Skip to main content

View Diary: Open Thread (267 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Come on... (none)
    I don't see why people see the need to thwart the receipt check of stores.  It really is a very minor inconvenience.  If you don't like it, simply don't shop at stores that do it.  

    Giving people who don't make all that much money a hard time and getting kicks out of it because you're such a "rebel" is pretty lame, IMO.  I mean, aren't we supposed to be on the side of the people in these kinds of jobs?  Why make it harder on them?

    •  so you don't have to stand in yet another line (none)
      and it shouldn't be any skin off the employees' backs.  They should have been trained that this system is entirely voluntary (it has to be in order to be legal) and the appropriate response is to do nothing, because you legally can't do anything.  The only people it would be hard on would be power-hungry jerks who feel the need to chase you into the parking lot, in which case I'm not really feeling much sympathy for the poor, hassled employee.
      •  Actually, it is sometimes better to let them (none)
        Especially when you're STEALING from the big box corporate whore store!

        Steal from the rich - CompUSA - and give to the poor - yourself.  

        But if you're shoplifting, don't act suspicious, just let them see your receipt (always buy something when you 'lift, it makes you less suspect) and be on your way.  It's not like they do a body cavity search or anything.

        -7.38, -5.90 | "A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism." - Carl Sagan

        by Subterranean on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 02:42:12 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  So what about the right of a company... (none) set its own rules for how it operates?  I'm not talking about the legal issues, but I think a company has every right to engage in this loss prevention measure, so long as they don't violate the law (which would be detaining people without cause, something I would never approve of).  It's their policy.

        Nobody is forcing us to buy from any particular retailer.  Hell, if you want to remove the hassle of waiting in any lines, you can buy everything you want off the internet.  No security checks there!  But when we're a guest in someone else's store, the polite thing to do is abide by their rules and policies while in it, including a receipt check.  If you don't want to do it, then don't shop there, plain and simple.

        I'm sure there's plenty of people who feel their "freedom" is similarly threatened by rules against food in some stores, or rules about having to wear shirts and shoes to get service.  Well, tough.  If it's my private business, I get to dictate what goes on in the store, so long as it's legal.  If you don't want to follow my rules, then I don't want you in my store.

        I have to laugh at all you guys below who use hyperbole about how Orwellian this is and how racing past the checker is some huge act of revolt.  Please--you're still <buying> their products and giving them money!  Oooh, way to stick it to them!

        Probably the biggest blow we could all strike against this if we don't want to do it is to simply stop shopping at these stores and let the stores know why.  But going there and intentionally violating their rules is still putting money in their pockets while making the staff's job a little bit harder.

        Or, y'all can just take the advice of the poster about shoplifting and become a thief.  That's just another bit of rebellion, ain't it?

        •  Company rights?!? (none)
          So what about the right of a company to set its own rules for how it operates?  I'm not talking about the legal issues, but I think a company has every right to engage in this loss prevention measure, so long as they don't violate the law (which would be detaining people without cause, something I would never approve of).  It's their policy.

          Nobody is suggesting to interfere with its rules for how it operates.  They can sell me things, take my money, ask for my receipt, and watch me walk away.  Nothing gives them the authority to interfere with me leaving the store with my purchase except for the anti-shoplifting laws, and they have the right to invoke them, with all that entails (paperwork, risk of lawsuit for unwarranted arrest, etc.)

          The fact that they have company rules does not give them rights.  A company is not a person, there are no civil liberties that are magically owed to them  just becase some state decided to give the organization a corporate charter.

          •  asdf (none)
            Nobody said they had a right to detain you against your will, that's not what I said at all.  But they certainly have the right to ask customers for their receipts as a means of loss prevention.  And yes, customers have the legal right to refuse and just walk on by.  But what I'm saying is that behavior is bullshit, because if you detest the policy so much, then don't shop at the store.

