receipt checks

[smileyeagle1021]

OK, sense this is a debate that has moved beyond what we really want happening in CS, lets have it out here. Are they right or wrong. Personally I think a business has every right to check receipts. You're on their property, you abide by their rules, don't like their rules, then go somewhere else.
Consider this, a single mother has before had a repair person steal valuables from her before, would you say she is the monster people say places like Wal-Mart are if she were to ask all repair people in the future to open their work boxes etc on their way out to make sure that none of her belongings are being taken? So how is a store different in asking for proof of purchase before the person leaves? Or are you going to say that single mother really is a monster for protecting what little valuables she has?
I know I'm a minority voice, but yes, you do have a right to privacy, but the store also has a right to protect their property, and as far as I'm concerned, in that situation I don't need privacy unless I've done something wrong that needs to be hidden.
You may feel free to start flaming me

[Pedersen]

Flame? No.

But I will disagree with both cases, and it all comes down to one question: Why am I being stopped for the behavior of others?

Others have stolen. So that means I should be punished? And yes, it is a punishment.

It's an accusation of theft. It's stating "You came in here, and you have a bag in which you are carrying stuff on your way out. Therefore, you are a potential thief, and now I demand that you prove that you are not." That, by the way, is focusing on just me. If I include the remainder of the people involved in the transaction, the accusation becomes more like "Both you and my cashier that checked you out are potentially thieves. Now prove that neither of you is stealing from me."

It's a theft of time, since they are refusing to let me leave unmolested, regardless of my innocence. It's only a few seconds, but it's still my time.

It's a condition that is placed on me unannounced until after the sale. How many stores place a sign at their entrance stating that they do receipt checks on the way out? Adding conditions after the sale is complete is actually, illegal. Yes, that link discusses publishers, not retailers, but the principle is still the same.

It generates ill will. I know of not one single person who actually likes receipt checks. I know no one who specifically seeks out stores that do receipt checks, but I do know people who are so incensed over the idea that they seek out stores that do not do receipt checks.

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 yes, I do avoid stores which do receipt checks. Best Buy, for instance, has lost my business entirely. The last time I entered one for my own purchases was over 3 years ago. And I don't miss them in the least, since other businesses have gotten my electronics purchases. And I'm a gadget freak, so that adds up to ... well, I know it's in the four figures, easily. And could well be into five.

When they stop accusing me of stealing from them simply because I had the audacity to come into their (open to the public) store, I'll reconsider my policy of not buying from them.

[AFPheonix]

Stores can certainly ask, but customers have the right to not comply if they do not wish to. The store is not an authority that can detain people without reason.

[smileyeagle1021]

Pederson, I'd like to point out that single mother was my mother and she 3 times in a 10 year period actually caught repair people stealing from her... at least one of those time catching him was the difference between me eating and me not eating. I'm sorry that she is an evil person for protecting her family. I'm sorry that there are enough bad people out there that it is only safe to assume that the person facing you is going to try to swindle you until they prove otherwise. And I'd most like to apologize that you haven't convinced me beyond quoting government rules from a government who's response to theft is "it's to be expected there is nothing we can do about it"... not exactly a source I trust.

ETA- to date I have had a bicycle stolen, properly locked I might add, had a laptop stolen in a break in, and my car broken into... at this point I'm willing to give up my "rights" if it means that my multi-THOUSAND dollar casualty loss stops growing.

[Rapscallion]

This could easily be looked at in the moral sense that Pedersen does of innocent until proven guilty. However, it's a very small thing I can do to deter theft which has two results - keeps prices lower, and the activities of thieving scum are made harder (which in turn may lead to them turning to an honest living).

I don't like thieving scum getting away with it.

I may admit to a little bias in this discussion.

Rapscallion

[smileyeagle1021]

I may admit to a little bias in this discussion.

Rapscallion

and following Raps example I will admit extreme bias in this discussion

[Pedersen]

Pederson, I'd like to point out that single mother was my mother and she 3 times in a 10 year period actually caught repair people stealing from her..

If the goal is a pissing contest to see who's been wronged more in their life, we can go down that road. I don't suspect that's what you want, though.

After I posted, I did realize one thing that I implied, but didn't say right out: Did your mom inform the repair people she would be checking their bags before they entered the house, and give them the option to opt out of this? If so, then I have no issue with it.

Same thing I rail about elsewhere: Informed consent. Your mother had every right to demand that people allow her to search their bags if she told them about it beforehand. If she announced on their way out "Oh, before you leave, repair people are thieving scum so I'm going to search your bag" then I have an issue with what she did.

I'll provide a different example for you: I've had a Sam's Club account for a long time (not renewing this year, but that's because we haven't visited in 6 months, so it's no longer worth it to us). They do receipt checks on the way out. I knew this before I signed up, and accepted it.

Stores that demand it, and give me nothing in return? They don't get my business. Stores that demand it, and only announce afterwards? They don't get my business.

Oh, one other thing to point out:

And I'd most like to apologize that you haven't convinced me beyond quoting government rules from a government who's response to theft is "it's to be expected there is nothing we can do about it"... not exactly a source I trust.

Government rules have an actual name: Laws. Kind of like how, as a hotel worker, you are expected to collect various taxes for the government, due to this being the law of the place you live. When a customer demands not to pay these taxes because they don't agree with them and/or don't trust the government, your response is not "You're quite right sir. We are only supposed to collect those taxes when you agree to them." Your response is much closer to "This is the law sir. I have to collect them, and I don't get a choice about it."

