Receipt Checking

[EmperorOfCanada]

I know in the US you are not required by law to stop and show your receipt to the receipt checkers out there. Does anyone know if the same applies in Canada and can link a source?

Thanks :)

[Glace]

And on an unrelated note, reports of shoplifting have risen 359% in Edmonton.

[EmperorOfCanada]

And on an unrelated note, reports of shoplifting have risen 359% in Edmonton.

Good one. Doesn't make sense though, if they catch me shoplifting they can detain me with or without a receipt :p

[GVRtrader]

I know in the US you are not required by law to stop and show your receipt to the receipt checkers out there. Does anyone know if the same applies in Canada and can link a source?

Thanks :)

Is it really that much trouble to show your receipt? Don't know about the law in Canada but even if Canada's law does not require you to show, the receipt checker could retain you if they suspect you are a shoplifter. Its really just a waste of time to not show.

[doctorofstyle]

it's so fishy to not show... it's no point in not doing so... really what do you gain by not showing your receipt?

[zoolander]

I would think showing your receipt expedites your exit.
In Canada, why contest it if you're a customer, or refuse to do it if you're an employee and part of your duties?

[rommelrommel]

Where do they have receipt checkers other than costco?

[brunes]

Of course they can not by law forc eyou to show a receipt.

They can however permanently ban you from their property for being a nuisance.

[EmperorOfCanada]

Where do they have receipt checkers other than costco?

Futureshop, best buy, etc often checks receipts.

To everyone else, if you prefer to show your receipts, thats your business. Once I have purchased the product it is my property and I find it annoying to be stopped when I try to leave and be asked to prove whats mine is mine.

Its different if I set off their alarm, or if they see me pocket something then they have reason to believe I might be stealing from them. Otherwise, I just would prefer not to.


They can however permanently ban you from their property for being a nuisance.
I am not so certain of that. They can ask me to show and I can politely refuse. That isnt being a nuisance. I mean they probably *can* ban me, for Im sure whatever supid reason they want. I just dont think its a valid reason.

[Kasakato]

Futureshop, best buy, etc often checks receipts.

To everyone else, if you prefer to show your receipts, thats your business. Once I have purchased the product it is my property and I find it annoying to be stopped when I try to leave and be asked to prove whats mine is mine.

Its different if I set off their alarm, or if they see me pocket something then they have reason to believe I might be stealing from them. Otherwise, I just would prefer not to.

Setting off an alarm does not require you to stop. You're just as free to walk out.

[Kasakato]

I am not so certain of that. They can ask me to show and I can politely refuse. That isnt being a nuisance. I mean they probably *can* ban me, for Im sure whatever supid reason they want. I just dont think its a valid reason.

Stores are private property, with a public invitation. They can ban you if they want, for almost any reason.

[EmperorOfCanada]

Setting off an alarm does not require you to stop. You're just as free to walk out.

That may be true, but if our laws are the same as the US laws, it DOES give them just cause to try to detain you.

[EmperorOfCanada]

Stores are private property, with a public invitation. They can ban you if they want, for almost any reason.

Yeah, thats kinda what I said?

[Kasakato]

That may be true, but if our laws are the same as the US laws, it DOES give them just cause to try to detain you.
What US law allows that?

[EmperorOfCanada]

:arrowu: I admit I dont know 100% how the US laws work, but that is apparently how it works from what I have read. This post (http://consumerist.com/5152730/walmart-steals-your-cart-because-you-wont-let-them-check-your-receipt) is only the most recent of examples from Consumerist.

Here for example (http://www.tampagov.net/dept_Police/information_resources/Crime_Prevention/Commercial_Crime_Prevention/florida_state_statute_812.015.asp), might not apply to the WHOLE of the US but at least in part, and other states may have similar laws:

3)(a) A law enforcement officer, a merchant, a farmer, or a transit agency’s employee or agent, who has probable cause to believe that a retail theft, farm theft, a transit fare evasion, or trespass, or unlawful use or attempted use of any anti-shoplifting or inventory control device countermeasure, has been committed by a person and, in the case of retail or farm theft, that the property can be recovered by taking the offender into custody may, for the purpose of attempting to effect such recovery or for prosecution, take the offender into custody and detain the offender in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time. In the case of a farmer, taking into custody shall be effectuated only on property owned or leased by the farmer. In the event the merchant, merchant’s employee, farmer, or a transit agency’s employee or agent takes the person into custody, a law enforcement officer shall be called to the scene immediately after the person has been taken into custody.

[Kasakato]

Yeah, thats kinda what I said?

No, you were uncertain,

I am not so certain of that. They can ask me to show and I can politely refuse. That isnt being a nuisance. I mean they probably *can* ban me, for Im sure whatever supid reason they want. I just dont think its a valid reason.

[Kasakato]

:arrowu: I admit I dont know 100% how the US laws work, but that is apparently how it works from what I have read. This post (http://consumerist.com/5152730/walmart-steals-your-cart-because-you-wont-let-them-check-your-receipt) is only the most recent of examples from Consumerist.

Here for example (http://www.tampagov.net/dept_Police/information_resources/Crime_Prevention/Commercial_Crime_Prevention/florida_state_statute_812.015.asp), might not apply to the WHOLE of the US but at least in part, and other states may have similar laws:

3)(a) A law enforcement officer, a merchant, a farmer, or a transit agency’s employee or agent, who has probable cause to believe that a retail theft, farm theft, a transit fare evasion, or trespass, or unlawful use or attempted use of any anti-shoplifting or inventory control device countermeasure, has been committed by a person and, in the case of retail or farm theft, that the property can be recovered by taking the offender into custody may, for the purpose of attempting to effect such recovery or for prosecution, take the offender into custody and detain the offender in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time. In the case of a farmer, taking into custody shall be effectuated only on property owned or leased by the farmer. In the event the merchant, merchant’s employee, farmer, or a transit agency’s employee or agent takes the person into custody, a law enforcement officer shall be called to the scene immediately after the person has been taken into custody.

Sure, fair enough, I have little knowledge of US shoplifting law as well, we live in Canada after all.

The sounding of an alarm is in no way reasonable grounds to detain someone. Sure, its enough to ask them to stop, but I could do that without an alarm. Alarms are subject to malfunction, how many times have you been at a store and hear it go off, or have been exiting a store and had it beep on you because the cashier forgot to take off the tag? The shear number of false alarms renders it unreasonable to use for the purposes of detention. It functions as a deterrent; not as a legal excuse to detain.

[EmperorOfCanada]

No, you were uncertain,

I was not so certain that I would. If I took it up with corporate I think they would likely not take kindly to a paying customer who had not broken any laws be banned from a store for that reason.

Perhaps I worded it badly. It is certainly possible that I could be banned. I would be willing to take that chance though to make a point. In the US (particularly on consumerist where I see the issue arise every so often) there are a number of people on both sides, some adamant about their right not to show a receipt, and others saying 'whats the big deal'.

I personally am for protecting my rights before they are taken away, if you have no issue with showing a receipt by all means, do it.

[EmperorOfCanada]

Sure, fair enough, I have little knowledge of US shoplifting law as well, we live in Canada after all.

The sounding of an alarm is in no way reasonable grounds to detain someone. Sure, its enough to ask them to stop, but I could do that without an alarm. Alarms are subject to malfunction, how many times have you been at a store and hear it go off, or have been exiting a store and had it beep on you because the cashier forgot to take off the tag? The shear number of false alarms renders it unreasonable to use for the purposes of detention. It functions as a deterrent; not as a legal excuse to detain.

The alarm by itself, I agree would not be enough. However if you saw someone pocket an item, as well as setting an alarm off when they exited, that might be as safe a case as any. But for the record from the same link as above:

3.
(b) The activation of an anti-shoplifting or inventory control device as a result of a person exiting an establishment or a protected area within an establishment shall constitute reasonable cause for the detention of the person so exiting by the owner or operator of the establishment or by an agent or employee of the owner or operator, provided sufficient notice has been posted to advise the patrons that such a device is being utilized. Each such detention shall be made only in a reasonable manner and only for a reasonable period of time sufficient for any inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the activation of the device.

[Kasakato]

The alarm by itself, I agree would not be enough. However if you saw someone pocket an item, as well as setting an alarm off when they exited, that might be as safe a case as any.

That gets into a whole new debate, simple knowledge and whether or not someone saw you do something is complex, and hard to argue/prove in court. There are simply too many factors involved. Sure it adds credibility, but it is not at all a fool-proof reason.

Flordia's statue is very specific, and unique. Canada has no such statue.

[Kasakato]

I was not so certain that I would. If I took it up with corporate I think they would likely not take kindly to a paying customer who had not broken any laws be banned from a store for that reason.

Perhaps I worded it badly. It is certainly possible that I could be banned. I would be willing to take that chance though to make a point. In the US (particularly on consumerist where I see the issue arise every so often) there are a number of people on both sides, some adamant about their right not to show a receipt, and others saying 'whats the big deal'.

I personally am for protecting my rights before they are taken away, if you have no issue with showing a receipt by all means, do it.

Banning someone for not showing their receipt would indeed be a PR nightmare. All the more reason why its pointless.

[EmperorOfCanada]

Banning someone for not showing their receipt would indeed be a PR nightmare. All the more reason why its pointless.

Which is why I'm not afraid to refuse to show it IF I am within my rights doing so. If they wish to ban me, that's their call. I am not under any obligation to them, once I have made my purchase that doesn't give them some special hold over me.

[ottawasportsfan2010]

Which is why I'm not afraid to refuse to show it IF I am within my rights doing so. If they wish to ban me, that's their call. I am not under any obligation to them, once I have made my purchase that doesn't give them some special hold over me.

No but they have the right to set the rules as they see fit.

[EmperorOfCanada]

No but they have the right to set the rules as they see fit.

No, they don't. Rules != laws. They can post signs everywhere saying "We serve only white people" or "Women must be naked to receive service" that doesn't make it legal or enforceable.

Keep in mind this isn't a condition of the sale. It is already bought and paid for and I am just trying to leave. If they dont let me leave they are unlawfully detaining me. If they take back my merchandise, it is theft.

In any case ottawasportsfan2010, I don't think you are correct.

[ottawasportsfan2010]

No, they don't. Rules != laws. They can post signs everywhere saying "We serve only white people" or "Women must be naked to receive service" that doesn't make it legal or enforceable.

Keep in mind this isn't a condition of the sale. It is already bought and paid for and I am just trying to leave. If they dont let me leave they are unlawfully detaining me. If they take back my merchandise, it is theft.

In any case ottawasportsfan2010, I don't think you are correct.

They can not discriminate but they can post rules such as these.

1)No bags are permitted in the store.

2)MInors are not permitted with out an adult guardian

3)Shirts etc must be wrong.

4)Id must be shown to buy select items

5)We reserve the right to refuse entre to anyone.

That is just a few rules that stores can post.

[EmperorOfCanada]

They can not discriminate but they can post rules such as these.

1)No bags are permitted in the store.

2)MInors are not permitted with out an adult guardian

3)Shirts etc must be wrong.

4)Id must be shown to buy select items

5)We reserve the right to refuse entre to anyone.

That is just a few rules that stores can post.

Sure, fair enough but those dont apply here. This is AFTER the sale has been completed. All you are trying to do is leave the store.

In any case all this is rather off topic. Does anyone know if LEGALLY they can make you show? My guess is no, but I would appreciate hearing otherwise.

[zoolander]

I believe the answer is in one of the first four links here (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=problems+with+authority+ruining+my+life+&l=1).




jking :lol:

[time space]

To everyone else, if you prefer to show your receipts, thats your business. Once I have purchased the product it is my property and I find it annoying to be stopped when I try to leave and be asked to prove whats mine is mine.


I agree.

Best Buy stores are already set up like corrals, where you're herded through the cash lines and then out the doors. When signalled to show my receipt, I wave the door person off and so far they have never questioned it.

The bigger issue is that it's a slippery slope - will you happily comply with strip searches one day for the privilege of being allowed to spend your dollars in a big box store?

I would still like to hear the answer to the OP's original question though:

I know in the US you are not required by law to stop and show your receipt to the receipt checkers out there. Does anyone know if the same applies in Canada and can link a source?

[EmperorOfCanada]

I agree.

Best Buy stores are already set up like corrals, where you're herded through the cash lines and then out the doors. When signalled to show my receipt, I wave the door person off and so far they have never questioned it.

The bigger issue is that it's a slippery slope - will you happily comply with strip searches one day for the privilege of being allowed to spend your dollars in a big box store?

I would still like to hear the answer to the OP's original question though:

Thank you! It was starting to get lonely :)

[DJSINR]

Futureshop, best buy, etc often checks receipts.

To everyone else, if you prefer to show your receipts, thats your business. Once I have purchased the product it is my property and I find it annoying to be stopped when I try to leave and be asked to prove whats mine is mine.

Its different if I set off their alarm, or if they see me pocket something then they have reason to believe I might be stealing from them. Otherwise, I just would prefer not to.


I am not so certain of that. They can ask me to show and I can politely refuse. That isnt being a nuisance. I mean they probably *can* ban me, for Im sure whatever supid reason they want. I just dont think its a valid reason.


The stores do it because they have cash registers in the various departments, don't forget you're on camera all the time aswell.

The main purpose is to put fear into those that would steal and its a method of intimidation that would make a thief second guess stealing something or not.. "what if they ask me for a receipt??"

The other reason for it is to also verify that the right product is going out, ie: Tv's match the model on the receipt, it's also a way to make sure that internal staff is not using a friend to steal merchandise by ringing it up as a toothbrush and handing the customer a dvd player..

If you've bought the item, then showing the receipt for them to verify it takes a few seconds...

A proper verifier will be pleasent and thank the customer or crack a joke or something and not make the process seem like an interrogation.

[time space]

I believe the answer is in one of the first four links here (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=problems+with+authority+ruining+my+life+&l=1).


I think you might need to check here (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=docile+compliance+for+obediently+submissive+cit izens).

[EmperorOfCanada]

The stores do it because they have cash registers in the various departments, don't forget you're on camera all the time aswell.

The main purpose is to put fear into those that would steal and its a method of intimidation that would make a thief second guess stealing something or not.. "what if they ask me for a receipt??"

The other reason for it is to also verify that the right product is going out, ie: Tv's match the model on the receipt, it's also a way to make sure that internal staff is not using a friend to steal merchandise by ringing it up as a toothbrush and handing the customer a dvd player..

If you've bought the item, then showing the receipt for them to verify it takes a few seconds...

A proper verifier will be pleasent and thank the customer or crack a joke or something and not make the process seem like an interrogation.

Oh I understand completely, but to be honest their policies are not much concern of mine. I *DO* show my receipts for the record, but it would be nice to know that I legally can say no if I choose.

[TakumiDC5]

Hope this link helps:
http://consumerist.com/consumer/civil-rights/receipt-check-policies-for-costco-sams-club-and-bjs-297033.php

This is the basic gist:
In most cases, a receipt check is voluntary, but several wholesale shopping clubs make you agree to them as part of the membership contract.

Costco [PDF, pg 14]: "To ensure that all members are correctly charged for the merchandise purchased, all receipts and merchandise will be inspected as you leave the warehouse."

I disagree with the whole process, but can also see why they do it. Otherwise you could just walk back in with your receipt, and walk out with the same items again. I'm guessing that's the main reason they mark your receipt with a highlighter as you exit.

So I would say its not illegal to force a receipt check on the way out, and yes if you made a big enough of fuss you could walk away being checked. The most they could do is ban you or revoke your club membership.

On the other end of things, I'm sure the big box stores have protected themselves enough to defend against claims of unlawful detainment, through their membership agreements, store policies etc. I'm not a lawyer though.

[TakumiDC5]

Oh I understand completely, but to be honest their policies are not much concern of mine. I *DO* show my receipts for the record, but it would be nice to know that I legally can say no if I choose.

Right, their policies are not much concern of yours... until you want a Price Match that you've been denied, right? ("But it says so right here in your store policy!!"):lol:

[time space]

Here's a CBC column (http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourview/2007/12/stop_thief_or_maybe_not.html) discussing the issue of security tag sensors - but what was more interesting was the extensive comment section at the bottom of the page.

There was still no definitive answer to the OP's question, but the consensus seemed to be that they have no right to search you without your consent.

One strategy mentioned in the comments was to agree to be searched, but only on the condition that if nothing stolen was found, that the security guard would accompany you back to the returns desk where you would get a full refund for all the goods you had legally purchased. Those who practiced this strategy said they had never been challenged.