            The bottom line is that if I were a business owner, I'd have every right to expect my customers would abide by my policies while in my store, so long as the policies are legal.  If they don't want to abide by them, they should shop elsewhere, because I don't want them around.  It's the same notion that allows me to ask guests in my home to follow certain rules.  If they don't want to follow the rules of my home, they shouldn't come and visit.

            Brushing past the receipt check accomplishes nothing towards changing their policy.  You're still giving them money, and they'll still keep asking people to stop because, in the end, it saves them money.  The only way to get them to change the policy is to boycott the store over it, so that it does end up being more costly to do the policy.  

            But I suppose people just gotta have their HDTVs, stereos, etc., and OF COURSE asking to see the receipt for their goods so the store can make sure a) their not stealing anything and b) they aren't leaving without thier belongings is such a HUGE inconvenience that it's stopping them from getting home to watch the O.C. in high def...

            I just think people who think they're striking some sort of rebellious blow against THE MAN by not submitting to a 2-second check when they are STILL spending $$ at the store are full of it.  In reality, they're just being selfish pricks who can't be bothered to give up their precious electronic goods to make a real statement.  Actually, it's worse than that, as they can easily get the goods elsewhere in most cases.  So they really are just people who don't want to be inconvenienced.  Poor souls.

    •  Yes... (none)
      We must obey our corporate masters and submit to whatever they wish us to do. Don't object to the behavior you don't like, send them an ambiguous message. Reduce their sales so they lay off more employees.

      You are right, conformity is best. Go along to get along. If I have nothing to hide, why not let them search whatever they want?

      Of course! Why didn't I see the logic of your position before?

      "What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite." - Bertrand Russell

      by Mad Dog Rackham on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 11:28:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't. (none)
      After being stopped at the local Wal-Mart by the "Greeter" on the way out, four times in one month, I got angry.  (It helps to know that I shopped there maybe six times that month.)

      I shopped there only on occasion after that.  I was forced back, in the middle of the night, with everything else closed, and while tending for a terminally ill sibling who needed 24/7 attention, I got stopped on the way out.  I blew up at the "Greeter."  He let me go.  But every time after that I got stopped on the way out the door, by this same greeter, who was the one who stopped me most of the other times.

      Now understand this, I'm typically not wearing anything that could conceal merchandise, so what I have is in the bags, and all of that was put there by the cashier at check out.  Please explain to me why I should be shaken down, why my freedom should, however briefly, be impeded, because Wal-Mart wants to check on their cashiers?

      This, on top of the constant announcements over the PA system "Security scan and record zone five" make me feel like I'm in an Orwell novel.

      I have sympathy for merchants, and I hate the idea that I'm paying extra to cover what's lost to thieves, but giving Wal-Mart, or any other store the right to stop me without probable cause is like giving the government the right to search my home just-in-case I'm doing something illegal.

      Which brings up a thought.  We are not losing our civil liberties to government, so much as to big business, with the help of government.

      In my little town, I haven't been to Wal-Mart in over a year.

      It is bad foreign policy to make enemies faster than you can kill them.

      by Paulie200 on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 12:28:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  those checks (none)
        are as much for the cashiers as for the customers

        to make sure they aren't 1) incompetent, or 2) in league with the customer to steal items

        very easy for the cashier to declare a sale for any item you have, or even to simply ring it up and then "void" it.

        I believe in saving money. I believe in having a house. I believe in keeping things clean. I believe in exercising.

        by The Exalted on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 06:34:15 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Jumping in (none)
      on this, because I feel like a sheep being herded through checkout towards the poor employee tasked with checkinng my purchases against a receipt.

      17 items in my cart.
      22 items on my receipt.

      "Thank-you, you may pass through the door to freedom now".

      22 items in my cart.
      17 items on my receipt.

      "Thank-you, you may pass through the door to freedom now".

