A former Best Buy employee and Consumerist tipster in good standing shared some insider insights about why store employees are so zealous in checking your receipt, and so zealously underinformed as to how they have no legal right to make you show it.
1. Store managers purposely keep employees unaware receipt check’s voluntary nature, ensuring that a manager has to be called each and every time. The last thing they want is somebody with 16 CDs in their pants yelling about his civil rights and cowing a $7.50/hr teenager.
2. Major retail store locations get an estimated yearly “shrinkage” budget, is the dollar value of the amount of merchandise they expect to lose to theft. In the our former BBY employee’s store’s case,the difference between the actual and estimated shrinkage is then distributed evenly to each and every worker in that store.
PREVIOUSLY:
Adventures In Receipt Check Refusals Continue
Circuit City Customer Arrested After Refusing To Show Receipt
TigerDirect Apologizes For Unlawfully Detaining Customer For Refusing To Show Receipt
TigerDirect Unlawfully Restrains And Verbally Abuses Customer For Not Submitting To Receipt-Showing Demands
More From Consumerist
-
T-Mobile Backtracks On That Whole “Too Bad Your House Burned To The Ground” Thing
-
Former Sears Employee Attempts To Explain The Shipping Gang’s Apparent Distaste For Boxes
-
Dude, Where Are The Rockies? Pot Tourism Is Probably Coming To Colorado
-
Who Is Really Making Money When We Don’t Buy The Music We Listen To?
-
Walmart Store Has No Room For Veterans On Memorial Day Weekend
Do the stores that check receipts save enough money in shrinkage to make up for the customers they lose? I have not shopped at BestBuy in 5 or more years due to the receipt checking policy. I would much rather give my money to a store that appears to value me as a customer and doesn’t treat all customers as shop-lifters. When I run into a receipt checker I smile, say no thank you and just keep going (and I make a note to never shop at that store again).
@elduque: Yes.
Except the feds can actually force you to do it.
@quail: I ignore the alarm. I don’t steal, so they have no probable cause to stop me as they didn’t see anything be stolen. The times I used to stop they’d always wave me out, anyway.
@Jerim: The most common form of shrinkage, by far, is innocent shrinkage. Employee’s accidentally labelling an item with the wrong price, the wrong price being in the system which isn’t the employee’s fault, or the manager giving a discount to a complaining customer
You’re mistaken. None of the things you list are even regarded as shrinkage – they all reduce revenue, but in each of your examples, the inventory is properly accounted for. Shrinkage is the discrepancy between what’s supposed to be in inventory versus whats actually in inventory – Book count vs physical count
Errors similar to what you list, such as invoice typos, broken merchandise on the shelf, paperwork errors, etc, account for less than 16% of shrinkage. The common wisdom that Employee theft is the biggest source of shrinkage (other than cold pools, of course) is absolutely correct. Employee theft generally accounts for as much inventory shrinkage as all other reasons combined.
Just because a company has a shrinkage budget doesn’t means its OK to steal!? All it means is that the people a running the business are well informed what their expenses are. Its called good business to plan for the worst. Something the average American fails to do in their personal life.
@elduque: So someone asking to see your receipt is their way of insinuating that you’re a criminal.
I have no objection to a store exercising their right to ask for you to voluntarily show your receipt on the way out. They’re allowed to do this, and I think it’s fine that they’re allowed to. They also have the right (I believe – correct me if I’m wrong) to stop you as you enter the store and ask you to remove your shoes, and deny entrance to anyone who doesn’t comply. It’s their property. But of course, everybody would just instead go to the stores where they don’t ask you to do this, so the free-market dictates that it’s a terrible idea for stores to do this. (Again, there may be other legal factors at play that I’m unaware of, so please correct me if I’m wrong.)
If they detain you, however, or otherwise prevent you from leaving just because it’s “suspicious” that you don’t want to show your receipt, they are clearly violating your rights.
It’s pretty clear that:
What they do = Ask to see receipt = Legal
What you do = Not show receipt (For any reason) = Legal
What they do = Detain you without evidence = Illegal
Therefore, they are in the wrong, legally, when they detain you. Who do we want to side with?
You may not be able to think of a good reason why someone would not want to show a receipt, and this may lead you to conclude that they’re only doing it because they want to start a fight. If this is the case, I would suggest that you do yourself and others no service by assuming what people’s intentions are behind their actions, and I strongly recommend, simply for your own peace of mind, that in instances where people are acting within their rights, we not demand that they provide an explanation as to why, nor insult their character (I’m personally against the idea that insults have any useful properties) – I know you didn’t use any insults, elduque; I’m just using this as an example.
