Checking Receipts

[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.

[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]

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)

[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?

[Peppergirl]

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.

I can understand and respect most of your views here, except for this one.

If an employee is hired to do a job and politely asks to see your receipt, how does that constitute rudeness?


Like I've said, I don't feel there's anything wrong with saying 'no thank you' and walking past, as long as the inquiry was done politely and professionally.

Sure, you may not believe in it, but I fail to see how it's automatically rude for someone to do the job they're hired to do.

Believe me, there's alot of stuff I'm made to say and ask at work that I absolutely HATE...but it's my job and as long as I'm professional about it, I feel like I deserve a modicum of respect in return. You may not LIKE what I have to say, but if you have a problem with my having to ask, you need to take it up with management, or (in my case) the FAA, since they're the ones making the new, ridiculous rules.

[Boozy]

I still fail to see how saying "No, thank you" is rude in any context.

The store employee is requesting your voluntary assistance in their loss prevention program. The shopper is allowed to decline. That's how things work in polite society. They are no rules of etiquette stating that you must say yes to every single request that comes your way.

[Peppergirl]

They are no rules of etiquette stating that you must say yes to every single request that comes your way.

Agreed, and if someone politely refuses to provide me with their date of birth, I simply say "I understand, no problem." and document in the record that they've refused.

Then they can take it up with TSA when they're trying to board their flight. Their choice. Just as long as *I* don't get in trouble for it.

[Pedersen]

I can understand and respect most of your views here, except for this one.

Actually, I don't. I was using thelong1's choice of words.

The person asking the question is stuck between a rock and a hard place. I don't set out to give them grief. They ask a polite question, I give a polite answer, we both go our merry ways.

In thelong1's mind, though, my response is rude. If my response is rude, then the question that precipitated my response is every bit as rude.

I'm going to leave the original wording in place, simply because I feel it drives home the point more effectively. But no, the person is not rude (normally) when asking to see a receipt. They can be, but that's pretty rare and far between, and is specific cases (for instance: if the employee snarls "Give me your damned receipt!", that's rude).

[Sylvia727]

I always smile and say "no thank you!" cheerfully, break eye contact, and keep walking. Since I'm an impatient person with long legs, my normal pace means that other people usually have to jog to catch up with me. A couple of times the checker has called "Ma'am!" after me, but I always ignore it, and I've never had any problems.

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?

Several times I've left a store without buying (or shoplifting) anything, and I've still set the alarm off. I keep walking for those. Since I don't have any shopping bags on me, the only way to prove I'm not a shoplifter would be to let security go through my pockets and bag. Not happening without a search warrant. Once I set the alarm off on my way in, and the greeter waved me in. On my way out, I set them off again, and he remembered me and waved me out. I thought that this would be a great way for shoplifters to exploit the alarm systems, but oh well.

Several other times I've set the alarms off while carrying shopping bags from the store. I stopped and looked around for store personnal. I would be willing to let security search those bags and only those bags, and present my receipt. I would not let them search my purse or bags from other stores. However, all times the cashier has waved me out.

[machinest]

I think the point is that the request to see the receipt and the implied accusation of possible dishonesty is inherently rude on the part of the company ,but not on the part of the employee asking as it is part of there job as Representative of the company in question.

[Boozy]

I agree. I'd think bag-checking is the worst job in any store. And I don't think anyone here is saying that those employees deserve verbal abuse, or a speech about how much we dislike the policy. If anyone has an issue with a store's policy, they should vote with their feet, or perhaps write a letter to head office where these decisions are made.

But again, just because the employee asking is not personally responsible for the policy doesn't mean that I'll roll over and let them snoop through my personal belongings.

[thelong1]

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

I draw the line where it goes beyond common sense. No one would ever frisk any customers who are just regular shoppers exiting the store after making a purchase. No one would ever ask regular shoppers to do a strip search and so on. Next time you go to a store and someone asks to see your receipt say your usual "no thanks" but then ask them if they think its rude when people don't show or when they just politely walk by without any type of acknowledgement. I'm not saying your slippery slope of an agrument doesn't go into a whole huge list of things I would rather not have done to me when I'm trying to buy a soda. All I'm saying is just be nice to the employee who is just trying to do their job. They themselves aren't implying you are a thief, you are inferring they are doing so. You are placing the blame on them. They are getting paid minimum wage to stand in front of a door and deal with people all day. If you don't agree with them asking take it up with someone who has the power to change it. Its not that I don't agree with you in saying that they shouldn't do it or stores shouldn't have those policies. It's just that I don't mind showing my receipt and I know its not the person asking who is responsible.

[thelong1]

I still fail to see how saying "No, thank you" is rude in any context.

The store employee is requesting your voluntary assistance in their loss prevention program. The shopper is allowed to decline. That's how things work in polite society. They are no rules of etiquette stating that you must say yes to every single request that comes your way.

I definitely agree with that you don't need to say yes to every single request that comes your way. People here definitely have a good way to explain their argument and make some very good points. Also, some others do not. Though I still have a problem when people just walk on by with no acknoledgement whatsoever. I still think its being rude because you are completely ignoring the person.

I think my biggest problem is that when I'm picturing the scenario of someone walking right past the receipt checker I'm not seeing it as someone politely saying, "no thank you" without some type of attitude involved, though I suppose it can exist. For example, if someone bought a bunch of lube and some condoms they may be a little embarrassed with having someone view their purchases. Adult diapers? "Can I see your receipt?" "Sorry, I'd rather not". I think in my attempts to stick up for the everyday worker I lost sight of the fact that there can still be some genuinely nice people out there who have other reasons they would rather not comply. It's been said before, saying no doesn't equal rude. I guess its just that I assumed there was more involved (tone, countenance, body language, etc) that implied the rudeness. You win, but still try and be nice about it

[Gravekeeper]

Again? But that topic never works!

This time for sure!

My opinion is the same. If that's store policy, and I'm shopping there, sure you can check my receipt. No problem. But I would never give shit to the employee doing it. He's not the one that set the policy. That would dickishly hypocritical of me.

Now I'm not going to let him frisk me or anything. But I don't see what the big deal is pausing for 3 seconds to have my receipt checked.

Here's one for you: The Save On Foods in Vancouver here, years and years ago when I first moved here they had a bag check in. If you walked in with a backpack or similarly large container they'd ask you to check it in at the front.

Why? Because its a huge damn store, they can't watch every part of it and they had so much stock loss from people stealing shit and throwing it in their backpack, etc. So rather than demanding to root through your shit and frisk you as you walked out, they asked you to check in your bag as you walked in.

Didn't like it? Shop somewhere else. Simple as that.

They don't do it anymore, as they have security cameras and what not now. So no need too. But still, it struck me as interesting when I first moved here. I never had a problem with having to check my backpack in.

[Flyndaran]

...
Now I'm not going to let him frisk me or anything. But I don't see what the big deal is pausing for 3 seconds to have my receipt checked.
....

That could be said about so many lost freedoms. Shouldn't we be allowed privacy expecially when it's inconvenient to others?