Checking Receipts

[Pedersen]

Even if it's your first time shopping someplace, you had no idea it was a store policy, there are no signs and no membership agreements I still think not complying to showing your receipt is rude to the employee.

How about the way in which the employee is being rude to me? "Sir, may I check your receipt please?" "No, thank you." Sounds like a very civil conversation, doesn't it? Let's change to what both sides are really thinking, and revisit the conversation: "You lowlife. Prove to me that you didn't steal anything from this store, and I'll let you out of here." "Fuck off asshole. You got a problem, call the police."

As you can see, the rudeness began by the behavior of the employee: I was accused of stealing when there was absolutely no basis for the accusation. I'll be polite, but I will not consent to a search of my person or my belongings to satisfy someone who has no legal reason to be searching my belongings.

You don't necessarily have to curse at someone or belittle them for it to be rude or sucky behavior.

In this case, they are initiating the rude behavior. I am doing my best to avoid it becoming more so without allowing them to do whatever they wish to my person or my belongings.

It just seems crazy to me that people seem to feel like they are sticking up for their rights by ignoring the receipt checker. If thats the only violation of your rights that you are dealing with I think we all have it pretty good.

Ah, another stellar argument: Hey, in comparison to other things that could be happening, this isn't so bad. The fact that what they are doing is a mild inconvenience is irrelevant. The fact is that it is wrong and rude. I, for one, will not accept it.

Though someone mention frisking (either here or on CS) and I think that is taking it too far as someone is actually putting there hands on me. I'd comply and never shop there again and I would take it up with management.

Okay, you've now admitted you would allow things to progress so far as to be frisked, allowing a stranger to place their hands on you for no better reason than somebody in corporate says they have to do so.

Where would you draw the line? At what point would you now say "No! You will not proceed further!" ? Let's look for that line. Here's a list of possible things that can happen on the way out of a store (actual and conjecture). Where's your line?

1. You get wished a nice day.
2. "I need to check your receipt."
3. "Store policy requires that I get a fingerprint from all exiting customers."
4. "Store policy says that all customers are to be frisked on exit."
5. "Store policy requires that I do an under the clothing frisk. Your clothing will remain on, but I will have my hands in direct contact with your skin."
6. "Store policy requires me to do a full strip search in private of all customers."
7. "Store policy requires me to do a full strip search in the exit doorway of all customers. Any other people will be able to see you."
8. "Store policy requires that I collect a DNA sample of all exiting customers."

Now, I am very much hoping that you draw the line between two items on that list. The indications you've provided are that you will not, instead allowing random people to do, basically, anything they wish to you simply because you had the audacity to buy something from their store.

I've established where my line is. Where's yours?

[Slytovhand]

Ok, what if the police decide to pull you over, and completely go through your car, run a licence check, rego check, make you wait etc? Just because they saw you driving down the road? You'd get pretty annoyed, and your first question is "What did I do?"

You are being treated like a suspect just for shopping in their store. They are trying to intimidate you and hope you don't know your legal rights (and, most people don't even know them). If they dont' have the right, then they shouldn't even be pretending that they do. So, I don't think it's even remotely rude to deny something that they've got no right in asking for in the first place.. and they know it! (or should)

[thelong1]

Even if it's your first time shopping someplace, you had no idea it was a store policy, there are no signs and no membership agreements I still think not complying to showing your receipt is rude to the employee. I just don't see how there is much of a difference between someone walking by an employee who asks to see your receipt or politely saying "no thanks" and someone who doesn't acknowledge a greeting. Or when if you are being checked out and the cashier says "Hi, how are you?" and your reply is "Marb reds". "Would you like fries with that" "Did I order fries?". Even if your tone is as nice as can be it can still be rude behavior to the employee. You don't necessarily have to curse at someone or belittle them for it to be rude or sucky behavior. I'm sure they get it all day long and it can add up over a long work day. By allowing someone to do their job is you being a good customer. It just seems crazy to me that people seem to feel like they are sticking up for their rights by ignoring the receipt checker. If thats the only violation of your rights that you are dealing with I think we all have it pretty good. Also, the fact that we can have a discussion about it is great too. Though someone mention frisking (either here or on CS) and I think that is taking it too far as someone is actually putting there hands on me. I'd comply and never shop there again and I would take it up with management.

