as mine.

... meh...

If all that stuff happens, oh well. I'll find new ways to avoid the hassle.

[SavannahLion]

To put it a little less emotionally.

In the U.S. Many people in positions of authority (police, politicians, Bush, etc) and those who wield measured authority (stores in this case) have figured long ago that blatantly knocking around rights is going to get people pissed off. Instead they utilize a number of tactics to gradually shave off those rights.

To show an example. Sometime in the late 70's, very early 80's, The Legislation in my state attempted to pass a universal motorcycle helmet law. It was met with vicious opposition. ALL of the opposition centered around the freedom of choice. The right to choose whether one should put their own life in their own hands by wearing a helmet or not. The bill failed.

The next year or two, a new bill made its way through the Legislation. This time, the law was severely modified to apply only to those under the age of 18. The very group that legally have no right to make choices. The bill again met opposition, mostly from those who recognized the bill for what it was. But this time, the opposition was weaker. The bill was tugging at peoples instinct to protect their own children and the very same people who opposed the bill last time, were agreeing with the new bill this time. The bill passed.

Fast forward to 1992. A new bill made its way through Legislation, almost identical to the original bill that was shot down. All adults were to be required to wear helmets. But something interesting happened with this new bill. Despite the similar opposition from the public, the opposition were no longer the majority. The bill, despite protests, made it through. What happened? Many of the motorcycle riders from 10 years before were retiring or had sold off their motorcycles. Those kids who were forced to wear helmets then were now the majority adults.

The fact this law is centered around a persons individual safety isn't the point. Whether or not I agree with the motorcycle helmet law isn't the point either. I'm using the law as an example of the specific tactic used by law makers to spoon feed the masses restrictive laws that were undesirable in their entirety. There are several laws on the books that were introduced piecemeal because the original didn't sit well with the population.

The fact that people like shmokes is arguing the validity of receipt checking is good. It means that there's a problem with it and someone is unhappy with it. The day we all stop arguing about it means we've accepted this practice and companies can move on to the next restrictive practice.

[tommy]

Yes, and if you have nothing to hide, why not let police search your home without a warrant.  And while we're at it, why forbid bible study in public schools?  I mean, who can argue with the ten commandments.  And why complain if they add prayer to it?  Just sit there and don't join in.  Tune it out, if you want.  It's only a couple minutes per day of your life.  And how important, really, is the second amendment these days?  I mean, back then there were countries that could potentially invade and defeat us.  And god knows, if you went to war you were gonna bring your own gun.  Not to mention that many people actually had to hunt and kill their own game to survive.  Given the might of todays army, is it really that big a deal if we can't buy guns anymore?  And what about wiretaps?  Hell, you don't even know they're there.  They don't inconvenience you in the slightest little bit.  If you have nothing to hide, after all, if you aren't a criminal, I see no reason to oppose warrantless wiretaps.   

You stand up for your rights, Joystick Jerk, because your rights are a pain in the ass for other people, like the police and Circuit City.  Regardless of where the line is drawn, those people will ALWAYS be pushing at it, trying to encroach on them just a little bit.  That line will ALWAYS be just a little bit unreasonable to the people that would abridge those rights for their own convenience or benefit.  They will always be trying to convince everyone that the line needs to be pushed back, just the tiniest bit.  But, those bits add up.  When searching of bags at the CC door becomes common place and universally acceptable, they will stop push further.  There will still be shoplifting to stop, and if they could just check your pockets, purses, and other bags, they sure could put a dent in the problem.  It's not that big of a hassle, after all, and there is a genuine public need to reduce crime.

You can bet that Circuit City isn't going to watch me violate their rights in the smallest way and let it go.  They're not going to see me shoplifting a $5 clearance DVD and say, "You know what . . . is it really worth the hassle for $5?  I mean, the cost of man-hours alone just in paperwork is going to be more than the DVD is even worth.  Let's just let this one go."  Because you know what I'm going to do if I find out I can get away with stealing a $5 DVD from Circuit City?  I'm going to see if I can make off with a $10 DVD.  Then maybe a game.  Or maybe I'll just keep stealing $5 DVDs over and over again.  The point is, if Circuit City sleeps on their rights, their rights will be taken away from them.  Same as mine.