[EmperorOfCanada]

Hope this link helps:
http://consumerist.com/consumer/civil-rights/receipt-check-policies-for-costco-sams-club-and-bjs-297033.php



That is an American website though, and I don't think their laws are enforceable in Canada.

Right, their policies are not much concern of yours... until you want a Price Match that you've been denied, right? ("But it says so right here in your store policy!!"):lol:

I think you were kidding, but yes, you are correct. MY policy is to make a company stick to their own written/advertised policies, when beneficial to me, as that policy might be part of the reason I am shopping there to begin with. Why would I do otherwise? They need my money more than I need their product.

I have never seen posted anywhere around the store 'it is our stores policy that we stop you as you try to leave to make you prove you purchased the items that are in your bag, that were put there by one of our cashiers who are standing about 5 feet away from the exit' or any variation thereof.

[canadiankorean]

You're the EmperorOfCanada.
Can't you force all stores to stop doing that?

:P

[JWL]

There was still no definitive answer to the OP's question, but the consensus seemed to be that they have no right to search you without your consent.

That may be true, but if this is a cost effective way for them to manage shoplifting and people don't co-operate they will have to use other less cost effective ways to manage losses and those costs will show up in their prices.

For those who insist on refusing ("you" isn't aimed at "time space" quoted above):

We can speculate that it isn't an effective way to manage losses, but do you really think BB would do it if it wasn't?

I don't understand the worries of invading your privacy. As someone said in a post above it was on the checkout counter in open view a few feet away a few seconds ago. What could you possibly have that you don't want someone to look at? Seems like not showing your purchases is a petty little protest because you think you can that has no redeeming social value. Its immature and if everyone constantly did things just because they thought they could get away with it or couldn't be forced to do something, society would be hell.

[Kasakato]

Sure, fair enough but those dont apply here. This is AFTER the sale has been completed. All you are trying to do is leave the store.

In any case all this is rather off topic. Does anyone know if LEGALLY they can make you show? My guess is no, but I would appreciate hearing otherwise.

No, of course they cannot make you show it.

[tyfriend]

I always thought receipt checking was in violation of s.8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Under the heading of legal rights, section 8 states:

Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

[EmperorOfCanada]

I always thought receipt checking was in violation of s.8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Under the heading of legal rights, section 8 states:

They are well within their rights to ASK. If I say no and they allow me to walk away, then I have no issue with them :)

[Hunter316]

Hope this link helps:
http://consumerist.com/consumer/civil-rights/receipt-check-policies-for-costco-sams-club-and-bjs-297033.php

This is the basic gist:




I disagree with the whole process, but can also see why they do it. Otherwise you could just walk back in with your receipt, and walk out with the same items again. I'm guessing that's the main reason they mark your receipt with a highlighter as you exit.

So I would say its not illegal to force a receipt check on the way out, and yes if you made a big enough of fuss you could walk away being checked. The most they could do is ban you or revoke your club membership.

On the other end of things, I'm sure the big box stores have protected themselves enough to defend against claims of unlawful detainment, through their membership agreements, store policies etc. I'm not a lawyer though.


In the case of a membership store like Costco then they have a right to ask for the receipt since you have acknowledged that you will show your receipt for each purchase when you signed their membership agreement. Stores like Best Buy and Future Shop have no such agreement with the customer and you are only told that you need to have your receipt checked after the purchase is made. As the checking of the receipt was not a part of any agreement it is unenforceable. And for those people who have said they have no problem with showing the receipt have you ever had to stand in a 10 or more person line waiting to get your stuff checked. I personally have no inclination to do this and just walk out with my receipt in my bag.

[Kasakato]

I always thought receipt checking was in violation of s.8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Under the heading of legal rights, section 8 states:

The Charter protects individual-government relations only; civil matters are not protected via the Charter.

[rommelrommel]

The Charter protects individual-government relations only; civil matters are not protected via the Charter.

Uh wrong...

[kleptodathief]

as my nick suggests.. i don't klepto like i did during my child days but, is it only theft if u LEAVE the store? say a floor walker notices u putting 'stuff' inside ur jacket? he has to WAIT till u exit the store to charge u with theft?

and yes i klepto'd alot as a kid :cheesygri

[time space]

I don't understand the worries of invading your privacy. As someone said in a post above it was on the checkout counter in open view a few feet away a few seconds ago. What could you possibly have that you don't want someone to look at? Seems like not showing your purchases is a petty little protest because you think you can that has no redeeming social value. Its immature and if everyone constantly did things just because they thought they could get away with it or couldn't be forced to do something, society would be hell.

Next up... we can save on our tax bill by having police do door-to-door spot checks on citizens to see if they're engaged in any illegal activities. By not having to investigate based on suspicion, we can streamline police procedures and save a great deal on our tax funded police budget!

If you haven't done anything wrong, what petty reason could you possibly have to protest such a fine plan? It's immature and if everyone kept standing up for basic human rights, society would be hell.

[Nikita]

Next up... we can save on our tax bill by having police do door-to-door spot checks on citizens to see if they're engaged in any illegal activities. By not having to investigate based on suspicion, we can streamline police procedures and save a great deal on our tax funded police budget!

If you haven't done anything wrong, what petty reason could you possibly have to protest such a fine plan? It's immature and if everyone kept standing up for basic human rights, society would be hell.

I invite you, time space, to go live in a country that has no basic human rights....you'll then see what hell society already is! Seriously, I can't believe anybody who knows anything at all about history would make such a statement. People have fought wars, and are still fighting wars, for basic human rights. It's the societies that don't have them that are already in hell!

[Halifax55]

Where do they have receipt checkers other than costco?
Often Walmart will "check" your receipt...at least here in Barrie. Not often, but enough that I have had it happen to me a couple of times over the last five years or so.

[EmperorOfCanada]

I invite you, time space, to go live in a country that has no basic human rights....you'll then see what hell society already is! Seriously, I can't believe anybody who knows anything at all about history would make such a statement. People have fought wars, and are still fighting wars, for basic human rights. It's the societies that don't have them that are already in hell!

Nikita I am about 98% sure he was being sarcastic to prove a point :p

[doctorofstyle]

anyway, you're all missing the main point here, people verify receipts as a way to speed up customer service. Hypothetically let's say that everyone complained to best buy or future shop about checking receipts and that it was illegal so they stopped, the following would MOST LIKELY happen....

first, theft would go up... let's be honest here, it just opens a huge window for people to go buy something cheap, and walk out with whatever they choose. Since camera's can't be on every individual this would happen a lot. Best Buy and Futureshop would have to then change to prevent this - and the lackluster service you recieve now would be even more poor, and you would no longer be allowed to buy anything other than the front of the store right near the exit so the LP people could watch your transaction be processed and you could walk right out (like most stores do now) and the lineups would be long and pointless and then people would complain about waiting in a lineup to buy a pack of dvd's or whatever.

so yes you people can complain now, but is it really worse than the alternative?

[Kasakato]

anyway, you're all missing the main point here, people verify receipts as a way to speed up customer service. Hypothetically let's say that everyone complained to best buy or future shop about checking receipts and that it was illegal so they stopped, the following would MOST LIKELY happen....

first, theft would go up... let's be honest here, it just opens a huge window for people to go buy something cheap, and walk out with whatever they choose. Since camera's can't be on every individual this would happen a lot. Best Buy and Futureshop would have to then change to prevent this - and the lackluster service you recieve now would be even more poor, and you would no longer be allowed to buy anything other than the front of the store right near the exit so the LP people could watch your transaction be processed and you could walk right out (like most stores do now) and the lineups would be long and pointless and then people would complain about waiting in a lineup to buy a pack of dvd's or whatever.

so yes you people can complain now, but is it really worse than the alternative?

Once I buy my item, and want to leave the store, I don't want any customer service until I have a problem. Its simply an annoyance. To say its a service is a gross misrepresentation.

[Kasakato]

Uh wrong...

You are totally clueless. I work with a layer, trust me, I know the Charter.

Lets look AT THE CHARTER, section 32:

32. (1)This Charter applies

a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and
b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.

[Psycho44]

you don't need to show your receipt and the item you bought because it's yours and you legally paid for it. Only law enforcement officers or someone with security clearance or something can request to see your receipt if they suspect you of stealing which they must give a reason for.

So if you don't like showing your receipt flat out ask if they suspect you're stealing and if they say no just walk out. If they say yes lol all hell will break lose.

[Rishi]

Uh wrong...
Uh, next year when you get to grade 10 don't sleep through civics, ok?

[EmperorOfCanada]

anyway, you're all missing the main point here, people verify receipts as a way to speed up customer service. Hypothetically let's say that everyone complained to best buy or future shop about checking receipts and that it was illegal so they stopped, the following would MOST LIKELY happen....

first, theft would go up... let's be honest here, it just opens a huge window for people to go buy something cheap, and walk out with whatever they choose. Since camera's can't be on every individual this would happen a lot. Best Buy and Futureshop would have to then change to prevent this - and the lackluster service you recieve now would be even more poor, and you would no longer be allowed to buy anything other than the front of the store right near the exit so the LP people could watch your transaction be processed and you could walk right out (like most stores do now) and the lineups would be long and pointless and then people would complain about waiting in a lineup to buy a pack of dvd's or whatever.

so yes you people can complain now, but is it really worse than the alternative?

Then explain how all the other companies who DONT check receipts at the door stay in business? Also It is a fairly well known fact that most shrinkage is caused by employees, NOT customers.

[time space]

I don't understand the worries of invading your privacy. As someone said in a post above it was on the checkout counter in open view a few feet away a few seconds ago. What could you possibly have that you don't want someone to look at? Seems like not showing your purchases is a petty little protest because you think you can that has no redeeming social value. Its immature and if everyone constantly did things just because they thought they could get away with it or couldn't be forced to do something, society would be hell.

Next up... we can save on our tax bill by having police do door-to-door spot checks on citizens to see if they're engaged in any illegal activities. By not having to investigate based on suspicion, we can streamline police procedures and save a great deal on our tax funded police budget!

If you haven't done anything wrong, what petty reason could you possibly have to protest such a fine plan? It's immature and if everyone kept standing up for basic human rights, society would be hell.

I invite you, time space, to go live in a country that has no basic human rights....you'll then see what hell society already is! Seriously, I can't believe anybody who knows anything at all about history would make such a statement. People have fought wars, and are still fighting wars, for basic human rights. It's the societies that don't have them that are already in hell!

Nikita I am about 98% sure he was being sarcastic to prove a point :p
Exactly, Emperor!

The whole thread is full of people willing to give up one of their basic human rights just so they don't rock the boat at some insignificant box store. Generations of our ancestors have indeed fought for those very rights, yet Nikita did not mention that during the first three pages of this thread as poster after poster pledged their obedient submission to their retailer overlords.

It is sad to see so many Canadians so easily cede their rights for no good reason. It bodes well for corporations to continue to erode our rights bit by bit.

The thin edge of the wedge as it were.

[EmperorOfCanada]

Exactly, Emperor!

The whole thread is full of people willing to give up one of their basic human rights just so they don't rock the boat at some insignificant box store. Generations of our ancestors have indeed fought for those very rights, yet Nikita did not mention that during the first three pages of this thread as poster after poster pledged their obedient submission to their retailer overlords.

It is sad to see so many Canadians so easily cede their rights for no good reason. It bodes well for corporations to continue to erode our rights bit by bit.

The thin edge of the wedge as it were.

Bottom line for me is that usually I dont care or mind about showing my receipt but the fact of the matter is if I dont feel like it.. I am not 'being a troublemaker' or a 'nuisance' or a bad customer. I have no obligations to the store whatsoever aside from basic decency or doing anything that is actually illegal.

Here is a hypothetical for you. I go to Walmart and make a purchase, then I walk over to the Tim hortons and buy myself a coffee or something. While Im waiting in line I clean out my pockets and accidentally throw out the receipt I was just given. Now I am completely innocent yet I cant prove I own what I just paid for! Then all hell breaks loose when I cant show my receipt. <-- something similar to this HAS happened in the past (albeit in the US)

As I have said in previous posts I dont mind them asking, that is within their right. They can even ban me from coming back, they are within their right to do that as well. But I do not have to show that receipt.

[Ojam]

Money > Human Rights

That's what is basically comes down to for the people claiming this as a good LP method.

[doctorofstyle]

Once I buy my item, and want to leave the store, I don't want any customer service until I have a problem. Its simply an annoyance. To say its a service is a gross misrepresentation.

sorry i must have worded it poorly, i didn't mean that receipt checking is a service, i meant the service you'll recieve on the floor will be even worse than what it is now due to theft = lower budget for labour = poor service on floor.

Then explain how all the other companies who DONT check receipts at the door stay in business? Also It is a fairly well known fact that most shrinkage is caused by employees, NOT customers.

it's not really a "well known fact" i'd say it's 60-40 employees to customer ratio... most of them stay in business because high ticketed items will be locked up - or there is only one place to buy items, which is right near the exit door so customer buys item and leaves, as opposed to buys item anywhere in the store, and has time to walk around freely in the store and then leave.

bottom line, we complain now, but really... the alternative is still worse and if there are changes.... we'll complain about those too.

[Kasakato]

sorry i must have worded it poorly, i didn't mean that receipt checking is a service, i meant the service you'll recieve on the floor will be even worse than what it is now due to theft = lower budget for labour = poor service on floor.



That is a bit of a stretch. Higher theft is usually reflected in the price of goods; not in your sales person force. Without sales people you're not making money; a slight increase in price is generally goes unnoticed.

[doctorofstyle]

not necessarly, if the store isn't making money (cause it's losing money in theft) it very well could lead to reduced hours to employees.

[Kasakato]

not necessarly, if the store isn't making money (cause it's losing money in theft) it very well could lead to reduced hours to employees.

Again, that's a stretch. FS/BB are better off cutting out employees all together, theft or not. Whenever Iv been to their stores, there are always at least 10 just hanging around doing nothing.

[Sprite_TM]

i find receipt checking really annoying, an extra hassle you get for shopping at best buy.

i doubt anyone can steal a TV or a DVD recorder without paying and besides, there are cameras everywhere.

[doctorofstyle]

lol people steal tv's/computers/everything from futureshop and best buy, most stores will have less than 25 cameras, they can't be everywhere... i know this for fact.

[CeoOfKFC]

i find receipt checking really annoying, an extra hassle you get for shopping at best buy.

i doubt anyone can steal a TV or a DVD recorder without paying and besides, there are cameras everywhere.

It may be annoying...people find anything annoying.... but if your not losing anything by getting your receipt checked then I don't understand why people whine (not you but some of the crybaby RFDers here).

[EmperorOfCanada]

It may be annoying...people find anything annoying.... but if your not losing anything by getting your receipt checked then I don't understand why people whine (not you but some of the crybaby RFDers here).

Why even resort to calling us crybabies? we aren't crying about it at all. Assuming I don't want to show my receipt it doesn't have to be a big deal until THEY make it a big deal. I just want to go back to my car with **** that I own.

[time space]

It may be annoying...people find anything annoying.... but if your not losing anything by getting your receipt checked then I don't understand why people whine (not you but some of the crybaby RFDers here).
Have you not read the thread?

The point is that you are losing something - something very valuable - something even worth crying over it's loss.

(Bonus points if you can tell me what it is, CeoOfKFC.)

[doctorofstyle]

bonus points for either you or emperor if you can come up with a solution to your problem, e-mail it to head office of best buy and futureshop and they actually change the current situation to what you suggest.

[Ebtek]

my wife and i often have this discussion and i have always maintained the position that checking receipts/searching in bags for items i just bought is no different than them asking to see the inside of the bags i bought from another store...and a step furter; asking to see inside my wife's purse, etc.

also, its bad enough that walmart wants to stop you, its when their snotty arrogant door person feels they have the right to do it

[Ojam]

Fact: Employees theft is far greater an issue than customer theft.
http://www.microsoft.com/industry/retail/businessvalue/rsshrinkarticle.mspx

According to Ernst & Young, employee theft accounts for 46.6 percent of shrinkage and shoplifting just 31.8 percent. AMR Research estimated that the average loss per incident for external shoplifting ranges from $28 to $95, while the average employee theft incident is worth between $567 and $1,041. That's somewhere between 10 and 20 times greater.

Fact: In a retail environment there simply being sales people on the floor approaching people is a major deterrent to external theft.

Opinion: Doctorofstyle has no idea what s/he is talking about, and is simply making stuff up as they go, making huge assumptions and leaps simply to come up with reasons why it's good for basic rights to be infringed upon.