Again, if you think people have too many rights, and this should not be one of them, then you can get a career in law and change the constitution to reflect your beliefs. I don’t think this is what you want though.
If I am in a reasonably good mood, or if I just want to get on with my day, I usually comply. Even if “I” know that it is illegal, and that I don’t have to comply, and that detaining me is illegal, “they” may not know that. If the LP person thinks he is within his rights, well than we have an interesting problem.
One fundamental flaw in the idea of receipt checking as verification for correctness is that the person checking has to know each item by SKU/UPC. We know how places like Best Buy LOVE to put the “special” item above the sale tag for the regular item (had this happen with a linksys WRT54GS vs WRT54G). Unless the checker knows what to look for, they are going to miss details like that.
I remember once in costco, I had bought a loaf of bread and a gallon of milk. I found a receipt on the floor for a CD and dried fruit. I gave the receipt checker the wrong receipt and she checked it and sent me on my way.
@ShadowArmor: What problem would that be? Oh, you mean stepping around him while repeating “no” in a more firm tone, and if he tries to grab you, slapping the reaching hand away and moving away (which is legal – you can use force to resist illegal detainment)?
It doesn’t matter if they think they have the right. They’re wrong and they will lose if they push it.
In any discussion about receipt checking, people always say, “WHY DO THEY HAVE TO CHECK MY RECEIPT WHEN THEY SAW ME CASH OUT 10 FEET AWAY?” The point isn’t always to check if you stole anything, but to send the message to potential shoplifters that they shouldn’t expect to just walk out of the store with merchandise and a bogus receipt. It’s the same reason why as a cashier at the store I work in, I have to respond to the alarm at the door and deactivate people’s merchandise, when I’m the one who just cashed them out! It shows that we take the alarm seriously and won’t just let you walk out if you beep.
Here’s a question for all of you people who are so adamant about protecting your rights. What if you are walking out of a store after having purchased an item and you beep on the way out? If you get stopped, are you still going to maintain that it’s voluntary?
i just pass by the receipt check points with a smile and nod these days. usually there’s a moment of confused panic by the checker. who usually whimpers an “excuse me sir” once or twice and then continues with the next person.
i’m still waiting for an altercation. if there is one, i will ask for the manager, politely and loudly explain that i am not a thief, and i will not be treated like one. finally, i will ask the manager to personally come with me to customer service and facilitate the return of my purchase(s).
@TinyBug: Well said. The key point being that more recently stores are expressing a “right” that they do not have to stop you and ask for a receipt for your merchandise. If not challenged, this “right” will certainly lead to more intrusive violations. Flash forward to the year 2025 — “Excuse me sir, before you exit the store please step over to the Best Buy Anal Inspection Probe so that we can verify that you haven’t stuffed anything up there.”
@twoply: … It’s the same reason why as a cashier at the store I work in, I have to respond to the alarm at the door and deactivate people’s merchandise, when I’m the one who just cashed them out! It shows that we take the alarm seriously and won’t just let you walk out if you beep.
Here’s a question for all of you people who are so adamant about protecting your rights. What if you are walking out of a store after having purchased an item and you beep on the way out? If you get stopped are you still going to maintain that it is voluntary?
Sorry, but you are misinformed. That thing beeping at the door does not give you the right to stop me or inspect my packages or detain me. In fact, I walk right past them if they go off. It’s also amuzing that you admit that you were the cashier and you failed to properly deactivate the security tag. I will not be embarrased with that damn buzzer going off just becuase the store can’t operate the system.
In order to lawfully detain someone there is a list of criteria that must be met. It varies from state to state, but basically a store employee must have witnessed the concealment of an item and you must exit the store with it. The LP buzzer going off does not meet this criteria.
I will preface what I am going to say next by noting that really intelligent and proactive owners/managers will realize that their employees are the front lines in preventing theft. Keep your employees happy with what they are doing and instill them with a sense of ownership of their workspace and they’ll be your best theft prevention device. This goes two ways: if someone intent on stealing is interacted with by an employee, they are far less likely to steal; by keeping your employees happy, they themselves are less likely to steal.
But– what a freaking nanny state we’ve become. If you honestly feel like you’re being wronged and detained by the stores you shop at, don’t shop at those stores. If someone asks to check my receipt, I don’t make a fuss- whatever, they can see that I’m buying a 40 of Cuervo and extra large condoms, and I’m on my way. I’ve worked enough retail jobs to know that being the little guy sucks, and the last thing they want is some lunatic screaming at them about their rights and detainment, especially for someone who makes $8 an hour and probably has a more tedious and boring day than you could imagine.
