What do you all think of this one?

[Alex Franke]

A friend of mine asked me what I thought about this. I thought it might make for an interesting discussion here.

http://consumerist.com/2010/03/why-w...y-receipt.html

[chopnhack]

Another reason I don't not support their evil empire.... I understand that some folks may not have the choice due to location, but I firmly believe that they are a corporation that does more harm than good.

As to the thread, the man is obviously well versed in the law and knew his rights. He made his stand and Walmart made theirs. He really should not complain about being banned, however, I do concede that Walmart banning him is poor consumer relations (which they are good at) and was done out of spite by the employee that was offended and not necessarily the corporation.

[Uncle Cracker]

I think this is a perfect example of what happens when somebody decides to make waves. What would the harm have been for the guy to just show his receipt when asked? Especially since the alarm had sounded... He said himself that Wally World has a right to protect their assets, and they did nothing to infringe upon him. He had to expect that his refusal would escalate the situation needlessly, but by furthering the episode, I think he puts WalMart in the position of deciding whether or not they want to mess with him in the future. IMHO, he brought the consequences on himself.

[cabinetman]

I think this is a perfect example of what happens when somebody decides to make waves. What would the harm have been for the guy to just show his receipt when asked? Especially since the alarm had sounded... He said himself that Wally World has a right to protect their assets, and they did nothing to infringe upon him. He had to expect that his refusal would escalate the situation needlessly, but by furthering the episode, I think he puts WalMart in the position of deciding whether or not they want to mess with him in the future. IMHO, he brought the consequences on himself.

I agree completely. The letter is just one side of the story. He had to know that his actions would be suspect. I would have banned him too.
.

[docrowan]

I agree with UC's comment as well. It would appear from the letter that he did not explain to the greeter that he would submit to the request of a police officer, but not to the request of a private party. I believe you have to give Wal-Mart some leeway as (in my opinion) 99.9% of honest consumers would have immediately handed over their receipt, whereas a much lower percentage of real shoplifters would have handed over theirs. If he really wanted to comply with the law, respect Wal-Mart's property rights, AND make a stand for personal privacy rights, he would have made it clear to the greeter and waited IN the store until police arrived.

If a man is standing outside his own house wearing dark clothes and a mask, holding a crowbar, would the reasonable person believe he was just playing a game with his wife? Or would a reasonable person assume he was a burglar?

[ironhat]

If a man is standing outside his own house wearing dark clothes and a mask, holding a crowbar, would the reasonable person believe he was just playing a game with his wife? Or would a reasonable person assume he was a burglar?

I would assume that they had had an IRS audit.

[jdon]

There are still glimmers of hope in this flood of mistrust and suspicion we're all drowning in. Yesterday, feeling giddy with some nice weather, on impulse I stopped by a garden nursery to browse (I'd never been there before). I brought a plant to the checkout counter, and suddenly realized I'd left my wallet at home. The woman at the register said without hesitation, "That's okay, take the plant and you can pay for it next time you're in town." I was too dumbfounded to say anything other than I would be back (which I did today). I'm certain that their prices are higher than they would be at Walmart (there aren't any near by), but they have me as a loyal customer. That's the ultimate in customer relations!

[sparkeyjames]

Good for him. Walmarts are the pit's anyway. The only thing they are good for is pics of customers dressed in off the wall outfits. I personally won't shop there. They have forced suppliers to send AMERICAN jobs to China just so they can reap massive profits. They are the epitome of corporate greed and evil. Well that is other than Monsanto.

[Alex Franke]

I think this is a perfect example of what happens when somebody decides to make waves. What would the harm have been for the guy to just show his receipt when asked? Especially since the alarm had sounded... He said himself that Wally World has a right to protect their assets, and they did nothing to infringe upon him. He had to expect that his refusal would escalate the situation needlessly, but by furthering the episode, I think he puts WalMart in the position of deciding whether or not they want to mess with him in the future. IMHO, he brought the consequences on himself.

Very well said!

[cgallery]

I agree w/ UC.

Many stores have such a terrible problem w/ shoplifting and fraud that they assume most everyone that walks through the doors is there to rip them off.

While I don't blame them, it sure doesn't make for a very enjoyable shopping experience.

As a result, I find myself shopping less and less at B&M establishments these days.

[LCHIEN]

of course the security officers wore plain clothes.

The guy is a jerk and an AH. If he doesn't respect their rights to check then he can chose not to shop there. I know WM has a big problem with thefts/shoplifting. By not cooperating he drives the pricces uop for the rest of us and makes it easier for thieves.

I personally would be glad to show my receipt if politely asked.

[TB Roye]

Two places I do not Shop Wally World and Fry's for that very reason. It is dumb. the people checking the receipts don't look in the bag most of the time. They just put a mark on the receipt. It is just a pain in the rear. Just my .02

Tom

[Ed62]

Those security alarms that activate for no known reason, are aggravating to say the least. But any store needs the right to ask for a receipt when there is a question of whether or not item(s) have been paid for. If they didn't have that right, we would all be paying more for all the things people steal.

Ed

[cabinetman]

Those security alarms that activate for no known reason, are aggravating to say the least. But any store needs the right to ask for a receipt when there is a question of whether or not item(s) have been paid for. If they didn't have that right, we would all be paying more for all the things people steal.

Ed

Yes, the store has a right to see a receipt, and even more so if the alarm goes off, which it did. The guy was just a wise guy.
.

[Pappy]

Exiting from the register directly to the door, I see no need to for my receipt to be checked. When these are done random by the 'greeter', who is usually a semi-retired person, a lot of untrained judgement comes into play as to who is checked or not. (Exponding on how the judgement is applied in a high minority populated area would border on a political statement)

A person having gone back into the store with a bag and exiting directly from the shopping area, or setting off the alarm after coming from the registers, would be different. In cases like these, I believe the store has every right to for identified (i.e., badged) store security personnel check the receipt against the merchandise.

Even in these cases I don't think it should be the responsibility of the greeter, more for the safety of the employee than protecting anyones rights. 'Rose' (Actually the name of one of our local greeters and cklose to 75 yrs old) would be no match for a 19 yr old that went into panic mode facing the consequences of being caught shoplifting. We do have a couple of local greeters that could turn a confrontation into a quick lesson in respect for the elderly that would be fun to watch!

In this particular case, the customer set off the anti-theft alarms and should have cooperated voluntarily, rather than being a complete jerk. Often the alarm is either a false activation or a case of the sensor on the mercahandise not being deactivated properly ar the register. WalMart Security's reaction, resulting in banning the customer for life, was an over-reaction bordering on harrassment but within the company's rights.

Several years ago I set off the alarm at Lowe's after checking out with several small items. The clerk deactivated the alarm and waved me to go on. When i sat down in my truck I felt the hinge packet I had stuck in my hip pocket to free my hands while shopping for other items. I walked back in to the same register, explained/apologized, and paid up.