[ottawasportsfan2010]

Fact: Employees theft is far greater an issue than customer theft.
Fact: In a retail environment there simply being sales people on the floor approaching people is a major deterrent to external theft.

Opinion: Doctorofstyle has no idea what s/he is talking about, and is simply making stuff up as they go, making huge assumptions and leaps simply to come up with reasons why it's good for basic rights to be infringed upon.

Do you think stores should have any rights.

[EmperorOfCanada]

bonus points for either you or emperor if you can come up with a solution to your problem, e-mail it to head office of best buy and futureshop and they actually change the current situation to what you suggest.

I am fine with how it is. they can ask to see my receipt at the door, and I will say no thank you and keep walking to my car :) No need to change anything.

[time space]

Do you think stores should have any rights.

As with most legal situations, one person's rights end where the other person's begin.

Stores have the right to implement all forms of security (eg: video/undercover guards/security tags) that do not impinge on an individual customer's human rights.

[Ojam]

Do you think stores should have any rights.

A corporation under law is a person and therefore has the same rights as a person which do not include infringing on another persons rights.

[doctorofstyle]

fact: doctorofstyle works in said environment and gets to move out known theft from the system.

Fact in said store in the past three years there have been five external thefts of over 4 grand... Its people who steal cd's and 9 dollar USB sticks that bring down that average dollar

And I was referring to quantity of theft not dollar amounts.

And again nobody has answered or even commented on the fact that even if they change/eliminate the checker all that will result is a longer check out process at the front of the store.

And another question if u walk out of the store with an unmarked receipt whats stopping you from giving it to a friend having him go in and take the same item and leave?

Sorry guys honour system just ain't cutting it these days

[Ojam]

fact: doctorofstyle works in said environment and gets to move out known theft from the system.

Fact in said store in the past three years there have been five external thefts of over 4 grand... Its people who steal cd's and 9 dollar USB sticks that bring down that average dollar

And I was referring to quantity of theft not dollar amounts.

And again nobody has answered or even commented on the fact that even if they change/eliminate the checker all that will result is a longer check out process at the front of the store.

And another question if u walk out of the store with an unmarked receipt whats stopping you from giving it to a friend having him go in and take the same item and leave?

Sorry guys honour system just ain't cutting it these days

So your small sample is a better representation of the industry standard than what the industry actually reports?

Nobody has commented about longer check-out times because it's complete BS. Prove your theory and then maybe somebody will comment.

Oh, so a "what if" is what gives you the right to stop and detain innocent people?

You might want to lookup what the honor system is because it doesn't involve locked merchandise, camera's, security tags and store employee's walking around.

[EmperorOfCanada]

And I was referring to quantity of theft not dollar amounts.

And which do you think concerns the store more. Number of thefts or dollar amounts?

Say number of thefts and you are full of **** :p

[doctorofstyle]

It actually depends... Whats worse 1 4000 dollar theft or 4 1000 dollar thefts? I'd say the quantity is worse cause its happening more regularly... Naturally its not usually those numbers but hypothetically.... Love to prove my theory but if nothing changes than it won't happen bby and fs won't just let customers leave the store unchecked it just won't happen. My theory is what most likely would happen

[EmperorOfCanada]

It actually depends... Whats worse 1 4000 dollar theft or 4 1000 dollar thefts? I'd say the quantity is worse cause its happening more regularly... Naturally its not usually those numbers but hypothetically.... Love to prove my theory but if nothing changes than it won't happen bby and fs won't just let customers leave the store unchecked it just won't happen. My theory is what most likely would happen

Employees stealing is worse because it will likely not be a one time thing but happen over and over again until they quit/get fired/get caught.

Of course ALL theft is bad. But employees stealing is worse as far as the company is concerned.

[rommelrommel]

You are totally clueless. I work with a layer, trust me, I know the Charter.

Lets look AT THE CHARTER, section 32:

32. (1)This Charter applies

a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and
b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.

With a "layer" eh?

Yes, the charter was designed to protect you from the government but it goes past that. Human rights tribunals anyone? Employment equity laws? the Charter dips into areas orginally thought to be civil all the time.

[Nikita]

lol people steal tv's/computers/everything from futureshop and best buy, most stores will have less than 25 cameras, they can't be everywhere... i know this for fact.

Well then, here's an apparently novel concept, more cameras and less security goons. Impacts the customer less and is better evidence in court to boot.

It may be annoying...people find anything annoying.... but if your not losing anything by getting your receipt checked then I don't understand why people whine (not you but some of the crybaby RFDers here).

It wasn't crybabies who fought for us to have the rights we have, and it's not crybabies who choose to exercise those rights and fight for those rights...it's babies who let be trample on their rights.

bonus points for either you or emperor if you can come up with a solution to your problem, e-mail it to head office of best buy and futureshop and they actually change the current situation to what you suggest.

Well, that's easy, do whatever it is that the vast majority of stores do that don't treat their customers like thieves and yet are able to keep loss to a manageable minimum (which is the best any store can hope for).

As with most legal situations, one person's rights end where the other person's begin.

Stores have the right to implement all forms of security (eg: video/undercover guards/security tags) that do not impinge on an individual customer's human rights.

+1

fact: doctorofstyle works in said environment and gets to move out known theft from the system.

Fact in said store in the past three years there have been five external thefts of over 4 grand... Its people who steal cd's and 9 dollar USB sticks that bring down that average dollar

And I was referring to quantity of theft not dollar amounts.

And again nobody has answered or even commented on the fact that even if they change/eliminate the checker all that will result is a longer check out process at the front of the store.

And another question if u walk out of the store with an unmarked receipt whats stopping you from giving it to a friend having him go in and take the same item and leave?

Sorry guys honour system just ain't cutting it these days

Get rid of the 'receipt checkers' and train them as cashiers, put all the cashiers at the front near the door, that way you don't have the situation you speak of, where you purchase at a cash somewhere in the store and then continue on to the doors. More cashiers means shorter or no line-ups and you're paying people for doing what the customer pays for...selling products, not looking for stolen ones from everyone that enters the store. Odd though that all the large department store, like The Bay, Sears etc, have cashiers throughout the store, yet they don't feel the need to have these big galutes at the door treating customers like thieves.

[Kasakato]

With a "layer" eh?

Yes, the charter was designed to protect you from the government but it goes past that. Human rights tribunals anyone? Employment equity laws? the Charter dips into areas orginally thought to be civil all the time.

Lawyer, you get, and got the idea.

The CHRT upholds the Canadian Human Rights Act. Where in the "Canadian Human Rights Act" do you see "Charter"? HBC is not a government actor, they are a private company, therefore the Charter does not apply. People sue HBC, not the government. You were wrong, plain and simple.

Since were nit-picking, its originally.

[EmperorOfCanada]

Since were nit-picking, its originally.

Since we're nit-picking, it's we're. ;)

[Kasakato]

Since we're nit-picking, it's we're. ;)

I suck. ;)

[Nikita]

I suck. ;)

LOL...nice when someone can laugh at their own mistakes...:cheesygri.

In any event, Kas is right, the Charter only regulates behaviour between the government and individuals. No government entity, no Charter remedy.

[rommelrommel]

W/e, I disagree. The charter may not be the legislation that resolves a personal dispute, but it is why the other legislation exists. Although I personally think the charter is a worthless pile of crap, it was supposed to speak to basic human rights. If sexual orientation had never made it into the charter it wouldn't have made it down stream into our human rights legislation. I will obviously agree that there is no charter remedy in even this example, but the charter is supposed to be our formal declaration of the basic human rights that all our other law and legislation protect.

[Kasakato]

W/e, I disagree. The charter may not be the legislation that resolves a personal dispute, but it is why the other legislation exists. Although I personally think the charter is a worthless pile of crap, it was supposed to speak to basic human rights. If sexual orientation had never made it into the charter it wouldn't have made it down stream into our human rights legislation. I will obviously agree that there is no charter remedy in even this example, but the charter is supposed to be our formal declaration of the basic human rights that all our other law and legislation protect.

Now you're changing your argument. You can't disagree with something you're wrong about, and then change the argument to your liking. The source of human rights, and where laws derive their power is a whole new story. You start involving UN's Universal Decl. of Human Rights, natural rights, federal acts, provincial acts, etc.

[rommelrommel]

Now you're changing your argument. You can't disagree with something you're wrong about, and then change the argument to your liking. The source of human rights, and where laws derive their power is a whole new story. You start involving UN's Universal Decl. of Human Rights, natural rights, federal acts, provincial acts, etc.

If you want to get picky you can't assign an arguement to me just because I disagreed with you. I didn't really make an arguement until my last post.

I apologize however, saying just "wrong" was me being lazy and rude. I felt like making the arguement that the charter and it's proceeding documents were really the source of all your legal protections criminal and civil... but instead I was lazy and just came off like a jerk.

[drunag]

interesting thread...
i just wanted to add that those of you saying that employee (internal) theft is huge compared to external theft.. its obvious. However, that's because they have access to privlaged areas (stock rooms, lockups etc.) where customers cannot access. Alot of times things might get stolen right off the truck or from the back warehouse before it even reaches the floor

It is also standard procedure for many retailers to check all employee bags when they walk out. At one place i worked at, they would check women's purses (although i use the word "check" loosly.. the women would open the purse, and the person would just have a quick glance at the top). At best buy when i worked there years ago, they implemented a policy where all employees would have to empty their pockets and show the pockets inside out (in pants and jackets) at the end of their shifts before heading out the door.
i really don't know if they were legally allowed to do so or not, however i assumed they had made it part of the employment agreement.

I've personally never had an issue with greeters or receipt checkers. I mean if i'm in walmart and i purchase a large item that a bag cannot fit on, i usually just keep my receipt in my hand and if they ask, i show it. Its an item in a cart without a bag or any indication i purchased it. For all they know i just picked it up and put it in my cart.
they should be able to protect their business.

[time space]

I've personally never had an issue with greeters or receipt checkers. I mean if i'm in walmart and i purchase a large item that a bag cannot fit on, i usually just keep my receipt in my hand and if they ask, i show it. Its an item in a cart without a bag or any indication i purchased it. For all they know i just picked it up and put it in my cart.
they should be able to protect their business.

If theft gets really bad, you'd feel comfortable with body cavity searches then?

[ottawasportsfan2010]

If theft gets really bad, you'd feel comfortable with body cavity searches then?

So you do not think stores should be able to do anything.

[time space]

So you do not think stores should be able to do anything.

Read the thread.

[angekfire]

One strategy mentioned in the comments was to agree to be searched, but only on the condition that if nothing stolen was found, that the security guard would accompany you back to the returns desk where you would get a full refund for all the goods you had legally purchased. Those who practiced this strategy said they had never been challenged.

That sounds like a pretty good idea, lol.

as my nick suggests.. i don't klepto like i did during my child days but, is it only theft if u LEAVE the store? say a floor walker notices u putting 'stuff' inside ur jacket? he has to WAIT till u exit the store to charge u with theft?

Yes, if you shove something in your pocket and then walk around the store for 2 hours, put it on a shelf and leave, it doesn't count as theft because you aren't removing it from their property. I've done it once before where my hands were full so I put something in my pocket and went about my business, then went to the cash, pulled it out of my pocket and paid for it. No issue, I didn't remove it from their property. I've worked with store security before, and they would always wait just outside the store for someone who was shoplifting to come out, because they cannot do anything otherwise.

lol people steal tv's/computers/everything from futureshop and best buy, most stores will have less than 25 cameras, they can't be everywhere... i know this for fact.

True, a lot of stores have tons of cameras, but many of them are flat out fakes and do not feed or record. They are simply there to make thiefs think that they are being watched when they aren't. More a deterrant than anything.

[Nikita]

W/e, I disagree. The charter may not be the legislation that resolves a personal dispute, but it is why the other legislation exists. Although I personally think the charter is a worthless pile of crap, it was supposed to speak to basic human rights. If sexual orientation had never made it into the charter it wouldn't have made it down stream into our human rights legislation. I will obviously agree that there is no charter remedy in even this example, but the charter is supposed to be our formal declaration of the basic human rights that all our other law and legislation protect.

The Charter didn't come into effect until 1982, the Human Rights Code (Federal at least) was put into effect in the sixties. All provincila HR legislation, AFAIK, were also in effect prior to the Charter. So no, the Charter is not a document from which all HR protections derived. And they both address different conduct and provide diferrent remedies and regulate behaviour between different parties.

As said, the Charter address only governs conduct between governments and individuals, while HR codes address conduct between individuals. Further the HR codes have a narrower madate, being to deal with discrimination based on enumerated grounds (e.g. race, religion etc) wheras the Charter address a whole spectrum of issues including things totally outside HR legislation, such as legal rights up arrest/charge, mobility rights, democratic rights etc, thins over which the HR Tribunals have no jurisdiction.

So they are different pieces of legislation, each with their own mandates, and their own applications (i.e. who they apply to) that have nothing to do with each other. Human rights the HR legistion did not evolve from the Charter, nor the other way around. There may be some overlap (I say may, becaues I don't know of any overlap off the top of my head), but they are separate documents that have nothing to do with each other.


interesting thread...
i just wanted to add that those of you saying that employee (internal) theft is huge compared to external theft.. its obvious. However, that's because they have access to privlaged areas (stock rooms, lockups etc.) where customers cannot access. Alot of times things might get stolen right off the truck or from the back warehouse before it even reaches the floor

It is also standard procedure for many retailers to check all employee bags when they walk out. At one place i worked at, they would check women's purses (although i use the word "check" loosly.. the women would open the purse, and the person would just have a quick glance at the top). At best buy when i worked there years ago, they implemented a policy where all employees would have to empty their pockets and show the pockets inside out (in pants and jackets) at the end of their shifts before heading out the door.
i really don't know if they were legally allowed to do so or not, however i assumed they had made it part of the employment agreement.

I've personally never had an issue with greeters or receipt checkers. I mean if i'm in walmart and i purchase a large item that a bag cannot fit on, i usually just keep my receipt in my hand and if they ask, i show it. Its an item in a cart without a bag or any indication i purchased it. For all they know i just picked it up and put it in my cart.
they should be able to protect their business in a way that doesn't make their customers feel like they'e being treated life thieves, like the majority of other stores.

Fixed.

I'll say one thing, nobody on earth will check my purse without a warrant. They'd be having to call police and start a process that will be less pleasant for them than me. Legally, we DO have an legitimate expectation of privacy when it comes to a purse.

If theft gets really bad, you'd feel comfortable with body cavity searches then?

Forget it time space, people who find the current practice completely fine will never believe the very valid slippery slope argument.

That sounds like a pretty good idea, lol.



Yes, if you shove something in your pocket and then walk around the store for 2 hours, put it on a shelf and leave, it doesn't count as theft because you aren't removing it from their property. I've done it once before where my hands were full so I put something in my pocket and went about my business, then went to the cash, pulled it out of my pocket and paid for it. No issue, I didn't remove it from their property. I've worked with store security before, and they would always wait just outside the store for someone who was shoplifting to come out, because they cannot do anything otherwise.



True, a lot of stores have tons of cameras, but many of them are flat out fakes and do not feed or record. They are simply there to make thiefs think that they are being watched when they aren't. More a deterrant than anything.

Well here's a novel idea. Activate the damned cameras! and rely more on those and other measures if necessary, then having their goons demanding people prove they paid for some thing 5 feet away. Let's face it, doing so does imply they view you as a potential thief. There's absolutely no other reason to be checking people's receipts, we all know that. I'd bet they don't check the receipts of people they know, say friends or family, because they trust them. So if they're checking other people's receipts there's absolutely no other implication to be drawn, they see you as a potential thief. Worse, that implication is based on absolutely nothing the customer has done.

Unfortunately, whenever this issue comes up, I realize how many people, especially young people live in an ad-hoc manner, doing whatever they are told to do, by total strangers, no matter how insulting. In other words, so few people who live a principled life. Principles are, in my life, worth fighting for and I won't give them us to some goon trying to indimate me into thinking I HAVE to submit to being treated like a potential thief....just to save a time. Principles matter more to me than time.

[EmperorOfCanada]

:arrowu: Nikita sometimes you make me so proud <3

[Firestorm]

When people check my receipts it feels like I'm getting raped. Please stop ignoring my rights as a human being.

[Nikita]

:arrowu: Nikita sometimes you make me so proud <3

And sometimes you want to ring my neck I know...lol. I seem to have that effect on people...:cheesygri. Ah well, can't please all of the people all of the time...;)

[angekfire]

I'll say one thing, nobody on earth will check my purse without a warrant. They'd be having to call police and start a process that will be less pleasant for them than me. Legally, we DO have an legitimate expectation of privacy when it comes to a purse.