My point: stop being selfish and think of the person wearing the uniform for a change- make their life a little bit simpler for all of the 15 seconds you need to interact with them. If you feel like you’re being personally and deeply wronged by the person checking your receipt at the door, take a bong hit and relax a little.
@zippyglue: Riiiight. I suppose this is the same logic whereby legalizing gay marriage leads to legalizing incest and bestiality.
Skewed thinking, for sure.
@TinyBug: “Simply put, it’s rude. And the appropriate answer to a rude personal request is to ignore it, or to respond with a simple and polite “No you may not.”
Bravo. Thank you; you are exactly right.
@twoply: It is voluntary.
Most anyone who has worked in retail knows what they can and can’t do with respect to shoplifters. Only if you see them take an item and watch them to see that they attempt to leave without paying for the item can you approach them and say, “Excuse me, I think you forgot to pay for [[#variable product]].” Or something of the sort.
The important thing is, if you did not watch them take something, you cannot detain them or charge them with shoplifting.
I recognize that we’re entitled to our own views on this matter, and that a company has to do something to protect itself against loss, but assuming that we agree that the above is true (as I’m sure you’ll find it is), let me ask:
Do you think that employees of retail stores should have the power to stop and search people who they suspect are shoplifters, despite not having actually seen them shoplift?
Do you think that people should just do what authorities ask, even when they have the constitutionally protected right to act otherwise, just because it will avoid conflict?
Do you think people should only be allowed to exercise their rights when they have a good reason to? If so, who determines good reason?
If a person in front of you tries to leave a store without showing a receipt, and they are stopped, holding up the line of people who don’t want to leave until their receipt has been checked, who are you annoyed with: The person acting within their rights to leave a store as they please, or the guard who is illegally detaining said person? While it’s true that the customer could end the conflict simply by showing the receipt, it’s also true that the guard could end it simply by letting the person go. The difference is, what the guard is doing is illegal.
And if it’s the case that a person chooses not to show their receipt, and it results in no innocent customers being held up and prevented from leaving, wouldn’t you rest easier just respecting that they’re free to do things their way and you’re free to do things your way?
ONLY 66 comments on an open thread about showing a receipt at the door. I guess most people are out shopping and making themselves look like an ass by arguing with the person at the door checking receipts.
My point: stop being selfish and think of the person wearing the uniform for a change…
@Topcat: I fail to see how it hurts them if I keep on walking.
@Rectilinear Propagation: If you choose to shop somewhere where they check your receipt, let the minimum-wager check your damn receipt. It will look better for them in the eyes of their managers to not have cocks like you just buzz by and not give them the time of day.
Seriously people- you are making the conscious effort to shop at these places. Go somewhere else if this practice bothers you, instead of being a jackass to someone.
I’ve never been a receipt checker myself, but I tend not to sweat the small inconveniences in my educated, well-paid life: there are people makin’ it on a lot less.
@Topcat: Seriously people- you are making the conscious effort to shop at these places. Go somewhere else if this practice bothers you, instead of being a jackass to someone.
I fail to see how ignoring an impolite personal request or, even better, replying with a polite “no, thank you” is being a jackass.
I’ll shop where I please. If the store has policies that I dislike, I’ll disregard them as I please. If this is a problem for them, they are free to ask me to leave at any time. And I won’t even be angry about it.
Just because your dignity means nothing to you, please don’t presume that we should give up ours when an overzealous merchant asks to inspect our personal property without cause.
Oopsie – a little problem with the html tags. For those of you who skipped the previous post because of unreadability issues, it should look like this:
@Topcat: Seriously people- you are making the conscious effort to shop at these places. Go somewhere else if this practice bothers you, instead of being a jackass to someone.
I fail to see how ignoring an impolite personal request or, even better, replying with a polite “no, thank you” is being a jackass.
I’ll shop where I please. If the store has policies that I dislike, I’ll disregard them as I please. If this is a problem for them, they are free to ask me to leave at any time. And I won’t even be angry about it.
Just because your dignity means nothing to you, please don’t presume that we should give up ours when an overzealous merchant asks to inspect our personal property without cause.
@Topcat: I don’t disagree with the company’s policy to check receipts. If that’s their policy, that’s fine by me. That’s a policy they’re allowed to implement, and I respect their freedom to do so. But that policy can’t supersede the law.