... meh...

If all that stuff happens, oh well. I'll find new ways to avoid the hassle.

Typical ridiculous response.

[shmokes]

... meh...

If all that stuff happens, oh well. I'll find new ways to avoid the hassle.

Anything to avoid having to stand up for yourself . . .

[saint]

Bought something at Walmart today. Determinedly walked right past the door person with my bags of goodies. She did not ask me for my receipt.

[tommy]

This is kinda funny, i can see everyone here after reading this thread now with football pads on running for the exit trying to knock over the receipt guy. 

[koolmoecraig]

Good thing that "one" lady never let it go to avoid a hassle when she was asked to sit in the back of the bus. Who knows what might have changed, or not changed if that never happend. I don't think she knew she was writing history and it must have seemed like a very silly thing to do at the time with really nothing good to come of it, besides feeling better about herself. 

I was waiting who would get the (insert random insult here) Award for making that comparison. 

Congrats.  Your High School civics teacher would be very proud.   

That's it? That's your only response. Nothing to defend your silly ideas about letting someone treat you like a thief as you walk out of a store?

This has been covered but one more time for you. . .

I don't see it like that.  A guy has been given a task by his boss.  The task is to check receipts at the door.  I don't take offense to it since I understand it's just some guy doing what he has to to earn a buck.

No skin off my azz - just helpin' the guy get thru his day.

And, really.  Anyone who thinks this is "being treated like a thief" has led a very, very sheltered life.

It's called cooperation.  Polite people tend to do it.

Didn't you watch Sesame Street?     

Man, you really don't wanna let this one go do ya?

[shardian]

This is kinda funny, i can see everyone here after reading this thread now with football pads on running for the exit trying to knock over the receipt guy. 

Nah, but I do give them the "I dare you to stop me" scowl.

[FrizzleFried]

When I walk by I rarely am confronted... though from time to time I am and I am very respectful and say "Sir (or Maam),  with all due respect, I will not show you my receipt.  Have a nice day." and I walk away.  I have yet to be chased down.

I will admit to bowing to pressure from the wifely unit...when she is with me I bust out the receipt.  She isn't comfortable with any kind of confrontation and has given me ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- for just walking by in the past...it is much easier to simply comply and show the receipt than to have to listen to Lisa bitching for 10 minutes afterwards...

 

[ChadTower]

The issue with being a smartass in training, though, is that as far as your employment goes that is a law.  Break it and they can fire you.  So the differentiation, if you like being employed in that company, doesn't mean anything. 

I don't see the point in scowling at the poor receipt checker guy.  I just walk past him like he's doing some job that doesn't affect me - he could be collecting carts for all I care.  If he says something to me I just say "no thanks" and keep going.  His job sucks enough that I don't feel the need to bark or glare at him to make myself feel bigger.

[JackTucky]

I want the receipts to be smaller.  I bought a can of polish at an auto parts store and the receipt was 18 inches long.  That's a big receipt, I don't care what color you are.

=J

[ChadTower]

Everything is longer in Polish.

[shardian]

I want the receipts to be smaller.  I bought a can of polish at an auto parts store and the receipt was 18 inches long.  That's a big receipt, I don't care what color you are.

=J

Oh yeah, that is definitely a pet peeve of mine. I hate it when I buy one little thing and it takes 10 seconds to print out 2 feet of receipt tape. It's all junk info too. Some places even throw an advertisement onto the receipt.

[ChadTower]

Free emergency toilet paper.

[shardian]

Free emergency toilet paper.

I prefer the curse word infractions from Demolition Man.

[ChadTower]

The first time I saw the Demo Man pin I spent ten minutes trying to find the three seashells.

[shardian]

The first time I saw the Demo Man pin I spent ten minutes trying to find the three seashells.

You don't know where the three seashells are? ::snicker snicker::

[ChadTower]

You just got me three verbal code citations, asshat.