And I'm sure you'd agree it would be the same for anyone with a back-pack or other bag.

A lot of the time I just ignore the people at the door altogether. I usually have my headphones in anyway. And it is not like they can grab me to try and stop me, as that is clearly illegal in and of itself. Blocking my path would be their best hope, but usually I am already past them by the time they realize I am not stopping, hah.

[EmperorOfCanada]

And sometimes you want to ring my neck I know...lol. I seem to have that effect on people...:cheesygri. Ah well, can't please all of the people all of the time...;)

You are a very stubborn woman I'll grant you that. Not that its a bad thing. Most of the time :p

[drunag]

If theft gets really bad, you'd feel comfortable with body cavity searches then?

you're being overly dramatic.
First of all, if theft gets bad, I'm sure companies would implement a strategy to cut down on it, and not resort to "cavity searches" cuz ... well.. thats just plain dumb (and they would never get the authority to do that). they can make it a written policy on the front doors and on the reciepts that they will check your receipts before you walk out that door and if you felt like that's the same thing as getting a cavity search done, then just don't shop there.

I've seen it happen a few times where someone with a cartload of stuff has tried walking out the door, and when the door person stopped him/her, the people would usually flee (once, a lady actually came back in after being called by the door person... only to flee as soon as door person turned around haha).

it deters theft. it keeps prices low. and it works.
if you feel like you're being singled out for any reason whatsoever, then by all means, escalate it to management or head office... that is discrimination and against the law... otherwise go live a happy life and stop worrying about such petty things.

now... time to start my shift as a greeter :D lol j/k

[EmperorOfCanada]

you're being overly dramatic.
First of all, if theft gets bad, I'm sure companies would implement a strategy to cut down on it, and not resort to "cavity searches" cuz ... well.. thats just plain dumb (and they would never get the authority to do that). they can make it a written policy on the front doors and on the reciepts that they will check your receipts before you walk out that door and if you felt like that's the same thing as getting a cavity search done, then just don't shop there.

I've seen it happen a few times where someone with a cartload of stuff has tried walking out the door, and when the door person stopped him/her, the people would usually flee (once, a lady actually came back in after being called by the door person... only to flee as soon as door person turned around haha).

it deters theft. it keeps prices low. and it works.
if you feel like you're being singled out for any reason whatsoever, then by all means, escalate it to management or head office... that is discrimination and against the law... otherwise go live a happy life and stop worrying about such petty things.

now... time to start my shift as a greeter :D lol j/k

I could be wrong, but I think even if they did post a sign saying they reserve the right to check receipts at the exit, that they cant legally enforce it. They would be in the same position they are in now. They can ask, but they cant do anything if the customer says no. (Unless they have actually seen the customer stealing etc etc)

[Nikita]

And I'm sure you'd agree it would be the same for anyone with a back-pack or other bag.

Oh indeed, I do agree!


you're being overly dramatic.
First of all, if theft gets bad, I'm sure companies would implement a strategy to cut down on it, and not resort to "cavity searches" cuz ... well.. thats just plain dumb (and they would never get the authority to do that). they can make it a written policy on the front doors and on the reciepts that they will check your receipts before you walk out that door and if you felt like that's the same thing as getting a cavity search done, then just don't shop there.

I've seen it happen a few times where someone with a cartload of stuff has tried walking out the door, and when the door person stopped him/her, the people would usually flee (once, a lady actually came back in after being called by the door person... only to flee as soon as door person turned around haha).

it deters theft. it keeps prices low. and it works.
if you feel like you're being singled out for any reason whatsoever, then by all means, escalate it to management or head office... that is discrimination and against the law... otherwise go live a happy life and stop worrying about such petty things.

now... time to start my shift as a greeter :D lol j/k

Well you're the second person to make that statement as though it were fact. I'll ask you the same question I asked the other user (who has not [yet] given me an anwer). Where is your proof that this policy is in fact effective in preventing loss...or any of the things you cite "deters theft', 'keeps prices low' (I'd especially like to see proof of that claim because I don't believe for one moment any LP savings are passed on to the consumer) and 'it works'?

Just because a company implements a "LP policy" doesn't mean it works, you do know that anybody can make unsubstantiated claims, just like you just did. So if you can't substantiate, don't expect people to believe it. And don't believe that everything a store tells you is gospel.

[EmperorOfCanada]

otherwise go live a happy life and stop worrying about such petty things.


They have a point there though Nikita, why worry about such petty things as 'rights'. We have lots of rights, we can spare a few surely :)

[Nikita]

They have a point there though Nikita, why worry about such petty things as 'rights'. We have lots of rights, we can spare a few surely :)

Surrrrre, now that I think of it, I guess my right to due process, should I ever need to use it, is pesky for those in power...meh, might as well just throw myself on the mercy of a cop...;)

[EmperorOfCanada]

Surrrrre, now that I think of it, I guess my right to due process, should I ever need to use it, is pesky for those in power...meh, might as well just throw myself on the mercy of a cop...;)

I'm all about Human lefts!

[time space]

They have a point there though Nikita, why worry about such petty things as 'rights'. We have lots of rights, we can spare a few surely :)

Don't you remember that the terrorists hate our freedom and rights?!?



Well say hello to the next generation of terrorist!!!
:arrowd:


http://cache.consumerist.com/assets/resources/2008/03/walmartgreeterman.jpg



And here's their new weapon of mass destruction!!!
:arrowd:




http://sciencetraveler.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/highlighter-yellow.jpg

-------------------------------

you're being overly dramatic.
You want overly dramatic? I'll show you overly freakin' dramatic!!!

[Scott84]

I know in the US you are not required by law to stop and show your receipt to the receipt checkers out there. Does anyone know if the same applies in Canada and can link a source?

Thanks :)

There are ways around it.

I read my Costco Membership Rules sheet or whatever they call it when you become a member. Clearly states you must show your receipt as a member.

All they are doing is trying to keep theft down, which keeps prices down. Which in my opinion, is great. Theives are douchebags anyways.

[EmperorOfCanada]

There are ways around it.

I read my Costco Membership Rules sheet or whatever they call it when you become a member. Clearly states you must show your receipt as a member.

All they are doing is trying to keep theft down, which keeps prices down. Which in my opinion, is great. Theives are douchebags anyways.

Costco is the exception, not the rule. I dont have a membership agreement with Walmart or bestbuy when I enter their store, and I dont have to be a member there to make a purchase.

[Vitulla]

There are sooooo many more important issues in the world then people checking your receipt at the door. If you dont want your receipt checked at the door, shop online and stay the hell home. Im sorry If Im coming off a little strong, but this is ridiculous. Your rights? your walking into a private establishment. The same thing with showing ID with your credit card. If you have nothing to hide, why is it such a big deal? life is too short to argue about every little detail

[EmperorOfCanada]

There are sooooo many more important issues in the world then people checking your receipt at the door. If you dont want your receipt checked at the door, shop online and stay the hell home. Im sorry If Im coming off a little strong, but this is ridiculous. Your rights? your walking into a private establishment. The same thing with showing ID with your credit card. If you have nothing to hide, why is it such a big deal? life is too short to argue about every little detail

You are wrong, end of story :)

[Jucius Maximus]

There are ways around it.

I read my Costco Membership Rules sheet or whatever they call it when you become a member. Clearly states you must show your receipt as a member.

All they are doing is trying to keep theft down, which keeps prices down. Which in my opinion, is great. Theives are douchebags anyways.

Costco receipt checkers are actually effective. One time the cashier forgot to charge me for something, and the costco receipt checker caught it and sent me back.

Sam's Club ones are helpful, but in a different way. One time the Sam's Club person noticed that the cashier had forgotten to give me the coupon discount, so she sent me back to get my rebate. :-0

On the other hand, I have been to Sam's Club multiple times with other family members. We went out through different check-outs and then paid on separate receipts. Then we combined everything into one cart and exited, but only showed one of the receipts. The receipt-checker person appeared to be looking closely at the cart and receipt, but never raised a complaint about the "extra" items in the cart. We have done this about three times now and they never once caught it. Regardless, I do not commit shoplifting, and always pay fairly.

[HBP]

I agree, Costco checkers are pro.

Hasn't happened to me personally, but I've seen them notice people being overcharged and having items scanned more than once.

[time space]

There are sooooo many more important issues in the world then people checking your receipt at the door. If you dont want your receipt checked at the door, shop online and stay the hell home. Im sorry If Im coming off a little strong, but this is ridiculous. Your rights? your walking into a private establishment. The same thing with showing ID with your credit card. If you have nothing to hide, why is it such a big deal? life is too short to argue about every little detail

You are wrong, end of story :)

You're a very wise and patient Emperor - Canada is fortunate to have you.

It's hard to believe that the same comment keeps popping up from a new RFDer on each page of this thread. They parrot the same point without responding to the counterarguments already made. It's like arguing with a brick wall.

[angekfire]

I agree, Costco checkers are pro.

There are certainly exceptions to the rule. I went once with my ad, and he decided to test the checker to see if they were paying attention. We had both bought a bunch of stuff, although I had the majority. They were seperate receipts. I showed mine, he didn't show his. She looked in our cart and sent us on our merry way even though there were about 12 items in the cart that weren't on the receipt she had seen, and we didn't make any effort to hide them. He had the receipt in his pocket if she asked, but she didn't.

Hit or miss, I think it is more a deterrant than anything.

[Nikita]

There are ways around it.

I read my Costco Membership Rules sheet or whatever they call it when you become a member. Clearly states you must show your receipt as a member.

All they are doing is trying to keep theft down, which keeps prices down. Which in my opinion, is great. Theives are douchebags anyways.

You sign an agreement with Costco that allows them to check your receipt, you've agreed to do that, that has nothing to do with other stores so is pretty well irrelevant to this discussion. Sure thieves are douchebags, but I'm not a thief and I don't like being treated like a douchebag. You say they are trying to keep costs down, but until I can see where giving up my rights is actually doing that, thanks but I'll keep my rights and shop where my business is appreciated. If you want to blindly believe this policy actually works without any proof, that's up to you, but it'll take some proof that I'm benefitting from being treated like a thief before I'll even consider letting some goon intimidate me.

There are sooooo many more important issues in the world then people checking your receipt at the door. If you dont want your receipt checked at the door, shop online and stay the hell home. Im sorry If Im coming off a little strong, but this is ridiculous. Your rights? your walking into a private establishment. The same thing with showing ID with your credit card. If you have nothing to hide, why is it such a big deal? life is too short to argue about every little detail

CC companies don't allow retailers to ask you for ID when using the card. Again, you're just giving it all up cuz some goon tells you to. You may think exercising our rights is petty, my grandfather who fought 2 wars in the name of democracy and rights and freedoms and the thousands upon thousands who fought for these rights would surely, as me, disagree with you. So you just continue to go along with the herds, I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise, so don't try to convince me that my choice is petty k...;)?

[canehdianman]

I absolutely hate having to line up after I've paid for my goods at Costco to have someone scan my receipt, glance at my cart, highlite my receipt and let me go. If they think I stole something, then they can detain me. They have NO RIGHT to detain me as a matter of 'policy' as I am leaving the store.

Whenever possible i push my cart around the line and stroll out, right down the middle. They always chase after me "excuse me sir, I need to check your receipt!!!!" Then they seem confused when I say "No, you WANT to check my receipt".

By the time that sinks in, I'm usually long gone.

I did have one guy insist that i show him my receipt once. Rather than cause a scene I handed it over, he scanned it and handed it back. At the very least I went straight to the front of the line!

[CNeufeld]

I absolutely hate having to line up after I've paid for my goods at Costco to have someone scan my receipt, glance at my cart, highlite my receipt and let me go. If they think I stole something, then they can detain me. They have NO RIGHT to detain me as a matter of 'policy' as I am leaving the store.

Whenever possible i push my cart around the line and stroll out, right down the middle. They always chase after me "excuse me sir, I need to check your receipt!!!!" Then they seem confused when I say "No, you WANT to check my receipt".

By the time that sinks in, I'm usually long gone.

I did have one guy insist that i show him my receipt once. Rather than cause a scene I handed it over, he scanned it and handed it back. At the very least I went straight to the front of the line!

On the other hand, I have had the receipt checkers at Costco catch a coupon that the register person missed, and it was worthwhile to go back and get the refund at the customer service. Never had a bad experience beyond a slight delay, and I'm not usually in that much of a hurry when I'm shopping there anyway.

Clint

[ptejvw]

That sounds like a pretty good idea, lol.



Yes, if you shove something in your pocket and then walk around the store for 2 hours, put it on a shelf and leave, it doesn't count as theft because you aren't removing it from their property. I've done it once before where my hands were full so I put something in my pocket and went about my business, then went to the cash, pulled it out of my pocket and paid for it. No issue, I didn't remove it from their property. I've worked with store security before, and they would always wait just outside the store for someone who was shoplifting to come out, because they cannot do anything otherwise.



True, a lot of stores have tons of cameras, but many of them are flat out fakes and do not feed or record. They are simply there to make thiefs think that they are being watched when they aren't. More a deterrant than anything.

Around Christmas time a few years ago when my daughter was 3 or 4, I was in a store, and found a great toy for her as a present. HOWEVER.... she was with me, and my husband was at work. So, I took off my coat, and put the toy in the cart (that she was sitting in the front of), and covered the toy with my coat. I continued shopping, putting my other items on top of my coat. 15 min. later I was stopped by a worker, who started rummaging through my cart, moving my purse aside, and lifting my coat... I was shocked, when she pulled out the toy I was hiding from my daughter and said "Did you plan on PAYING for this item you are hiding?".... while she haughtily held the toy in front of my daughter. (My daughter says "Oooh!! For me?!"). Thanks lady.

I hadn't even FINISHED shopping! I said that, but she insisted that I follow her TO the cash, and pay for ALL of my purchases right then and there. (And I wasn't FINISHED SHOPPING!) Which, I stupidly did, but I didn't want her to think that me angrily walking out of the store meant that I WAS planning on "stealing" the toy that was under my coat in the shopping cart, and that I was leaving because I was "caught" and didn't want to. Either way, it was horribly embarrassing, AND ruined a surprise for my daughter.

I always wondered if it the woman was allowed to go through my stuff, and accuse me of stealing, when I wasn't anywhere near leaving the store!

(And our Walmart here never seems to check receipts.... that darn alarm goes off the entire time you are in the store. The "receipt" checkers are elderly, and don't seem to want to get up to check. Especially since usually the issue is that people at the self checkout don't scan the item close enough to disable the security thingy).

[Jucius Maximus]

Around Christmas time a few years ago when my daughter was 3 or 4, I was in a store, and found a great toy for her as a present. HOWEVER.... she was with me, and my husband was at work. So, I took off my coat, and put the toy in the cart (that she was sitting in the front of), and covered the toy with my coat. I continued shopping, putting my other items on top of my coat. 15 min. later I was stopped by a worker, who started rummaging through my cart, moving my purse aside, and lifting my coat... I was shocked, when she pulled out the toy I was hiding from my daughter and said "Did you plan on PAYING for this item you are hiding?".... while she haughtily held the toy in front of my daughter. (My daughter says "Oooh!! For me?!"). Thanks lady.

I hadn't even FINISHED shopping! I said that, but she insisted that I follow her TO the cash, and pay for ALL of my purchases right then and there. (And I wasn't FINISHED SHOPPING!) Which, I stupidly did, but I didn't want her to think that me angrily walking out of the store meant that I WAS planning on "stealing" the toy that was under my coat in the shopping cart, and that I was leaving because I was "caught" and didn't want to. Either way, it was horribly embarrassing, AND ruined a surprise for my daughter.

I always wondered if it the woman was allowed to go through my stuff, and accuse me of stealing, when I wasn't anywhere near leaving the store!

(And our Walmart here never seems to check receipts.... that darn alarm goes off the entire time you are in the store. The "receipt" checkers are elderly, and don't seem to want to get up to check. Especially since usually the issue is that people at the self checkout don't scan the item close enough to disable the security thingy).

While that worker was a douchebag, the fact is that all the merchandise in the cart was still store property because you had not paid for it at that point. I would have left and walked out of the store immediately. They would not have been able to legally do anything.

Anyone can accuse you of anything... allegations mean nothing.

I kind of like the play with the Costco receipt checkers. I spread my jacket out over the half the cart and hide nothing under it just to see their reaction. They never accused me of anything but always kind of pointed to it or motioned toward it. Well-trained, IMO.