[Slytovhand]

Ped, ok, I'll back down on my suggestion there. You did post this on the last time this thread came up:

Finally, we live in a society that is supposed to exercise the concept of "Innocent until proven guilty." Receipt checks turn this upside down, and make it "Guilty until you prove your innocence." It is not my job or responsibility to prove my innocence. It is, in fact, the store's job to prove my guilt. They are making the accusation. If they feel that the accusation has sufficient merit, then let them call the police. If they are so unsure of their accusation that they don't feel the police would be able to do anything, then their accusation is without merit, and they have no business even slowing my exit from the store.

And similar, but only briefly suggested (but I don't read much of a stance on it) that it might be a bit different if the store has signs before you walk in. From what I read, you sort of hint that signs make a difference, but the emphaticness of this would make me suggest that it might only be a begrudged acceptance (you did say that you don't go to stores that have such a policy... which sounds like you'd accept it if the signs were there).


As for the other bit you mentioned of mine - yep, I do actually take that stance, similar to yours. It's not my job to prove my innocence, it's theirs to adequately prove my guilt... and for that matter, it's not the store's responsibility to prove that, but the legal system's.

[Pedersen]

No, what I said what giving an employee a hard time when they are trying to do their job by asking to see your receipt is hippocrital. If you knowingly shop at a store that has this type of policy and knowingly violate that policy then its hippocrital to go to the CS forums and complain about sucky customers who knowingly violate the policies where you work.

Actually, no, you didn't. So as to prevent any potential editing issues, I'm going to quote your entire, original, (as of now) unedited post, and show what you did say:

Put me in the category of not giving a damn about showing my receipt or having a bag checked too. I'm not stealing anything, I have nothing to hide, I don't feel that my precious ownership rights are being infringed upon, I can spare the 3 seconds and the person asking is only doing their job. I don't get pissed off at the guy at McDonalds for asking me if I'd like fries with that or if I'd like to get the large size, even when I didn't order the fries or the large size. It's their job and those of you who breeze on by or just say "no thank you" are giving them a hard time when they are trying to do their job. It's the same entitlement bullshit that everyone who frequents this site deals with on a daily basis. If the 105 year old woman who checks the receipts at the local Walmart I go to had a computer I'm sure she would be posting about SC's who give her a hard time when she asks to see their receipts. Sorry about the rant but this is the most hippocrital thread I've read on this site yet. We are here to support people who work in customer service and hopefully learn ways we can be better customers ourselves.

As you can see, you stated that simply saying "No thank you" is giving someone doing receipt checks a hard time. You did not qualify it by saying something similar to "If you know the rule is in place and continue to shop there you're giving them a hard time." You denigrated the positions of all of us who have concerns about letting random people check our bags. You called us hypocritical. You said we were displaying the same entitlement bullshit.

You did not say anything about knowing the store's policies in advance. If you had, this would have been a very different response.

I think Pedersen has actually taken a slightly difference stance previously (but only slightly...).

I'd be interested to know how I've changed. Please elaborate, either here or PM? I'm serious. If I've changed, I need to know how, so I can figure out if it's a change for the better or worse (and correct if need be).

So, I will disagree with Pedersen on that one point. Whether they've got a sign or 16 or not, our legal rights (ours, not the store's) take precedence, and they still have not right to enforce a bag check.

Actually, it's not so much you that's disagreeing as it is the law where you live. And, on that count, you're 100% correct. One of those laws that I wish we'd have in place here.

However, since I thought of it while reading this topic, would any of you be willing to stop and show a reciept if asked if you had set of the alarms on the way out? Would that be just cause for them to ask? or do you think they still don't have a right?

I find the alarms annoying, mainly because even the store staff seem to ignore them. However, if I did set off the alarm, then yes, I would wait and submit. That is, so far as I know, sufficient probable cause.

Now, here's a thought for those of you who support bag checks on the grounds that it stops theft: How do you know the person doing the checks isn't a thief himself? For all you know, that person rummaging through a bag could just as easily steal from you as you could from the store. Okay, it's slightly more difficult, but not too much so. Look at what a magician does, and tell me that someone couldn't steal right from under your nose. And then comes proving that it happened.

You could be robbed by the person whose job it is to prevent robbery. Just some food for thought.

[Slytovhand]

Ah, well, alarms... that to me is a bit differnt. At least from a pragamatic point of view. If the alarm goes off, the LP officers and security may have rights to detain you until the police arrive. And even if they don't, and they let you 'go', they are going to follow you and grab your details, description etc. So, the police will be on your butt anyway.