If the exchange went like this:
Min-wage Guard: “Can I see your receipt?”
Me: “I’ll pass, thanks. In a hurry.”
Min-wage Guard: “Very well. Have a nice day.”
there’d be no stink from me.
But when they try to pretend that they can stop you from continuing with your affairs, or worse, they believe that they actually have the authority to do so, then it’s a problem. They are doing something illegal, and the customer who wants to leave is not; is there any dispute about this?
Perhaps we should just agree to disagree, with me glad to have the right to deny people from searching my bags and you glad to have the right to call me a jackass for it (a right I’m also glad you have).
What’s the big deal? If your goal is efficiency, let them look at the receipt and get out fast. In principle, I totally agree that they don’t have the right, yadda yadda yadda. But in practice, insisting on my rights is invariably going to lead to a confrontation, hauling over a manager, an argument, and spending twice as much time in the store as I would have if I had just shown the damn receipt.
Same with giving them my phone number when they ask for it at the register. That’s my pet peeve; nothing irritates me more. I think it’s a gross violation of privacy for the cashier at BedBathandBeyond to ask me to announce my phone number in front of a store full of shoppers, and for what, exactly? Is the store manager planning to call to ask how I’m enjoying that new spatula I bought?
But I know the fastest way to complete the purchase and be on my way is to cooperate, so I smile pleasantly and say “sure” in my best faux-midwestern-friendly accent, and proceed to enunciate, slowly, clearly, and most of all, loud enough for everyone on the floor to hear: 1-212-382-5968. Which coincidentally spells out 1-212-FUCK-YOU. No one’s caught on yet.
@clickable: It really comes down to a total LACK of respect for the customer and LACK of customer service that has become prevalent in many “big box” stores.
THAT’S what this whole receipt checking issue is about. It’s not the actual act of showing a receipt that bothers people, it’s the overall mistreatment and mistrust that doesn’t sit right in people’s minds.
I try to shop at the mom & pop stores (and restaurants!) as much as possible, but the big boxes have forced many of them out of business.
At the mom & pops:
*I don’t have to show receipts
*Don’t have to deal with ignorant, immature teenage staff
*Their sales staff are very knowledgable about their products
*Their sales staff treat me with respect and don’t try to insult my intelligence by selling me useless extended warranties or overpriced addons
*My senses aren’t assaulted by filthy stores nor loud ghetto music blasted over pathetic sound systems. Interestingly, I also don’t have to deal with trashy patrons at these stores either.
*I don’t have to wait in cattle lines to make a purchase (I never understood this one with the big boxes… If I’m ready to give them money, why are they making it difficult to do so? I’ve left my items & walked out of many cattle lines in the big box stores when it’s taking too long.)
*They have higher quality products for sale
*They sometimes have a wider variety of products for sale
*They’ll still carry items out to my car & help load them
*They understand that my time IS money
*They understand that a quality product, even if higher priced, combined with top quality service = very satisfied lifelong customers, and more importantly, this will give them the best type of advertising available — word of mouth referrals.
The downsides to the Mom & Pops:
*They’re not open long hours
*They can be more expensive at times
*Product selection may/may not be as varied
*I can’t buy my nazi shirt, tainted pet food, e.coli infested produce, modified meat products, cheap paint for my bedroom, condoms & tampons, all while while getting my oil changed, hair cut, nails done, see a doctor to figure out why it hurts when I pee all at the same store. Personally, I don’t see this as a disadvantage. A jack of all trades is a master of nothing. Similarly, big box stores offer the same thing — a lot of junk, very little in actual value.
There’s a saying that has been paraphrased in many different ways over the years, but it goes something along the lines of “Social climbers strive to be aristocrats but their efforts prove them no such thing. Aristocrats do not strive; they have already arrived.”
Wealth & life isn’t about having the biggest or most things — it’s about quality, not quantity. I realise most of America will never get to this point, but many “old money” and very wise (often very old) people understand this point, while the current generation fails to listen/understand. Instead, the current generation is trying to live lifestyles they can’t afford, trying to get the most # of toys, trying to get the largest house, largest SUV, etc., without thinking about the quality & value of what they’re buying. I’d argue that a $25 DVD player from Mal-Wart is overpriced, considering most of them barely last a year.
@mac-phisto:
Absolutely correct. Anybody that actively engages in shop lifting, passing countfeit currancy, bogus credit cards etc etc are going to avoid a store that slows down their exit from the store or may catch their illegal activity.