[nornet]

Around Christmas time a few years ago when my daughter was 3 or 4, I was in a store, and found a great toy for her as a present. HOWEVER.... she was with me, and my husband was at work. So, I took off my coat, and put the toy in the cart (that she was sitting in the front of), and covered the toy with my coat. I continued shopping, putting my other items on top of my coat. 15 min. later I was stopped by a worker, who started rummaging through my cart, moving my purse aside, and lifting my coat... I was shocked, when she pulled out the toy I was hiding from my daughter and said "Did you plan on PAYING for this item you are hiding?".... while she haughtily held the toy in front of my daughter. (My daughter says "Oooh!! For me?!"). Thanks lady.

I hadn't even FINISHED shopping! I said that, but she insisted that I follow her TO the cash, and pay for ALL of my purchases right then and there. (And I wasn't FINISHED SHOPPING!) Which, I stupidly did, but I didn't want her to think that me angrily walking out of the store meant that I WAS planning on "stealing" the toy that was under my coat in the shopping cart, and that I was leaving because I was "caught" and didn't want to. Either way, it was horribly embarrassing, AND ruined a surprise for my daughter.

I always wondered if it the woman was allowed to go through my stuff, and accuse me of stealing, when I wasn't anywhere near leaving the store!

(And our Walmart here never seems to check receipts.... that darn alarm goes off the entire time you are in the store. The "receipt" checkers are elderly, and don't seem to want to get up to check. Especially since usually the issue is that people at the self checkout don't scan the item close enough to disable the security thingy).

I have a pinched nerve in my back and exercise for about 1.5 hours a day in the nearest mall about 4 days a week. Every second visit someone tries to abscond with something. You ususally hear "Security to Section .." I've seen women try to walk out of the store with an armful of blouses, the only thing that deters them is the alarm by the entrance. I dislike being treated like a criminal when I shop but am beginning to understand the direction the merchants are taking.

[angekfire]

Around Christmas time a few years ago when my daughter was 3 or 4, I was in a store, and found a great toy for her as a present. HOWEVER.... she was with me, and my husband was at work. So, I took off my coat, and put the toy in the cart (that she was sitting in the front of), and covered the toy with my coat. I continued shopping, putting my other items on top of my coat. 15 min. later I was stopped by a worker, who started rummaging through my cart, moving my purse aside, and lifting my coat... I was shocked, when she pulled out the toy I was hiding from my daughter and said "Did you plan on PAYING for this item you are hiding?".... while she haughtily held the toy in front of my daughter. (My daughter says "Oooh!! For me?!"). Thanks lady.

I hadn't even FINISHED shopping! I said that, but she insisted that I follow her TO the cash, and pay for ALL of my purchases right then and there. (And I wasn't FINISHED SHOPPING!) Which, I stupidly did, but I didn't want her to think that me angrily walking out of the store meant that I WAS planning on "stealing" the toy that was under my coat in the shopping cart, and that I was leaving because I was "caught" and didn't want to. Either way, it was horribly embarrassing, AND ruined a surprise for my daughter.

I always wondered if it the woman was allowed to go through my stuff, and accuse me of stealing, when I wasn't anywhere near leaving the store!

(And our Walmart here never seems to check receipts.... that darn alarm goes off the entire time you are in the store. The "receipt" checkers are elderly, and don't seem to want to get up to check. Especially since usually the issue is that people at the self checkout don't scan the item close enough to disable the security thingy).

That is ridiculous. I have no idea how she could accuse you of stealing when you were still shopping and hadn't gone to the cashes yet. I prbably would have said "A) I am not done shopping. I will go to the cashes when I am finished, and B) That was going to be a surprise for my daughter, which you ruined. Tell you what, I will leave all my purchases here and follow you to the front cash, and you will let me speak to your manager and refund my membership, and I will not be shopping here again after you accused me of being a thief."

That probably would have shut her right up.

[peroxide8888]

Interestingly enough, I walked out of Walmart the other day with 3 unpaid items... after the guy at the front checked my receipt.

They were in the bottom of our stroller, and I completely forgot about them being down there. Only when I was out in the parking lot did I realize they were there; I immediately returned and paid for them, but no one else noticed I hadn't paid for them. My wife had gone ahead of me with the kid, so even she didn't know I hadn't paid for them until we were outside. :lol:

[champlinD]

Interestingly enough, I walked out of Walmart the other day with 3 unpaid items... after the guy at the front checked my receipt.

They were in the bottom of our stroller, and I completely forgot about them being down there. Only when I was out in the parking lot did I realize they were there; I immediately returned and paid for them, but no one else noticed I hadn't paid for them. My wife had gone ahead of me with the kid, so even she didn't know I hadn't paid for them until we were outside. :lol:

I will give you benefit that you are honest.
But I have seen this stroller trick pulled at Canadian tire store North York location. Even my wife was shocked that it in clear view and cashier couldn't see.

[ptejvw]

I have a pinched nerve in my back and exercise for about 1.5 hours a day in the nearest mall about 4 days a week. Every second visit someone tries to abscond with something. You ususally hear "Security to Section .." I've seen women try to walk out of the store with an armful of blouses, the only thing that deters them is the alarm by the entrance. I dislike being treated like a criminal when I shop but am beginning to understand the direction the merchants are taking.

I agree with you. I OFTEN see people steal things in stores... I've even reported the "up-sleeve" makeup stealers... but, the workers didn't care. Heck, my daughter (who is 7) has seen people stealing, and has told me. A person I know once bragged to me about the Walmart self-checkout "discount"... where they only scanned every second thing... because our store here is severely understaffed, and the workers don't check out the issues. (Those machines always accuse you of having an item not in bag, etc). When I accused them of stealing, they didn't THINK of it like that, i suppose, because they didn't get caught- they seemed PROUD of their trickery!

But, I always get treated like a thief when I walk into a small store, etc. I am young and heavily tattooed (full sleeves) and get watched like a hawk. With a coat or sweater on, no problem. Tattoos showing? I am suddenly out to rob the place... I am used to it, and can "almost" understand the stereotyping... but it doesn't alleviate the aggravation!

Ok, I babbled off the subject of the receipt checking- sorry!

[HowEver]

Recently in RCSS' baked goods section I saw a woman and man remove a nearly full roll of bread/bagel clear plastic bags and put it in the bottom section of their grocery cart.

They must have been known to management/followed, because two steps later store staff came over, reached down and put the huge roll of plastic bags back on the roller.

The couple had the nerve to say, "It must have fallen into our cart."

.

[Scott84]

You sign an agreement with Costco that allows them to check your receipt, you've agreed to do that, that has nothing to do with other stores so is pretty well irrelevant to this discussion. Sure thieves are douchebags, but I'm not a thief and I don't like being treated like a douchebag. You say they are trying to keep costs down, but until I can see where giving up my rights is actually doing that, thanks but I'll keep my rights and shop where my business is appreciated. If you want to blindly believe this policy actually works without any proof, that's up to you, but it'll take some proof that I'm benefitting from being treated like a thief before I'll even consider letting some goon intimidate me.

Well, it does work, or Costco wouldn't pay someone (and usually two) on a weekend $21.05/HR (yes, thats what a receipt checker can make at Costco) to check receipts if it didnt save them money. Costco like any other company in good practice, does not like to waste money. So why don't you prove them checking it ineffective?

It's naive to think that its an ineffective policy, especially in economic times when companies are trying their best to cut money. They haven't been doing it for 30 years because they 'think its the right thing to do'.

LOL.

[time space]

Well, it does work, or Costco wouldn't pay someone (and usually two) on a weekend $21.05/HR (yes, thats what a receipt checker can make at Costco) to check receipts if it didnt save them money. Costco like any other company in good practice, does not like to waste money. So why don't you prove them checking it ineffective?

It's naive to think that its an ineffective policy, especially in economic times when companies are trying their best to cut money. They haven't been doing it for 30 years because they 'think its the right thing to do'.

LOL.

That was a pretty good argument - right up to the "LOL" (in all caps, no less).

When you have already written a sensible argument, why in the world would you feel the need to display that type of immaturity right at the end like that? :confused:

But I do agree that it may be an effective policy from the store's point of view.

By simply intimidating their customers into waiving their human rights, they save the trouble of designing a truly effective security system which is respectful of their honest patrons.

[Nikita]

Well, it does work, or Costco wouldn't pay someone (and usually two) on a weekend $21.05/HR (yes, thats what a receipt checker can make at Costco) to check receipts if it didnt save them money. Costco like any other company in good practice, does not like to waste money. So why don't you prove them checking it ineffective?

It's naive to think that its an ineffective policy, especially in economic times when companies are trying their best to cut money. They haven't been doing it for 30 years because they 'think its the right thing to do'.

LOL.

Naive? I don't think so. As I keep repeating, the vast majority of stores emply LP policies that don't involve goons treating me like a thief. It's naive of you to think Costco's policy works better than other stores' LP policies just because they pay people to enforce them. And I don't have to prove it's ineffective. If they want to treat their customers like thieves, they can either prove why it's necessary or lose my business. Let's face it, there isn't one single product on earth that's sold in only one store. There isn't one single product at Costco that I can't get somewhere else where patrons are treated with basic respect. I don't have to prove anything....I just refuse to spend my dollars there.

That was a pretty good argument - right up to the "LOL" (in all caps, no less).

When you have already written a sensible argument, why in the world would you feel the need to display that type of immaturity right at the end like that? :confused:

But I do agree that it may be an effective policy from the store's point of view.

By simply intimidating their customers into waiving their human rights, they save the trouble of designing a truly effective security system which is respectful of their honest patrons.

Exactly!

[slowtyper]

I haven't followed this thread. I don't like the receipt checkers generally since they just take a lot of time. I don't really mind the concept since I agreed to it when I joined the club. If I had a problem with it, I have a lot of other choices of places to go, but for me the benefits of Costco are far greater than the added inconvenience at the end.

For the people who are really against the idea of having them, sure go ahead nobody is even trying to stop you from taking your business elsewhere...so why do they have to be so loud about it? Don't agree, shop somewhere else and move on...why make so much noise?

[EmperorOfCanada]

I haven't followed this thread. I don't like the receipt checkers generally since they just take a lot of time. I don't really mind the concept since I agreed to it when I joined the club. If I had a problem with it, I have a lot of other choices of places to go, but for me the benefits of Costco are far greater than the added inconvenience at the end.

For the people who are really against the idea of having them, sure go ahead nobody is even trying to stop you from taking your business elsewhere...so why do they have to be so loud about it? Don't agree, shop somewhere else and move on...why make so much noise?

Seeing as how you werent following the thread, who said anything about making noise? I can shop at bestbuy AND ignore their receipt check policy. No noise necessary unless THEY choose to make the noise :)

As far as costco goes.. people keep bringing up costco. Costco is the once place I dont care where they ask, because I have agreed to the check before I even step into the store.

[slowtyper]

Seeing as how you werent following the thread, who said anything about making noise? I can shop at bestbuy AND ignore their receipt check policy. No noise necessary unless THEY choose to make the noise :)

As far as costco goes.. people keep bringing up costco. Costco is the once place I dont care where they ask, because I have agreed to the check before I even step into the store.

I don't mean "noise" in the store...I saw a couple posts by Nikita really being against Costco, how she won't shop there, how they have "goons" (lol), etc etc. Ok we get it, don't shop there, why do you keep talking about it?

[ottawasportsfan2010]

That is ridiculous. I have no idea how she could accuse you of stealing when you were still shopping and hadn't gone to the cashes yet. I prbably would have said "A) I am not done shopping. I will go to the cashes when I am finished, and B) That was going to be a surprise for my daughter, which you ruined. Tell you what, I will leave all my purchases here and follow you to the front cash, and you will let me speak to your manager and refund my membership, and I will not be shopping here again after you accused me of being a thief."

That probably would have shut her right up.

THe probleam is not everyone is honest.Yes a good number of customers are very honest and some times get a raw deal.But there i customers who are not and do try and steal etc.What really drives me nuts is when people open a bag of chips right in the store finish it and the leave.

[Scott84]

Naive? I don't think so. As I keep repeating, the vast majority of stores emply LP policies that don't involve goons treating me like a thief. It's naive of you to think Costco's policy works better than other stores' LP policies just because they pay people to enforce them. And I don't have to prove it's ineffective. If they want to treat their customers like thieves, they can either prove why it's necessary or lose my business. Let's face it, there isn't one single product on earth that's sold in only one store. There isn't one single product at Costco that I can't get somewhere else where patrons are treated with basic respect. I don't have to prove anything....I just refuse to spend my dollars there. Exactly!

How is receipt checking treating someone like a theif? All they are doing is verifying what you have in the basket and what you have on the receipt.
When i leave a store, and they want to check my receipt, go for it. Im not uptight or feel they are invading my privacy.

Im not saying Costco's policy is the best or is the end all be all. Sam's Club checks receipts, similar store. different company.

[Nikita]

I haven't followed this thread. I don't like the receipt checkers generally since they just take a lot of time. I don't really mind the concept since I agreed to it when I joined the club. If I had a problem with it, I have a lot of other choices of places to go, but for me the benefits of Costco are far greater than the added inconvenience at the end.

For the people who are really against the idea of having them, sure go ahead nobody is even trying to stop you from taking your business elsewhere...so why do they have to be so loud about it? Don't agree, shop somewhere else and move on...why make so much noise?

Umm, because it's the topic of the thread (which you'd know if you had followed the thread)...:rolleyes:

I don't mean "noise" in the store...I saw a couple posts by Nikita really being against Costco, how she won't shop there, how they have "goons" (lol), etc etc. Ok we get it, don't shop there, why do you keep talking about it?

Again, because it's the topic of the thread. Because that's why threads are made and questions asked, so people will discuss it (that all seems pretty obvious to me...). Why do you have to make so much noise about people conversing about the topic of the thread? Are you actually hearing any noise? Or do you just not like reading what you don't agree with? Don't agree, we get it, why keep making noise about it, don't read the thread and move on ?;)

[Nikita]

How is receipt checking treating someone like a theif? All they are doing is verifying what you have in the basket and what you have on the receipt.
When i leave a store, and they want to check my receipt, go for it. Im not uptight or feel they are invading my privacy.

Im not saying Costco's policy is the best or is the end all be all. Sam's Club checks receipts, similar store. different company.

And good for you, nobody's telling you to do otherwise than what makes you comfortable. But it's kind of naive to expect everyone is like you or should feel the same way you do. What I do, or what I believe in, doesn't impact on your life whatsoever, so why do you care that I feel differently than you?

[Scott84]

Why does receipt checking make you feel like your being treated like a theif?

[Nikita]

Why does receipt checking make you feel like your being treated like a theif?

Why do you think they check receipts? TO MAKE SURE NOBODY IS STEALING. Does that answer your question? Kind of a no-brainer I'd think ;).

[Scott84]

Well yeah, but there are also other reasons too like checking to make sure cashier doesnt make mistakes and stuff. Cashiers do make mistakes like me and you, we are all human.

Last time I was in, they forgot to scan something, and I had to go back. A hassle yes, but it did save the company $12.

[nogoro]

just putting in my 2 cents, I don't have a problem with receipt checking but it is a hassle when I am carrying many things and don't have a cart. If another store had the same prices and no receipt checking protocol I would probably go there. But my inconvenience isn't worth much to me :)

[Nikita]

Well yeah, but there are also other reasons too like checking to make sure cashier doesnt make mistakes and stuff. Cashiers do make mistakes like me and you, we are all human.

Last time I was in, they forgot to scan something, and I had to go back. A hassle yes, but it did save the company $12.

It's not my responsibility to ensure cashiers don't make mistakes that affect the company, it's only my responsibility to make sure they don't make mistakes that affect me. Nor is it in any way my responsibility or even my concern to save the company $12! Those are their problems and theirs alone. I don't treat my clients like crap to ensure my staff is working properly and if one of my staff makes a mistake in favour of a client that costs me money, I don't visit that problem on the client.

But hey, if you're cool with that, that's completely your choice.

[time space]

Well yeah, but there are also other reasons too like checking to make sure cashier doesnt make mistakes and stuff. Cashiers do make mistakes like me and you, we are all human.

Last time I was in, they forgot to scan something, and I had to go back. A hassle yes, but it did save the company $12.

Next up, the stores will be adding a hall from the front door of the store to the parking lot. Inside this hall will be the checker checkers. Their job is to make sure the checkers didn't make a mistake. Checkers do make mistakes like me and you and cashiers, we are all human**.



(**Except for that pesky human rights business.)