So, yes, if the alarm goes off, it'd be worth your time to stop and sort it out then and there.

[Cats]

While I understand why people would say "no thank you", I personally do not have an issue with it. The only time I was checked without prior knowledge was when I bought my computer and my dad and I were lugging it out the door (that was like $800 of merchandise, I can certainly understand. Since some of that product was accessable to anyone who came in the store, if you didn't keep an eye out, you'd lose thousands of $$ in stuff to theives far too easily).

However, since I thought of it while reading this topic, would any of you be willing to stop and show a reciept if asked if you had set of the alarms on the way out? Would that be just cause for them to ask? or do you think they still don't have a right?

[Slytovhand]

Yes, we've covered this ground before.

I think Pedersen has actually taken a slightly difference stance previously (but only slightly...).

Legally, (last I heard, at any rate) over here it was unlawful to demand that a customer show the contents of their bags, as that infringes a person's right to privacy, which over-rides a store's policies. So, walking through and ignoring such a request is ok. I certainly get bugged when they want to push that point after I refuse (I've had an altercation with a security guard over this). And if they want to get in my face about it, then yes, I will start looking like an SC about it - and with good reason, too.

So, I will disagree with Pedersen on that one point. Whether they've got a sign or 16 or not, our legal rights (ours, not the store's) take precedence, and they still have not right to enforce a bag check.

[Boozy]

If you knowingly shop at a store that has this type of policy and knowingly violate that policy then its hippocrital to go to the CS forums and complain about sucky customers who knowingly violate the policies where you work.

I would agree that knowing about the store's policy ahead of time, shopping there anyway, and giving a low-level employee shit about it is wrong.

Where you lose me is when you say that politely saying "No thank you" and walking past is somehow giving that employee a hard time. Stores have no rights to force bag checks if someone refuses. Any receipt-checker should be informed of that by their employer. A "No, thank you" means there will be no bag check, and that person is free to go.

That's what is so ludicrous about these policies. They depend on honest people giving up their privacy. Thieves aren't going to let you check their bags. And unless the store is damned sure they've got a shoplifter on their hands, they aren't going to start physically tackling people who refuse bag checks, lest they get sued. This policy does nothing but inconvenience and/or annoy honest people, and does nothing to prevent loss.

By the way, I've shopped in two different stores that asked to check my bags. Neither were club stores that required a membership, and neither had signs posted at the entrance. I have not returned to either store.

[fireheart17]

Bag checking

From some of my previous threads involving bag checking, it's been made pretty clear that we are to talk about it over here.

So, please feel free to use this thread to debate whether bag checking is necessary or legal and the reasons why you feel that bag checking shouldn't be done and if so, other measures retailers can use to crack down on suspected theft.

Mod note: Merged with existing thread on same topic.

[powerboy]

I sometimes show my receipts and there are other times, when I don't.

[Akasa]

Where I used to live there was a store that would check everyone's reciepts. Then came my shopping there around xmas time. There was a long line of people waiting for their reciepts to be checked. I can not stand for a period of over 5 minutes, walk yes, stand still no. So I kept going. They called after me and a long line of people who were tired of waiting followed me.
I will usually show my reciept, but I'll be damned if I'll wait in line to be let out of a store.

[thelong1]

Actually, it was just said on CS, by thelong1.

No, what I said what giving an employee a hard time when they are trying to do their job by asking to see your receipt is hippocrital. If you knowingly shop at a store that has this type of policy and knowingly violate that policy then its hippocrital to go to the CS forums and complain about sucky customers who knowingly violate the policies where you work. If you don't like it, don't shop there or just take it up with the people who have the power to change the policy like the owner or the corporate office. It's not a legality issue. If you feel that you are too good for that particular policy and it doesn't apply to you and you want to continue to shop there then anyway it is an entitlement issue. I never said any specific person was an entitlement whore, I said this type of attitude is the same entitlement bullshit that people complain about on the CS forums all the time.

[Peppergirl]

Just adding my 2 cents:

I personally have no problem with it, but I can completely understand and respect someone who does have a problem with it.

This is, of course, as long as they are polite about it to the person who is merely doing their job.


HOWEVER - all bets are off if the receipt checker is behaving in a 'barney fife' (wow, I just aged myself) type of manner.

[Pedersen]

Did someone actually say this to you?

Actually, it was just said on CS, by thelong1.