Does it work? Don’t know for sure, but some time back the McD’s across the street from me hired a new manager. Real bytch. Makes the employees scan the money. One day I am in the McD’s waiting for my happy meal and in walks a propsective customer. The manager is working the counter and is scanning every $20 bill. The dude sees her scanning the $20′s, and he turns as white as a sheet and promptly leaves the store and jumps into a car with several other guys. A few days later the local PD announces they busted 3 young men passing bad money. I wonder if the dude at McD’s was one of them? No proof either way, but I suspect that McD saved themselvs the loss of food and change from fake $20 (or larger) bills.
Way back in the early-mid 80′s I visited a book store in the San Fernando Valley of LA several times. Don’t remember the name of store, but it was a chain.
The store had one of those revolving turnstiles built into the door frame of the business. The turnstile allowed entry and exit to and from the store through a single point. The store used security strips implanted in their books and the security system was connected to the turnstile.
IF the security system detected an activated security strip, the system would lock down the turnstile.
The employee nearest the door (assumably others as well) had a undercounter buzzer that could over ride the turnstile lockdown.
On my first visit to the store I saw the system in action. A porty late 50′s gentleman was barred from exiting. The employee nearest the front of the store yelled to another employee near the rear of the store who replied something.
The clerk rang the exit buzzer and called the gentleman “your honor” and appolgized for the delay. The gentleman was a state judge.
I had the same problem when I checked out and departed. Clerk at the front of the store confirmed with another that I had paid my bill and I was allowed to depart.
I visit the store several times more during the 18 months that I lived in LA. The turnstile would lock down at one point during nearly every visit.
The store stayed in business.
If the store was violating “my rights”, why didn’t the judge do something about it when his “rights” were violated?
Maybe there is a difference between private property and public rights?
@StevieD –
Regarding your mention of a store’s auto-locking turnstile and your assertion of this procedure’s legitimacy – from what I can gather from what you’ve said, this may be a violation of customer rights, though in a manner different than you might anticipate. The public generally has a ‘right’ to safety in privately owned public spaces such as those of a store or performance space, and in this case, the installation of an auto-locking turnstile seems to create a glaring fire hazard. What if some emergency were to occur inside the store, just as the system malfunctioned (or functioned correctly, as a shoplifter proceeded to exit along with the rest of the innocent bystanders), causing the doors the lock automatically? Providing additional, alarmed emergency-only exits would alleviate this concern, although it does not address the issue of unlawful detainment.
Additionally, it is quite a poor argument to contend that simply because a judge failed to exercise a right, that this right does not exist. We all pick the battles in our life to pursue, and this individual chose not to take action on this issue. It does not prove or substantiate anything.
Several people had interesting thoughts and good comments. In particular, I think Deejayqueue and Plorry summarized the key points of the issue very well.
In regard to Echodork’s remark that receipt checking is a deterrent: shoplifters in general are not stupid! If we all know receipt checking is ineffectual, so do they. Yep, it might stop the first-timer, but that’s all.
As for ElDuque’s comments, it is a big deal and it’s exactly like the shoes at the airport thing. Both receipt checking and “take your shoes off” are based on a guilty-until-proven-innocent thought process. Retail fraud accounts for only 1.86% of total revenues, so 98.39% of customers are honest. Likewise, there has only been one alleged shoe bomber. Why punish the rule-followers to give an illusion of security and safety?
I agree the receipt checker him/herself should be treated civilly. They’re only doing their job. I also believe store management should be informed of customer displeasure with bad policy. So, by all means decline the receipt check, but ask for the manager. Complain to the store’s corporate headquarters. And, once you know the store checks receipts, take your business elsewhere. Continuing to patronize them while asserting your rights is hypocritical.
Stores have a right to protect their property but not at the expense of individual rights. The real issue here goes beyond receipt checking itself, however. Simply put, the “trust but verify” mentality is bad social policy and should not be tolerated.
Checking a receipt is still not going to catch the guy that jammed a dozen or so CD’s in his pants. The only people that are being checked are the people that actually bought and paid for merchandise. Even if the guy that jammed the CD’s in his pants is also buying other items, checking his receipt will not make the stolen goods magically rise from his body. It really amazes me that some people would side with the merchant on this.
This poll conducted at the “Retail Loss Prevention Exchange” website might offer a bit of insight as to shrinkage suspicions AND cases reported. The report opened my eyes a bit, even though it’s from ’99…
[www.rlpx.com]
Looks like they’re actually targeting their own employees, for the most part. At least those involved in the survey were.