      It's absolutely silly; I've been "security screened" by blue haired elderly women, pimply faced bored teenagers in a conversation that is not interrupted by my tendered receipt, and everything in between. I always say the same thing: "I stole something, can you guess what item doesn't match the receipt?"

      Always the same response - a chuckle, and a punch hole or a highlighter mark on my receipt.

      I don't mind showing it, even though I'd much rather put the receipt in my wallet when I put my credit card away. First time I'm held up by the process though... I'm going to give it a whirl and scoot around everyone else. They can decide then whether or not they're paid enough to stop me. My guess is for minimum wage they're going to let it slide.

      "To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice." Confucius -6.25 -6.62

      by Patriot4peace on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 05:12:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You would gladly give up your rights? (none)
      I think that is a problem in this country that Bush is exploiting. People try to be reasonable and will give a little on their personal rights to help out a "friend". In this case the friend is the store they like to shop at, and they are helping the friend defend itself from all the bad people, which of course doesn't include you.

      If you read the link and go through to the responses from Best Buy you find some revealing things. A Best Buy corporate type implies off the record that Best Buy cuts corners on industry standard practices to save money. Intimidating customers into standing in line and showing receipts is cheaper. One practice mentioned is simply putting a large peice of tape on a purchased, unbagged item that the checker can see from a distance. They won't bother with ten cents of tape because the checker can pass you with less than ten cents of labor cost. I'm guessing they won't put multiple checkers out in a busy time to speed things up because that will cost as well. It is obvious from the responses that Best Buy, and the retail industry, view customers as animals with wallets.  Of course "loss prevention" is a concern but actually breaking the law and abusing all of your customers in pursuit of the few law breakers is worse in my opinion.

      We are picking up speed on the slippery slope into facsism in this country and this is why.

      You glibly say shop elsewhere? Blame the victim much? And what if there is no where else to shop? You would allow monopolists the power to determine which laws they will folow and which they would break?

    •  i agree (none)
      and, what most people, including mr. hoskins from the link, don't seem to recognize is that these checks are as much to prevent cashier incompetence/complicity as they are for the customers

      granted, they do not have the right to detain anyone. but aggravating the doormen just seems downright silly.

      I believe in saving money. I believe in having a house. I believe in keeping things clean. I believe in exercising.

      by The Exalted on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 06:36:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Employees (none)
        can be monitored by management without hassling the customer.  I used to do it.

        I managed at a large retail chain store...each register had a camera within the vicinity to monotor that cashier's belt.  Our computer system had an "audit" feature which allowed you to "tap" into that register and watch, in real time, what was being rung.  (Mind you, this was 12 years ago...I can only imagine what's available now!)

        When I had nothing else to do, or often while I was eating my lunch, I would watch the cashier along with the audit trail, and busted two of them under-ringing what turned out to be family members.  Both were arrested and charged with Retail Theft, as they had under-rung their family for hundreds of dollars.

        Soon, I began using these videos & audit trails to train new cashiers or during cashier staff meetings...showing them the good things that my valued cashiers had done and lauding their efforts....and at the same time, letting them know that they were being watched!

        This was done with absolutely NO hassle to the customers.  The problem is, most of these stores don't want to take the time to hire quality employees, train them properly, invest in them with a real-living-wage, then monitor their investment.  

        They'd prefer to use the intimidation method with the "dummy-at-the-door" approach, to intimidate and scare both the cashiers and the customers...when, in all honestly, most of the door guards don't even pay attention to what the receipt says!

        "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." ~George Orwell

        by Troubled on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 10:07:37 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (131)
  • Community (62)
  • Elections (39)
  • 2016 (37)
  • Environment (36)
  • Bernie Sanders (35)
  • Culture (30)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Media (29)
  • Republicans (29)
  • Climate Change (27)
  • Spam (23)
  • Education (23)
  • Congress (23)
  • Civil Rights (22)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Labor (21)
  • Barack Obama (21)
  • Texas (20)
  • Law (20)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site