[Scott84]

It's not my responsibility to ensure cashiers don't make mistakes that affect the company, it's only my responsibility to make sure they don't make mistakes that affect me. Nor is it in any way my responsibility or even my concern to save the company $12! Those are their problems and theirs alone. I don't treat my clients like crap to ensure my staff is working properly and if one of my staff makes a mistake in favour of a client that costs me money, I don't visit that problem on the client.

But hey, if you're cool with that, that's completely your choice.

Yeah, im cool with them checking my receipt and not feeling like I was treated like crap of a theif. It takes two seconds, nor am I going to spend two seconds thinking about whether some random person or company thinks of me.

I really can't see people shopping at a place that treats them like 'crap'. I looked up some stats on the company.. 50+ million members, 50+ Billion in sales.

I dont buy they are treating anyone like crap. Nothing they are doing is going after the customer personally.

[Nikita]

Yeah, im cool with them checking my receipt and not feeling like I was treated like crap of a theif. It takes two seconds, nor am I going to spend two seconds thinking about whether some random person or company thinks of me.

I really can't see people shopping at a place that treats them like 'crap'. I looked up some stats on the company.. 50+ million members, 50+ Billion in sales.

I dont buy they are treating anyone like crap. Nothing they are doing is going after the customer personally.

I guess you haven't read all the posts where people have had to stand in yet another line-up, after lining up to pay for their items, only to have someone hold them up again, especially when you have a lot of packages, or especially if you're disabled, elderly or live with pain issues...or simply those who are in a hurry. Like I said, you don't feel like you are being treated like crap...fine...show them your receipt. Those of us who know they're looking for thieves see it otherwise, and that's fine too. I'm not telling you, or anyone, to feel the way I do, to act on principle or to stop showing their receipts to people who, no matter how you cut it, are checking to make sure you're not stealing anything. Once again, something you've never commented on even though I've mentioned it everytime...if you believe it's necessary or even effective LP, how is it that the vast majority of stores have LP policies that don't involve wasting my time treating me like a thief?

As an aside, notice how those of us who won't show receipts aren't telling everyone else to not show receipts, or calling them ridiculous or other names for their choice, whereas those of you who have no problem with it resort to insults and name-calling toward those of us who choose otherwise? Live your life the way you choose, and let the rest of us do the same.

[Scott84]

I guess you haven't read all the posts where people have had to stand in yet another line-up, after lining up to pay for their items, only to have someone hold them up again, especially when you have a lot of packages, or especially if you're disabled, elderly or live with pain issues...or simply those who are in a hurry. Like I said, you don't feel like you are being treated like crap...fine...show them your receipt. Those of us who know they're looking for thieves see it otherwise, and that's fine too. I'm not telling you, or anyone, to feel the way I do, to act on principle or to stop showing their receipts to people who, no matter how you cut it, are checking to make sure you're not stealing anything. Once again, something you've never commented on even though I've mentioned it everytime...if you believe it's necessary or even effective LP, how is it that the vast majority of stores have LP policies that don't involve wasting my time treating me like a thief?

As an aside, notice how those of us who won't show receipts aren't telling everyone else to not show receipts, or calling them ridiculous or other names for their choice, whereas those of you who have no problem with it resort to insults and name-calling toward those of us who choose otherwise? Live your life the way you choose, and let the rest of us do the same.

Its effective LP for a store like Costco because how many stores have it designed in a way that once you pass the cash you can stay in the store, visit the photo centre, food court, pharmacy, ciggarette area, optical, or whatever else. People are constantly walking in all directions in the store.

It's extremely easy to walk past the cashiers will a stack of dvds, or whatever and they not say anything.

Im not telling people to show receipts, im merely arguing the benefits and why companies ask for it. As well as arguing that the customer is not being treated like a theif.

As for Costco, when a member signs up they agree to show their card when they enter the store, and when they leave show their receipt. Im guessing that Sam's Club is the same way.

Stores that dont have a design layout like costco that don't have a sign up agreement. I will still show receipt as I got nothing to hide, nor does it bother me in the slightest. Which is obviously personal opinion.

Either way, we can go back and forth all day on this. I respect your take on the subject. Even if I dont agree with them.

[Nikita]

Its effective LP for a store like Costco because how many stores have it designed in a way that once you pass the cash you can stay in the store, visit the photo centre, food court, pharmacy, ciggarette area, optical, or whatever else. People are constantly walking in all directions in the store.
It's extremely easy to walk past the cashiers will a stack of dvds, or whatever and they not say anything.

Im not telling people to show receipts, im merely arguing the benefits and why companies ask for it. As well as arguing that the customer is not being treated like a theif.

As for Costco, when a member signs up they agree to show their card when they enter the store, and when they leave show their receipt. Im guessing that Sam's Club is the same way.

Stores that dont have a design layout like costco that don't have a sign up agreement. I will still show receipt as I got nothing to hide, nor does it bother me in the slightest. Which is obviously personal opinion.

Either way, we can go back and forth all day on this. I respect your take on the subject. Even if I dont agree with them.

Off the top of my head...Sears, The Bay, SDM (I always pay at the cosmetics counter cuz there's usually no lines, you can also pay at the prescription counter or the post office (at the SDMs that have them) if you're buying anything postal related, Rexall, in fact, most department stores have cashiers in each department only, again that includes Sears and the Bay. Same with a lot of grocery stores. At Remarks, you can pay at the flower counter, even when you're just on your way in (cuz that's where the flower dept. is, At Zehrs you can pay for stuff at the prescription counter or if buying clothes, the Joe Fresh boutique has it's own cashier, nowhere near the door. And, like I said, that's just off the top of my head. None of those stores need to resort to the sort of tactics Walmart (not mine, not yet anyway), BB or any of those other stores do. With all that, how can I not question whether checking receipts is actually an effective LP policy??

Anyway, that was just to answer your question and, yeah, I can agree to disagree...;)

[sovexxed]

OK....I haven't read all the posts here. But in response to effective LP. I've seen in several grocery stores and even Costco where (I'm assuming) a customer has picked up an item and helped themselves to some of it and leave it behind. This type of loss adds up and occurs quite often. Checking receipts at the door is one way to try to prevent theft. Though not an effective method for Costco.

At Costco you have the cashier and sometimes 2 during busy periods. Plus, Costco sells in bulk...how do you sneak something into the cart, your purse or pocket? Options are limited here.....

By the way, I don't agree with checking the receipt. Most times, they just glance at it anyway. I've never had them say...hey you spent $300 but you only have 12 items :lol:

[Nikita]

OK....I haven't read all the posts here. But in response to effective LP. I've seen in several grocery stores and even Costco where (I'm assuming) a customer has picked up an item and helped themselves to some of it and leave it behind. This type of loss adds up and occurs quite often. Checking receipts at the door is one way to try to prevent theft. Though not an effective method for Costco.

At Costco you have the cashier and sometimes 2 during busy periods. Plus, Costco sells in bulk...how do you sneak something into the cart, your purse or pocket? Options are limited here.....

By the way, I don't agree with checking the receipt. Most times, they just glance at it anyway. I've never had them say...hey you spent $300 but you only have 12 items :lol:

WRT the bolded part, as many times as this topic has come up here, nobody has yet been able to provide any evidence whatsoever that losses are down due to this LP policy, or that losses are down at all for that matter. I don't get why people are so accepting of this statement just because the stores say so. All stores keep financial records that could easily show whether or not any policy is effective, but oddly enough none of that proof has been shared with their customers or even the general public. Especially with it being such a big issue with a lot of people...why aren't they showing us stats that prove recipt-checking is actually an effective LP policy? At the very least it would end the debate and perhaps make some of us more understanding of why they're doing it, may even change some minds including my own about showing my receipts...may, not will...lol.

[slowtyper]

WRT the bolded part, as many times as this topic has come up here, nobody has yet been able to provide any evidence whatsoever that losses are down due to this LP policy, or that losses are down at all for that matter. I don't get why people are so accepting of this statement just because the stores say so. All stores keep financial records that could easily show whether or not any policy is effective, but oddly enough none of that proof has been shared with their customers or even the general public. Especially with it being such a big issue with a lot of people...why aren't they showing us stats that prove recipt-checking is actually an effective LP policy? At the very least it would end the debate and perhaps make some of us more understanding of why they're doing it, may even change some minds including my own about showing my receipts...may, not will...lol.

here you go: http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050814/news_lz1b14aisles.html

Costco's internal shrinkage – items lost because of employee theft, fraud or other problems – is a low two-tenths of 1 percent, Sinegal said. By comparison, shrinkage throughout the U.S. retail industry is about 1.7 percent, according to the National Retail Security Survey.

[slowtyper]

Why do you think they check receipts? TO MAKE SURE NOBODY IS STEALING. Does that answer your question? Kind of a no-brainer I'd think ;).

Do you avoid stores that force you to exit through those "alarm gates"? They serve the same purpose but one is obviously less intrusive. So do you have issue with being treated like a criminal, or do you just have an issue of being inconvenienced?

[TakumiDC5]

Costco's internal shrinkage – items lost because of employee theft, fraud or other problems – is a low two-tenths of 1 percent, Sinegal said. By comparison, shrinkage throughout the U.S. retail industry is about 1.7 percent, according to the National Retail Security Survey.

Dude, what you posted has nothing to do with the topic at hand! It's talking about INTERNAL shrinkage. Nothing to do with customers and receipt checking for customers.

All it proves is that Costco's employees are more loyal than average.

Veteran Costco employees are paid an average of $17 an hour, about double that of Sam's Club workers. Benefits are also of the Cadillac variety, analysts say.
Likewise, Sinegal defended the pay and benefits package for Costco employees, saying that happy employees are loyal, stable employees.

Personally, I would probably believe that it does prevent customer theft. Otherwise I could just take my un-highlighted receipt and walk back-in through the doors, grab the same items and walk out again. Although I don't have any data to prove it.

[slowtyper]

Dude, what you posted has nothing to do with the topic at hand! It's talking about INTERNAL shrinkage. Nothing to do with customers and receipt checking for customers.

All it proves is that Costco's employees are more loyal than average.



OOPS yeah I was completely wrong there, sorry!

edit:After more thought...

1) It seems like that number is overall shrinkage and that quote may have been mistaken (see below post)
2) Even if its not mistaken and that was internal shrinkage, it is not a totally separate topic as you mention. Maybe the receipt checking is actually meant to reduce employee shrinkage as well by making employees use the same entrance and exits as customers (I have seen them use the same entrance but I'm not sure if it is policy). It is all related.

[slowtyper]

In retail establishments such as Costco, inventory shrinkage is a significant cost. According to the National Retail Security Survey (See Table 3), retailers lose 1.7 percent of their total annual sales to inventory shrinkage. In 2002, this translated into losses of $31.3 billion. While retail shrinkage has declined in recent years due to electronic surveillance, employee theft remains a bigger problem than shoplifting. A study by Hayes International found that one in every 26.5 employees is apprehended for theft from their employer in 2005. Dishonest employees steal approximately 5.7 times the amount stolen by shoplifters ($724.15 versus $126.87)11. By controlling entrances and exits of the warehouse, having sales receipts cross-checked against merchandise in shopping carts, Costco’s shrinkage rate is 8.5 times less than the industry average. Inventory losses for the past three years have stood at two-tenths of 1 percent of net sales at Costco. Perhaps most telling, Costco’s employee theft ratio is a tenth of the industry average—this alone saves it millions of dollars each year.
-university of Washington business school case study
http://bschool.washington.edu/PDF/Costco%20Pharm.General%20Information5.1.07.pdf

I don't know how accurate this is. I wish they would go into more detail about where the data comes from, but it states two different figures of 10x and 8.5x which leads me to believe they are talking about external and internal shrinkage, but the wording is unclear to me.

As well, this is from Costco's annual report:
By
strictly controlling the entrances and exits of our warehouses and using a membership format, we have
limited inventory losses (shrinkage) to less than two-tenths of one percent of net sales in the last
several fiscal years—well below those of typical discount retail operations.

So the same .2% comes up, but here its not specifically stating internal shrinkage.

Even so, perhaps the receipt checking is really intended to reduce employee shrinkage if the employees are to use the same entrance and exits as customers...just another thought. As for the real reasons and exact data, I wouldn't expect costco to reveal all of that information to the public.

From a different year report:
Control over our inventory is paramount to our success: exciting, highquality
merchandise, high inventory turns and low inventory shrinkage. Our shrink numbers, we believe, are not
only the lowest in our industry, but they were the lowest in Costco history, well below .20% for fiscal 2005.

[Nikita]

Do you avoid stores that force you to exit through those "alarm gates"? They serve the same purpose but one is obviously less intrusive. So do you have issue with being treated like a criminal, or do you just have an issue of being inconvenienced?

Both. No I don't avoid those stores, but I would avoid stopping if the alarm went off because I don't steal so if it goes off, it's one of those way too often tech glitches that I see happen all the damn time, most especially at SDM. Anytime any policy results in anybody but a cop stopping me, will result in me refusing to show my reciept or my bag and insist on a cop being called to ensure my right to due process is respected and that everything is documented. Following which, I'd sue them once they realize their technology is effed up....that is not my problem and I won't let their technological problems turn into a waste of my time without compensation. If people feel that the sins of employees should be visited on themselves, the customers, fine...I'm not trying to convince anybody to do or feel what I do about this issue.


-university of Washington business school case study
http://bschool.washington.edu/PDF/Costco%20Pharm.General%20Information5.1.07.pdf

In retail establishments such as Costco, inventory shrinkage is a significant cost. According to the National Retail Security Survey (See Table 3), retailers lose 1.7 percent of their total annual sales to inventory shrinkage. In 2002, this translated into losses of $31.3 billion. While retail shrinkage has declined in recent years due to electronic surveillance, employee theft remains a bigger problem than shoplifting. A study by Hayes International found that one in every 26.5 employees is apprehended for theft from their employer in 2005. Dishonest employees steal approximately 5.7 times the amount stolen by shoplifters ($724.15 versus $126.87)11. By controlling entrances and exits of the warehouse, having sales receipts cross-checked against merchandise in shopping carts, Costco’s shrinkage rate is 8.5 times less than the industry average. Inventory losses for the past three years have stood at two-tenths of 1 percent of net sales at Costco. Perhaps most telling, Costco’s employee theft ratio is a tenth of the industry average—this alone saves it millions of dollars each year.

Many posters have used that reason as an excuse for receipt checking, to prevent employee theft. This study shows that is where the biggest loss occurs. Again, not my problem, and not up to me to be inconvenienced or treated like one of their dishonest employees. I have to keep coming back to the fact that the vast majority of stores feel no need to treat their customers this way or to check receipts or your bags or your items( cuz once you've paid for them they are yours) and many of those stores have been doing business for far longer than Costco, BB or any other place that checks receipts. Perhaps the receipt checking stores should consult with the LP division of those stores, or even merely put their brains to work, about ways to prevent loss without inconveniencing their customers, especially in an economy like now where people are spending less anyway.
I don't know how accurate this is.

I would think shrinkage would be on their annual report but I'm not sure and I'm too lazy to go look through those myself! I wish they would go into more detail about where the data comes from, but it states who different figures of 10x and 8.5x which leads me to believe they are talking about external and internal shrinkage, but the wording is unclear to me.

I'd really like to see how those stats compare with other stores who don't check receipts and bags, and maybe when I have the time and inclination I'll do some research on that. But so far, I'm not convinced.

[TakumiDC5]

OOPS yeah I was completely wrong there, sorry!

edit:After more thought...

1) It seems like that number is overall shrinkage and that quote may have been mistaken (see below post)
2) Even if its not mistaken and that was internal shrinkage, it is not a totally separate topic as you mention. Maybe the receipt checking is actually meant to reduce employee shrinkage as well by making employees use the same entrance and exits as customers (I have seen them use the same entrance but I'm not sure if it is policy). It is all related.

It may be related, but there is definitely no mention of receipt cross-checking in the first link you posted, and that's all I was pointing out.

[EmperorOfCanada]

@Nikita

My library books used to set off the alarms at SDM, they usually just waved me on because they would go off as I was ENTERING the store :p

[slowtyper]

I kept editing my post to add stuff so it got a bit messy...
.
Anyways after reading those again, I am pretty sure Costco means that their overall shrinkage is about 0.2% as opposed to industry average of 1.7%. By overall shrinkage it means internal and external.

As another point, it mentions that the ratio of INTERNAL theft is 10x lower than the industry ratio of INTERNAL theft. Can these numbers be used to figure out what the different internal vs external shrinkage numbers are?