Four.  I hate this.

[saint]

This is timely....

http://consumerist.com/consumer/unlawful-detention/walmart-tries-to-steal-shoppers-baby-298694.php

[Ed_McCarron]

This is timely....

http://consumerist.com/consumer/unlawful-detention/walmart-tries-to-steal-shoppers-baby-298694.php

Well,  if she didn't have the receipt for the baby...

[boykster]

This is timely....

http://consumerist.com/consumer/unlawful-detention/walmart-tries-to-steal-shoppers-baby-298694.php

Well,  if she didn't have the receipt for the baby...

Funny (scary)...I often joke about kids in carts -> "What aisle are the toddlers on?"

 

[shmokes]

Jesus . . . that's traumatic.

[Ed_McCarron]

My wife was in a local club store (BJ's) with our then 2 year old son.

He managed to escape, and by the time she turned the corner chasing him he was gone.

She searched for a minute, then went up front to ask for help locating him.

They locked down the store and called a "Code Adam" over the PA.  Wouldn't let anyone with a 2-ish year old boy out.

10 minutes later, he turned up - he had climbed inside a dog house in the aisle next to where she was.

I'm sure someone bitched that they had to wait those 10 minutes to leave.  Apparently they wouldn't let anyone with a kid that met his description out - receipt, ID, or anything.

Kinda scary the lengths they have to take in the name of liability.

[ChadTower]

That's not a liability issue - it's a public safety one.  Stores don't have to do that as I don't believe there are laws saying it must be done (if there are some, please point them out, I'd like to read them).  No one wants a kid to be snatched by some degenerate - not a store employee, not a stockholder, nobody.  The security in this instance clearly executed the Code Adam poorly, which is the real problem, not that they executed a lockdown.  You're not supposed to seize children that match the description, you're just supposed to "detain" them.  I'm not sure if you can even really do that, as if she was determined to leave the store, they can't lawfully detain her.  The whole concept is based around voluntary detainment - please cooperate with this, since it's not your problem, but we have a missing child that matches your child's rough description.  They did it badly and freaked out the woman when all they had to say was "please understand, there is a missing child just like yours, so until that child is found no infants can leave the store.  Have a seat by the Customer Service desk.  Here is some juice for the baby."

Some stores even go so far, according to policy, as to lock the doors to everyone.  Can't say I've seen that happen in person.  I 100% guarantee that even though they can't detain her lawfully, had she left the store with the baby, she would have had Police searching for her within minutes if the missing baby didn't turn up immediately.  Leaving the store after being asked to remain would have been just cause in that time critical a situation.

[FrizzleFried]

I have no problem if they would have just stopped her...explained the situation...asked her to stand by...and NEVER ONCE attempted to TAKE the baby.   All that would have been prevented.

[ChadTower]

Yeah, that's where they really screwed up.  What exactly would someone expect when they demand a woman hand over her baby?  Most women would die first and not a single person would defend the employee.

[shmokes]

And, IIRC, there was no report of a stolen baby in that Wal-Mart.  If a Wal-Mart employee reasonably believed that a baby had been stolen and the perpetrator was currently in their store, no court would hold them liable for detaining people with babies.  But didn't this security guard see something on a MySpace page about some stolen baby?

[saint]

I understood they were under a Code Adam?

[shardian]

Fortunately for that security guard, the daddy was not with the child. Else he would be eating thru a straw right now.

[ChadTower]

But didn't this security guard see something on a MySpace page about some stolen baby?

Where did that come from?  The story says there was a report of a missing baby and mentions nothing of Myspace.

[shmokes]

A Walmart security guard demanded a woman hand over her baby at checkout, thinking it might have been a baby that was reported missing in the store, according to a Myspace post by the mother, Stacy Arrington of Parkville, MD (pictured)

LMAO . . . yeah, I might have misread certain elements of that sentence.   

[atarihomestar]

It's never even crossed my mind to refuse to show my receipt.   Actually, I rather like it.  I'm fairly paranoid that I think people are watching me as I leave a store, wondering if I stole something (which I never have in my life.)