You might not like it, but I can and will cite the law when it is relevant. And for this discussion, it is.

[smileyeagle1021]

Pederson, first I'd like to apologize for overreacting. Then to answer your questions, first, kinda, she informed the company that she required a bag check on the way out... I"m not sure on the grey area of the company consenting on an employees behalf, but she did inform up front.

second point, yes, they are laws, laws change though, so I guess part of the discussion should be, should the law change?

and third point (you didn't raise it but I will), if places like Wal Mart and Best Buy posted on their entrance a sign along the lines of "all guests may be subject to receipt and bag checks" would that be something that avoids this issue?

[Pedersen]

Pederson, first I'd like to apologize for overreacting. Then to answer your questions, first, kinda, she informed the company that she required a bag check on the way out... I"m not sure on the grey area of the company consenting on an employees behalf, but she did inform up front.

Actually, she did right then, and I say more power to her. No grey area here, since the company consented, and the repair people were on company time, they had to let it happen.

second point, yes, they are laws, laws change though, so I guess part of the discussion should be, should the law change?

I'll give a quick summary of why that law absolutely should not change: The First Sale Doctrine states, basically, that once you've paid for it, it's yours, and you can do with it as you please (computer software and EULAS make some issues here, but for physical products, this is still sound legal principle). Back at the turn to the 20th century, book publishers put a page in the beginning of their books restricting the right of resale after you were done. This was done to protect/increase revenue. If the first sale doctrine were revoked, then this would be legal for publishers to do again. It could, in theory, become illegal to give stuff as a gift, since you're no longer able to decide what to do with it without the manufacturer's permission.

Now, how this applies in the store: You've gone in and bought something. You've exchanged cash for product. This is now your product. You can do anything with it you wish (except, of course, for illegal things, like making meth from sudafed (however that's done)). Receipt checks are placing an additional restriction on you ("Prove that you're not a thief").

and third point (you didn't raise it but I will), if places like Wal Mart and Best Buy posted on their entrance a sign along the lines of "all guests may be subject to receipt and bag checks" would that be something that avoids this issue?

It would. Make it a clear requirement at the outset, and I'll know which stores to avoid, and we'll all be happy

[Greenday]

and third point (you didn't raise it but I will), if places like Wal Mart and Best Buy posted on their entrance a sign along the lines of "all guests may be subject to receipt and bag checks" would that be something that avoids this issue?

A lot of the big stores I go into these days actually have those kinds of signs. It's a fair and sensible practice in my opinion. So that means they are calling everyone a potential thief. And you know what? They are right. Everyone IS a potential thief, whether they actually steal or not. If a quick search is all it takes to prevent a potential large loss, then so be it.

[prb]

Costco has it in their terms of membership, so it's okay there.

But Best Buy, Wal-Mart, Future Shop, etc., should not be checking receipts.

[Pedersen]

Costco has it in their terms of membership, so it's okay there.

But Best Buy, Wal-Mart, Future Shop, etc., should not be checking receipts.

Same thing I rail about elsewhere: Informed consent. Tell me up front, or I will not return.

And if you're going to do so, there had better be a significant return for me to accept it. A promise of "low prices" which are higher than other stores (Hello Best Buy! Are you listening?) means that I won't bother going back in.

[prb]

Same thing I rail about elsewhere: Informed consent. Tell me up front, or I will not return.

And if you're going to do so, there had better be a significant return for me to accept it. A promise of "low prices" which are higher than other stores (Hello Best Buy! Are you listening?) means that I won't bother going back in.

Best Buy and Future Shop are the same company, which leaves the choices as Best Buy, The Source by Circuit City (only good for electronics hobbyist stuff, and even then other places are cheaper), Staples and Office Depot.

Well, and TigerDirect. But really for day-to-day purchases it's Best Buy or nothing

[Pedersen]

But really for day-to-day purchases it's Best Buy or nothing

Not for me. Computer items are *rarely* impulse items. This means I'm quite willing to go online. NewEgg gives me lower prices, quality service, and a better selection than Best Buy.

The stuff that does qualify as impulse buys? USB hubs, card readers, CD-R's, and mice? As a rule, I don't much care about the particulars. Wal-mart carries this stuff, as do even a few grocery stores. That, of course, ignores the specialty electronics shops in the area, Target, and quite a few other stores and chains that all carry that sort of stuff.

So, no, Best Buy is far from the only option. I'd go so far as to say it's not even a very good option.

I have options, and I'm very willing to exercise them. I don't like receipt checking, and normal retail stores don't give me enough of a reason to put up with it. As a result, I won't. There's plenty of stores that don't accuse every customer of being a thief, and I will take my business to them any day.

[smileyeagle1021]

So, no, Best Buy is far from the only option. I'd go so far as to say it's not even a very good option.

well, I have to disagree on that, but that's mainly because HSBC sends me gift certificates for them (ah, the joys of the rewardzone mastercard)

and at least in Salt Lake I have never undergone a bag or receipt check at best buy when it wasn't because a security tag wasn't deactivated... they did once tell me when walking in that I either had to check my backpack at the security podium or submit to a search when I left... I was more than happy to hand over my book filled backpack and not have to lug it around the store