I can't find actual numbers, I think Costco doesn't release them.

[Ojam]

I kept editing my post to add stuff so it got a bit messy...
.
Anyways after reading those again, I am pretty sure Costco means that their overall shrinkage is about 0.2% as opposed to industry average of 1.7%. By overall shrinkage it means internal and external.

As another point, it mentions that the ratio of INTERNAL theft is 10x lower than the industry ratio of INTERNAL theft. Can these numbers be used to figure out what the different internal vs external shrinkage numbers are?

I can't find actual numbers, I think Costco doesn't release them.

Shrinkage includes other things besides theft, it also includes simply loosing product, product that comes damaged from the supplier that is not reimbursed for whatever reason, plus also theft at the supplier side and shipping.

[Psycho44]

Costco's employees should be more loyal than average considering they are paid more and Costco as a whole has the fewest turnovers compared to their competitors.

Come to think of it does paying your employees more have a correlation to internal theft?

Yeah I know off topic but it does tie in somewhat with the purpose of receipt checking.

btw Costco purposely checks everyone's receipt so there is no discriminating who's a potential thief.

Dude, what you posted has nothing to do with the topic at hand! It's talking about INTERNAL shrinkage. Nothing to do with customers and receipt checking for customers.

All it proves is that Costco's employees are more loyal than average.



Personally, I would probably believe that it does prevent customer theft. Otherwise I could just take my un-highlighted receipt and walk back-in through the doors, grab the same items and walk out again. Although I don't have any data to prove it.

[Psycho44]

Shrinkage includes other things besides theft, it also includes simply loosing product, product that comes damaged from the supplier that is not reimbursed for whatever reason, plus also theft at the supplier side and shipping.

Not surprisingly most think of shrinkage as physically lost items. Shrinkages can also be as a result of price manipulations by employees. The department manager lowers the price as his/her buddies are about to check out the items. Or employees not changing prices specifically after a sale is over.

[DaVibe]

Both. No I don't avoid those stores, but I would avoid stopping if the alarm went off because I don't steal so if it goes off, it's one of those way too often tech glitches that I see happen all the damn time, most especially at SDM. Anytime any policy results in anybody but a cop stopping me, will result in me refusing to show my reciept or my bag and insist on a cop being called to ensure my right to due process is respected and that everything is documented. Following which, I'd sue them once they realize their technology is effed up....that is not my problem and I won't let their technological problems turn into a waste of my time without compensation. If people feel that the sins of employees should be visited on themselves, the customers, fine...I'm not trying to convince anybody to do or feel what I do about this issue.


The thing is, the system that is in place effects us all. As a retailer, there's nothing else they can really do other than ask for you to stop, take a moment to check your purchases and make sure that maybe something that wasn't paid for is in your checkout bag.
It has nothing to do with gender, ethnicity or the store WANTING to waste your time. However, thinking that the store has no right to waste your time wouldn't make sense either, since you ARE on their property and shopping in their store.

The only reason I'm stating all this is that I don't think you fully "Understand" until you've been the retailer, asking someone to stop. Both my girlfriend and I have and we swap stories as to what we've run into. I don't run into it anymore (not in retail) but my girlfriend does, and the fuss that people put up when the alarm goes off (select people I should mention) is not warranted.

The systems are good enough that they're going off for a REASON.
Just so you know, UPC's don't actually set sensors off in most stores ... sensor tags do. So it really has nothing to do with what you've purchased and what you haven't in actuality.

Also Nikita, as a retailer, I've always had the "Oh we must have missed something" mentality, as opposed to "There goes a thief!" ... nor is it an "embarrassing" situation once everyone hear's the alarms going off, followed by you walking out the door 25 seconds later ... meaning you weren't a thief, just another customer like all of them.
Honestly I'll tell you flat out, I hear what you're saying, but I think in order to make everything smooth for everyone (both yourself and the retailer) its something we have to all participate in. Forget the rest of this thread, I want you to answer to me.
Everybody is short with you but I'll actually talk this out if you want. Your choice.

[time space]

The thing is, the system that is in place effects us all. As a retailer, there's nothing else they can really do other than ask for you to stop, take a moment to check your purchases and make sure that maybe something that wasn't paid for is in your checkout bag.

Nothing else?

Really?

There are no other loss prevention strategies you can imagine?

[slowtyper]

I have to keep coming back to the fact that the vast majority of stores feel no need to treat their customers this way or to check receipts or your bags or your items( cuz once you've paid for them they are yours) and many of those stores have been doing business for far longer than Costco, BB or any other place that checks receipts. Perhaps the receipt checking stores should consult with the LP division of those stores, or even merely put their brains to work, about ways to prevent loss without inconveniencing their customers, especially in an economy like now where people are spending less anyway.


I don't really see this as a valid argument and I'll explain why. The "vast majority of stores" are not doing anything unique and innovative, they are doing what everybody knows how to do and they just live with the loss (through increased prices in some way or another.

Costco has adopted a business model which, no matter how much you can argue where the stats come from, clearly show that SOMETHING is working for them. You asked for the stats, I gave you some that are clearly much better than industry averages but still aren't good enough. Obviously you can't attribute all of their shrinkage numbers to only one factor because there are tons of factors in play, but they are obviously doing much better than the counterparts you mention in that respect.

I don't get your bit about "especially in an economy like now where people are spending less anyway". It seems everybody these days throws in some line like "especially due to the economy" no matter what they talk about. In a recession people are spending less, but they are also trying to save more. I would think more people would forgo some convenience for cheaper prices these days than in better economic times. Also, if people are spending less and stores are making money, wouldn't it make sense to lower costs for the company not increase them?

Now obviously if these stores did see backlash due to these policies, they would do something different, but it seems that they (ok Costco, I don't know about other stores that check receipts) are extremely happy with their business model from what I've read.

[angekfire]

To whoever mentioned the sensor detectors at the front of a store being useful, it really isn't, and they do not always go off for a reason. I worked retail, and I've seen them be messed up. I was standing near a cash and heard it go off with no one or nothing within 10 feet of it. I've had it go off on me before when I had nothing that should set it off on me, and other stores hadn't done it. They really are simply there as a deterrant, and even then, if somebody is determined enough they can just remove the sensor in many instances (but not all).

Plus, when I was working there, 90% of the time if it went off (when legit), it was because the cashier forgot to demagnetize the item, or it simply didn't demagnetize properly. Most of the time the cashier just said "Go ahead, its alright" so it was kind of irrelevant.

[Scott84]

I would like to see stats that receipt checking does not work. I couldn't find any. And i mean stats in terms of how it affects business. Not whether or not it makes someone feel like a theif.

[sovexxed]

I could understand why a company would not want to make their LP information public. Some people could use this to their advantage. Hmmm...Costco has some holes in their LP policy/process and are reporting a 10% loss directly attributed to this (just making this number up).

What a lot of companies do not make public is that shrinkage can be internal. Misplaced stock in the back, stock not counted, miscounts, etc. Nothing to do with theft. First hand knowledge of this.

I shop at Costco knowing I will be checked. I don't have a problem with that. I accept that this is their policy to impose. Having detectors go off after paying for an item, yes it is embarrassing but it happens. Actually twice it was because the cashier forgot to remove the anti-theft device. Saved me another trip back to the store.

[DaVibe]

Nothing else?

Really?

There are no other loss prevention strategies you can imagine?

Better security at the door
Mystery Shoppers (security)
Physical security at the door
Cameras with people actively checking them (like at a Casino)

I don't think you read my entire sentence there, where I said there's nothing else they can really do (or should I say legally) other than ask for you to come back and check the receipt ...
They can't hold you hostage ... they can't lock you in the store ... they can't tackle you ...
That's what I meant, not that there were NO OTHER WAYS to stop a criminal ... c'mon now.

[DaVibe]

Plus, when I was working there, 90% of the time if it went off (when legit), it was because the cashier forgot to demagnetize the item, or it simply didn't demagnetize properly. Most of the time the cashier just said "Go ahead, its alright" so it was kind of irrelevant.

Which is the WRONG thing to do. When that goes off, it should be treated very seriously and treated fairly across the board. The only thing going for someone like Nikita is they can see on a regular basis that this is very much not the case. Young with a ball cap? They're probably going to check. 85-year-old female with a walker? "Don't worry, go ahead!" ...
As if the elderly don't steal ... guess what, THEY DO!

With whatever system a retailer has in place, they have to stick to it.
It's as if Costco decides "Well, you LOOK okay so I won't check your receipt" ... no, they check receipts on every-single-person that leaves the store. Stick to your own policy.

[angekfire]

Is it the wrong thing to do? Absolutely, but the managers usually just said to do it anyway. If I was around I'd ask to check, but only because I suspected that the cashier likely forgot to demagnetize something. I wasn't usually by the front doors though since I wasn't cashier so it didn't happen often. Usually if they were busy they'd just say "Go ahead, no worries". The machine screwed up all the time, so we never knew when it was legit or not, so nobody ever took it seriously.

As for costco, as I posted before, I tested this, and sometimes they don't actually check what is in the cart, they are just going through the routine of marking receipts and pretending to check, which discourages theft but doesn't prevent it.

Mystery shoppers aren't there to do security, they are there to provide feedback to the company as to how their service is. Lots of places have security in street clothes though so they can blend in and not be noticed.

This is often combined with cameras. They watch the camera, see someone suspicious, and then tail them through the store, or wait just outside. Then when they come outside. they try to get them to come back into the store.

When I worked retail I was asked to help a few times because I'm a pretty big guy. I was told not to do anything other than stand there and look intimidating, but I was specifically told I was not allowed to touch anyone, say anything or pursue anyone. I was just to stand there. They did this a number of times. Most times, the person came back in with us. I can only remember 1 time where they ran, and they ended up dropping their CD player and CDs as they ran. All they stole were cadbury cream eggs, so it was pretty funny, they lost more than they made.

[DaVibe]

For retailers, it comes down to the illusion of security and trouble if you steal. Most people know flat out that you can't be detained by the store, but when a 16-year old steals something in the store, they stay.

The same mentality is at place with the sensors at the door. It's to make you believe that you cannot physically steal or you will be caught.
I meant mystery shoppers in the sense of undercover security, not an actual mystery shopper. I've done both.

I'm not a huge guy by any means but as an employee of the store, I've often stood in aisles with "sketchy" customers or even stood at the front door. Would I take a bullet for the store? No. Would I chase after them down the street? Likely not. Again, it's the illusion of security. You would think the thieves are scared by this.

I'm not surprised that Costco isn't actually checking item for item ... when I make purchases there, I know they're not. They scan a few items on the receipt, make sure you have a receipt and that's about it. The process would take too long to check every-single-item on a receipt.

Detectors at the door help retailers.

[EmperorOfCanada]

For retailers, it comes down to the illusion of security and trouble if you steal. Most people know flat out that you can't be detained by the store, but when a 16-year old steals something in the store, they stay.

The same mentality is at place with the sensors at the door. It's to make you believe that you cannot physically steal or you will be caught.
I meant mystery shoppers in the sense of undercover security, not an actual mystery shopper. I've done both.

I'm not a huge guy by any means but as an employee of the store, I've often stood in aisles with "sketchy" customers or even stood at the front door. Would I take a bullet for the store? No. Would I chase after them down the street? Likely not. Again, it's the illusion of security. You would think the thieves are scared by this.

I'm not surprised that Costco isn't actually checking item for item ... when I make purchases there, I know they're not. They scan a few items on the receipt, make sure you have a receipt and that's about it. The process would take too long to check every-single-item on a receipt.

Detectors at the door help retailers.

You just earned a hug Mr! <hug>

[time space]

The thing is, the system that is in place effects us all. As a retailer, there's nothing else they can really do other than ask for you to stop, take a moment to check your purchases and make sure that maybe something that wasn't paid for is in your checkout bag.

Nothing else?

Really?

There are no other loss prevention strategies you can imagine?

Better security at the door
Mystery Shoppers (security)
Physical security at the door
Cameras with people actively checking them (like at a Casino)

I don't think you read my entire sentence there, where I said there's nothing else they can really do (or should I say legally) other than ask for you to come back and check the receipt ...
They can't hold you hostage ... they can't lock you in the store ... they can't tackle you ...
That's what I meant, not that there were NO OTHER WAYS to stop a criminal ... c'mon now.

You're argument swerved out of control and just crashed through the guardrail - I have no idea what you're talking about.

[DaVibe]

You're argument swerved out of control and just crashed through the guardrail - I have no idea what you're talking about.

Well, you just answered my post with another question. You didn't actually add anything to the equation.
Here I am spilling out ideas for you, then you come up with "Well that went out of control" ... of course it did, I'm not a friggin' mind reader!

Have you even worked anywhere near Loss Prevention? Because both my girlfriend and I have, which is all I'm going to say about the issue.
If you have, then put up some ideas to your own question, don't just ask me. What the heck is that?

Man ...

Anyways from the beginning, I just think it boils down to people co-operating with what's in place. It's not a perfect system but it's not out to make everyone a criminal either. When it goes off, it's for a reason. It may not be for the right reason (as in you're not stealing anything) but it's going off for SOME reason.

Ex: I've been in Future Shop with Nintendo Wii Points Cards purchased at another retailer but because I hadn't opened the package, they went off (sensor tag within the package for theft prevention) within the store. I showed the clerk what it was, at which point they asked for a receipt. I told them no because it was purchased at another store. That was pretty much the end of the discussion.
So EVEN IN incriminating circumstances (such as that one) I don't think all retailers are out to get you.
As it's already been mentioned time and time again, a lot of retailers just "wave you off" most of the time, which from a theft prevention stand point isn't exactly the best example to set. However, it exists.

Good enough for you?

[angekfire]

When it goes off, it's for a reason. It may not be for the right reason (as in you're not stealing anything) but it's going off for SOME reason.

That reason can be entirely invalid though, as I've experienced. I've seen them go off randomly with nothing even close to them, so is that a good enough reason to cooperate? "Our system has a glitch so we're going to have to ask you to show us a receipt."

I've seen it go off because of automatic car starters, cell phones, cashiers having not deactivated a sensor properly, no reason at all, and yes theft. But I should not have to defend myself because the system has a bug, or someone else hasn't done their job properly. If they haven't deactivated a sensor on my stuff, that isn't my problem, it is the cashier job to make sure they do. So why should I have to stop, be inconvenienced, and waste my time because their own staff messed up, or because there is a glitch in the system. I didn't steal, I don't need to prove myself. They have to prove I did, I don't have to prove I didn't.

[DaVibe]

If you're talking about Shoppers Drug Mart, which I think you are, it's not car starters and apartment keys ... that's what most people think.
I one time went through a woman's entire purse to find she still had a secret sensor tag in the purse ... I told her it's pretty much going to go off wherever she goes, especially if they're sensitive enough to pick up the tag.

The sensors have nothing to do with store UPC's either ... as in you bought a bag of bread at Metro and brought it over to SDM ... it won't go off, it doesn't work like that.

Library books always go off because again, they have the sensor tag in the book and they have to be demagnatized in order to not trigger off every alarm.

The thing is with most retailers, there's no "Defending" that has to be done. I can certainly understand what you're saying and that feeling we all get ... I get it too, but after working on the other side especially, most treat it more like a "Check" and not "Your a criminal, prove yourself".

We've all said it time and time again, ultimately you can keep walking or if you weren't able to "prove yourself" then you just walk right out the door (which I've seen people do).

My thing is, would you rather a retailer of that size have absolutely NOTHING? Because I don't think that's responsible either.
Automated security systems have some benefits.

[angekfire]

If you're talking about Shoppers Drug Mart, which I think you are, it's not car starters and apartment keys ... that's what most people think.

Nope, not SDM. Zellers.

I one time went through a woman's entire purse to find she still had a secret sensor tag in the purse ... I told her it's pretty much going to go off wherever she goes, especially if they're sensitive enough to pick up the tag.

I had a sensor tag in my coat once they didn't demagnetize, I got a place to demagnetize the whole coat. Found it weeks later, it was stuck inbetween tags on the inside back of the coat. But at the same time, I have tested it before with a cellphone only, and some seem to set it off while others done. Same with the car door openers.

The sensors have nothing to do with store UPC's either ... as in you bought a bag of bread at Metro and brought it over to SDM ... it won't go off, it doesn't work like that.

I'm well aware, it is a magnetic tag that is picked up. Obviously the UPC is irrelevant otherwise every item would inherently have an anti-theft device.

Library books always go off because again, they have the sensor tag in the book and they have to be demagnatized in order to not trigger off every alarm.

