Checking Receipts

[anriana]

There's a Meijer near my house. I go there fairly often. Approximately 10% of the time someone will ask to check my receipt. I always say "No thank you" and continue walking. Apparently this makes me a hypocritical entitlement whore.

They don't seem to have a clear policy on whether or not receipts should be checked, and they certainly don't have one stating that all receipts must be checked if the cust is asked so I'm not violating any policy.

[katie kaboom]

Bottom line is, unless they suspect you of theft they shouldn't be demanding that you hand over your receipt for inspection before you leave. Plus if they did that to everyone all day long and actually bothered to check the stuff against the receipt it would slow down everyone.

I'm sure the majority of customers don't enjoy being treated like thieves anyway.

[guywithashovel]

Are you talking about checking receipts as you leave the store? If so, it might just be something that the store's management gets fussy about every so often. Back when I worked at Wal-Mart, sometimes management would get a hair up their butts and demand that all the people greeters check people's receipts as they left the store. It would never last long, though.

Apparently this makes me a hypocritical entitlement whore.

Did someone actually say this to you?

[Pedersen]

Nor have you violated any law, at least not here in the US.

The legalities are pretty simple: If you sign something stating that you will allow receipts to be checked (such as Sam's Club, Costco, etc), you have to let them do it.

If you have not, then the next scenario: If they have posted a sign at the entryway stating that you must allow it to occur, then you have to let them do it (they did tell you up front, and you had the option to leave).

Final scenario: If they station someone at the exit, but don't post signs visible on entry, and that someone demands to do a check, saying "No thank you" and walking away is perfectly within your rights, and is extremely far from being an "entitlement whore" maneuver.

Consider this: No posting of a policy, no chance to say no before everything was done, and now they want to add conditions after the sale. "Oh, you want to leave the building? Prove you're not a thief, and we'll let you do so."

I will leave. And if they try to stop me, I will call the police for unlawful detainment. My property, and my bags, are mine. I am a private individual, and do not allow others to randomly search my stuff. If someone wants to think of me as a thief, that's their problem. Yes, it is, since they are now under obligation to prove it or deal with the slander (or libel) lawsuit that will come.

All of this is avoidable: Don't demand to check my receipt. If you're going to, then post a notice at the entry way, and I'll shop elsewhere. Pretty simple, really.

Another way to view the problem: You're walking down the street, carrying a bag/wearing a backpack/lugging a rolling suitcase/whatever. You take the same route to work daily, carrying the same bags. Some person (that you've seen on the route daily) walks up to you and says "Let me search your bags to prove you don't have a bomb in them." You refuse to do so (quite rightly). So, the person calls the police to claim you're a terrorist.

This is very similar to what the stores are doing. In the eyes of the law, the corporation is a person (see Santa Clara County vs Southern Pacific Railroad Company). The familiar person is the store, and is demanding that you prove you are not a thief, or it will call the police on you. And yet, since it's in the guise of "helping to stop theft", people willingly give up their rights.

You wouldn't let some random person on the streets search your bags. You wouldn't let some random person on the streets get away with accusing you of a crime. Why do you let the stores you shop at do the same?

ETA: I forgot to mention the old saw "If you have nothing to hide, why not let them search?" This is an argument that not even the Supreme Court of the United States accepts. See the FBI, and do a text search for "refusal to consent". Saying "No" does not automatically let someone say "Well, why not? What are you hiding?" There has to be an actual reason.

[Pedersen]

Did someone actually say this to you?

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[powerboy]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.