When I was in junior highschool, I was looking at books in the library, and to screw with me someone took a random book and shoved it in my binder. I walked out without it going off because my binder was so thick, the sensor couldn't detect it.

My thing is, would you rather a retailer of that size have absolutely NOTHING? Because I don't think that's responsible either.
Automated security systems have some benefits.

I'm not a retailer nor do I work for one anymore, therefore I do not care. It does nothing to benefit me, it is only there to benefit the store. They can have the sensors or whatever, but I can still just walk out regardless.

[DaVibe]

I just think it's a condition of shopping at a major retailer and people in this day and age have to accept it. They don't have throw a hissy fit or get completely defensive when it goes off. Allow the store rep. to "check" as they wish and if you've done no-wrong, you'll leave.

I can tell you from my own personal experiences, its a huge deterrant and scares crooks who think about crimes ... however, it does nothing about the ones that want to steal no matter what.

I think it's an inconvenience that's worth it.

[angekfire]

I think it's an inconvenience that's worth it.

Worth it to who, once again? To me as a customer? I don't think wasting my time is worth it if I really didn't steal.

Again, the only one it is worth it to is the retailer. It doesn't do anything for anyone else. Yes, it is a deterrant, yes, if it just being there can prevent theft it is a good investment, but security cameras can do the same thing. Many stores use them without them even being wired, just a fake camera to make you think you're being watched.

[slowtyper]

Worth it to who, once again? To me as a customer? I don't think wasting my time is worth it if I really didn't steal.

Again, the only one it is worth it to is the retailer. It doesn't do anything for anyone else. Yes, it is a deterrant, yes, if it just being there can prevent theft it is a good investment, but security cameras can do the same thing. Many stores use them without them even being wired, just a fake camera to make you think you're being watched.

It directly affects the prices you pay.

[Nikita]

It directly affects the prices you pay.

Which directly affects the store's bottom line if their not-proven-to-work-but-treat-out-bread-and-butter-like-thieves-anyway measures drives customer's away OR their price increases due to those measures drives customer's away. Consumers can always shop elsewhere where they actually value and appreciate your businesses but stores who act as though they're doing us a favour by letting us shop there have no recourse when they lose business over it. So I'd have to say it affects the store more than the customer. I've still never found one product I want that's sold only at one store.

DaVibe, you talk about the 'illusion of security'. I see it as the illusion of a fake sense of security, and will until someone releases reliable stats that prove these measures work. The burden is on the store if they want our money.

I just think it's a condition of shopping at a major retailer and people in this day and age have to accept it. They don't have throw a hissy fit or get completely defensive when it goes off. Allow the store rep. to "check" as they wish and if you've done no-wrong, you'll leave.

I can tell you from my own personal experiences, its a huge deterrant and scares crooks who think about crimes ... however, it does nothing about the ones that want to steal no matter what.

I think it's an inconvenience that's worth it.

NO, we don't have to accept it, there's enough competition out there to simply go elsewhere.

You're second paragraph is interesting...it's a huge deterrent that scares crooks yet "does nothing about the ones that want to steal no matter what". What does that mean? It works for small thefts but not big ones, or not professional thieves...iow the thefts that really cost the store. Sooo, what is the point in wasting every customer's time again? How is it worth it?

Speaking of bottom lines, I don't think anyone has ever seen prices go down because these policies work so well, so again how does that benefit anyone but the store? What we do see is prices only ever go up, no matter what. Anything the store saves in loss from these policies is not passed down to the customer, it's just padding the store's bottom line. IMO it's naive to actually believe any benefit that these policies might achieve is shared with the consumer. If the benefit isn't shared with the consumer, why should the consumer share the burden of preventing loss to the store's bottom line?

[angekfire]

If the benefit isn't shared with the consumer, why should the consumer share the burden of preventing loss to the store's bottom line?

And why should innocent people be treated like thieves to save the company some losses? Why do I have to be treated poorly and like a criminal so that they'll catch the 1 guy who stole a tube of toothpaste and they lost 25 cents?

Why must the majority of people (people who don't steal) have to suffer for the crimes of the few that do? How is it justifiable to treat 10,000 people like criminals when maybe only 1 out of all of them is guilty?

[slowtyper]

Which directly affects the store's bottom line if their not-proven-to-work-but-treat-out-bread-and-butter-like-thieves-anyway measures drives customer's away


Yes but that isn't happening. If it did, however, their prices would probably go up.

OR their price increases due to those measures drives customer's away.


Not sure what you are saying here. If they go back to the status quo methods and their costs rise, their prices rise too and that affects the customer and the retailer...it affects everybody.



Ok honestly you are making very little sense here. Lets go line by line...

Consumers can always shop elsewhere where they actually value and appreciate your businesses


Agreed, consumers have many choices of where to shop.

but stores who act as though they're doing us a favour by letting us shop there have no recourse when they lose business over it.


Huh? Businesses choose a business model. If their model isn't working they can close shop, they can change their policies to win back customers, or they can sleep in the bed they made and accept lower profits if they don't want to change their policy.

So I'd have to say it affects the store more than the customer.

What? So what? Of course it affects a stores bottom line which in turn affects price paid by consumers. Everything is intertwined. If Costco's suppliers all start charging more, customers pay more. If Costco's suppliers all start charging less, prices go down, and yes, this does happen. There is a maximum % markup on all products there.

I've still never found one product I want that's sold only at one store.
Agreed. How does that tie into what you are saying?

[slowtyper]

Speaking of bottom lines, I don't think anyone has ever seen prices go down because these policies work so well, so again how does that benefit anyone but the store? What we do see is prices only ever go up, no matter what. Anything the store saves in loss from these policies is not passed down to the customer, it's just padding the store's bottom line. IMO it's naive to actually believe any benefit that these policies might achieve is shared with the consumer. If the benefit isn't shared with the consumer, why should the consumer share the burden of preventing loss to the store's bottom line?

This is too basic IMO. If we go back to Costco, in general they are able to offer cheaper prices than elsewhere. OBVIOUSLY this is based on a large number of factors and not just due to their LP policies. They are all tied into each other. When something goes up they don't pinpoint the cause to a single policy and when prices at one store are lower than another they won't pinpoint the cause to a single policy either.

[slowtyper]

Why must the majority of people (people who don't steal) have to suffer for the crimes of the few that do? How is it justifiable to treat 10,000 people like criminals when maybe only 1 out of all of them is guilty?

When you shop at other stores, in theory, you do pay for the crimes of the criminal with higher prices. Obviously, as has been stated, there are so many factors that you can't pinpoint a higher price to a single factor but it is definitely worked into the price on the shelf.

[angekfire]

Not sure what you are saying here.

Ok honestly you are making very little sense here. Lets go line by line...


No, it makes sense. The arguement was if people are stealing because there are no security measures in place, the store will increase prices to make up for the loss. She is saying that if that happened, it is possible the prices would still go up because the security measures would make customers uncomfortable. Fewer customers means lower profit, which means they have to increase prices to make up for it.

Think about it, if a single store implemented a new security policy which involved needing a cavity search every time you enter or exit their property, how many people would want to shop there? It would scare most people off, thus less people shopping means less profit, less profit means they have to recoup the loss by increasing price.

This is too basic IMO. If we go back to Costco, in general they are able to offer cheaper prices than elsewhere. OBVIOUSLY this is based on a large number of factors and not just due to their LP policies. They are all tied into each other. When something goes up they don't pinpoint the cause to a single policy and when prices at one store are lower than another they won't pinpoint the cause to a single policy either.

Costco makes money because they buy in huge bulk, so they get a discount for buying in such large quantities. They can sell for cheaper/unit because you have to buy from them in bulk. So you may save $2 on shampoo, so it is cheaper than everywhere else, but you gotta buy 3 huge bottles to save that difference.

Plus they also make money because you have to pay for a membership to even be allowed to shop there.

[angekfire]

When you shop at other stores, in theory, you do pay for the crimes of the criminal with higher prices. Obviously, as has been stated, there are so many factors that you can't pinpoint a higher price to a single factor but it is definitely worked into the price on the shelf.

Which is why as Nikita said, until they CAN pinpoint it and prove that it is making the difference, why should we have our rights violated when there is no hard evidence that it is even making a difference? You just said yourself you can't pinpoint it, so how can you be sure it is necessary?

[slowtyper]

Which is why as Nikita said, until they CAN pinpoint it and prove that it is making the difference, why should we have our rights violated when there is no hard evidence that it is even making a difference? You just said yourself you can't pinpoint it, so how can you be sure it is necessary?

Do you require a business to prove every single business decision they make? Do you require Dollarama to prove how they can more money than a traditional store by selling only $1 items? When stores first started using video cameras had to provide numbers proving they worked before they could have them? When surveillance cameras were first implemented I'm sure some people didn't like that either.

A business has a business model and you can accept it or you can reject it. You aren't being forced to do anything. As Nikita mentions numerous times, there are many places for you to take your business.

[angekfire]

Do you require a business to prove every single business decision they make?

When it infringes upon my rights, then yes, they do have to prove it.

[slowtyper]

When it infringes upon my rights, then yes, they do have to prove it.

I guarantee you people had this same conversation when video cameras started appearing! They do not have to prove anything to you. You can either do business there or not.

[angekfire]

I guarantee you people had this same conversation when video cameras started appearing! They do not have to prove anything to you. You can either do business there or not.

Which is what we have been saying for a while.

[slowtyper]

Which is what we have been saying for a while.

No its not. You were saying they should not be doing that practice! I said that they don't have to show you proof (though they show you their very impressive reduced shrinkage numbers) and you said they have to.

[Scott84]

http://www.theacsi.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=149&Itemid=157&c=Costco+Wholesale+Corporation


Costco Wholesale, tied for #1 for The American Customer Satisfaction Index

52 Million Members

Sales of nearly 65 Billion.

And with the economy on the downhill, I doubt anyone is going to worry too much about if their receipt is checked at the door.

[DaVibe]

Honestly, I don't think the topic is even worth discussing. It is what it is.
We can discuss all the angles here for hundreds of posts, it's not going to get anywhere.

Obviously retailers believe this is the way to secure their store. Convenience stores can't afford it and wish they had it. Major retailers use it in all their outlets.

It may not work perfectly all the time, but it does deter theft. Imagine a major retailer without one of these systems in place.
If anything, I think security on many levels is effective. Attentive change room staff, security cameras, roaming security (both visible and undercover) and of course, the sensors at the door.

[Ikerr1974]

Maybe I should be posting this somewhere else but a few years ago I was in our local wal-mart and purchased a few items. The store was pretty busy and several people were ahead of me leaving the store. The door person looks at me and said "Your receipts please". So, I start going through my bags and finally find them and hand them to the employee. I really did not think much of it but I was kinda of embarrassed at the same time because I felt centered out. She gives them back to me and says that I am free to go. I thought to myself that was interesting choice of words to say to me. I start walking out the doors and turn around and watch to see if anyone else is checked. NOPE...no one. I march right back into the store and go to customer service and tell them they can refund my money. They ask why...I told them about being checked for receipts. I ask to speak to a Manager who tells me it is store policy to check receipts. So, next day got on the phone to GM of store and tells me that no policy exists. I did not go to wal-mart for about 2 yrs because of that.

[time space]

Honestly, I don't think the topic is even worth discussing.

If you actually believed that, why did you just add another post to this thread?

As Ikerr1974 ominously reports in their post above: "You're free to go."

[DaVibe]

If you actually believed that, why did you just add another post to this thread?

As Ikerr1974 ominously reports in their post above: "You're free to go."

Because angekfire keeps circling around the same arguments over and over again ... it's basically he/she doesn't like the system and that's more less the end of it ... several people, including myself, have mentioned why such systems are in place and our opinions on it ...

For the last group of posts, I don't think there's been any "progress" or anything new highlighted ... just a circle.

So, in a sense I'm bowing out. What's wrong with that? Nothing.
I've worked in retail, they serve a purpose. That's the end of discussion for me. I can't really see the "Well they inconvenience me, I have to go crazy because they're accusing me of stealing" argument and I never will.
People fly off the handle because an electronic sound goes off when you pass through ... seriously? Not worth the fuss.

[mcfalski]

If you don't want to be embarrassed from being picked out, then just walk up to them yourself and shove your receipt at them. I do that all the time and they never want to see it.

I don't even know if they are actually checking for shoplifting. How can they tell what you bought when you have a cart full of stuff?

[Scott84]

If you don't want to be embarrassed from being picked out, then just walk up to them yourself and shove your receipt at them. I do that all the time and they never want to see it.

I don't even know if they are actually checking for shoplifting. How can they tell what you bought when you have a cart full of stuff?

Yeah, shove your receipt at the employee, because that makes sense. Why treat someone badly when they have no control over who makes the policies. You want to make a stand, do it in a way where your not embarassing yourself.

Terrible.

If you disagree with the policy, do something about it with class.

[mcfalski]

Yeah, shove your receipt at the employee, because that makes sense. Why treat someone badly when they have no control over who makes the policies. You want to make a stand, do it in a way where your not embarassing yourself.

Terrible.

If you disagree with the policy, do something about it with class.

Why do you think it is rude to give people what they want to see before they ask? I alway take out my credit card before the cashier ask for it and hand it over when they need it without asking. I don't think it's rude and they certainly did not indicate it. :confused: I'm just being proactive. I'm not making a stand, merely a suggestion to those who don't like the policy.

This is the same idea as showing your transfer ticket when getting on a bus. If you show it when you get on and don't wait until the driver asks you for it, then you won't look like someone trying to get a free ride.

[slowtyper]

Why do you think it is rude to give people what they want to see before they ask? I alway take out my credit card before the cashier ask for it and hand it over when they need it without asking. I don't think it's rude and they certainly did not indicate it. :confused: I'm just being proactive. I'm not making a stand, merely a suggestion to those who don't like the policy.

This is the same idea as showing your transfer ticket when getting on a bus. If you show it when you get on and don't wait until the driver asks you for it, then you won't look like someone trying to get a free ride.

Its the cutting in line that is a dick move.

[angekfire]

Obviously retailers believe this is the way to secure their store. Convenience stores can't afford it and wish they had it. Major retailers use it in all their outlets.

How do you know they wish they had it? There are a ton of stores that don't have it and could afford it if they wanted, but they don't.

It may not work perfectly all the time, but it does deter theft. Imagine a major retailer without one of these systems in place.

They existed for a long time before these systems existed. Know what else has been proven to deter theft, yet also be unintrusive and not violate rights? Customer service. When someone considering theft is approached by sales staff and greeted in a friendly manner and asked if they need help with anything, it makes the person think twice, and often they change their mind. It works, and it is a loss prevention method of benefit to everyone. Customer gets help finding something if they need it, and the stop suffers less loss.

If anything, I think security on many levels is effective. Attentive change room staff, security cameras, roaming security (both visible and undercover) and of course, the sensors at the door.

You know, there have been places that have been charged for some of these security methods being used improperly. Such as cameras in the bathrooms and changerooms. That infringes on rights. So does receipt checking. Stores have been charged for one and not the other, because they can't even make you show your receipt.

And I wouldn't say any of those methods even works better than the customer service option. If they can't see the cameras anyway, there is no deterrent factor because they don't know they are being monitored and thus don't think about the consequences associated with it. And in the same right, even fake security cameras that do not record have the exact same deterrent factor as the real ones. The sensors at the door would have the exact same effect if they didn't work but were just visually there. It would make people second guess it without actually having it do anything.

I agree, attentive changeroom staff is a valuable asset, because it is like I stated earlier, better customer service is a deterrent, and everybody wins because you get better service, and the store has fewer thefts.

Either way, no matter which security features are in place, if someone is determined, no amount of deterrents will stop them from stealing. People have tried it with a roaming visible security officer standing right next to them. Most of these measures cause more issues for the honest shoppers than the thiefs, because they'd do it regardless.

[mcfalski]

Its the cutting in line that is a dick move.

What line? I didn't say anything about cutting in lines?

[Scott84]

Why do you think it is rude to give people what they want to see before they ask? I alway take out my credit card before the cashier ask for it and hand it over when they need it without asking. I don't think it's rude and they certainly did not indicate it. :confused: I'm just being proactive. I'm not making a stand, merely a suggestion to those who don't like the policy.

This is the same idea as showing your transfer ticket when getting on a bus. If you show it when you get on and don't wait until the driver asks you for it, then you won't look like someone trying to get a free ride.

You said shove the receipt at the employee. Shove is different then simply handing somebody something.

[mcfalski]

Sorry, that was a brain fart of a word choice.