Woman Sends 100-Year-Old Walmart Greeter To Hospital Over Receipt Dispute

As we’ve already seen today, receipt checking at big box stores can get ugly, but there’s no need for violence. Just ask the 100-year-old greeter at a Wisconsin Walmart who ended up in the hospital yesterday.

The greeter, who clicked over into triple digits last August and who works at the store five days a week, says she was attempting to verify that the water in a customer’s cart had been paid for when things got ugly.

“That’s our job,” she said. “That’s what we’re up there in front for, to watch people going and coming.”

According to reports, the customer, a 37-year-old woman, pushed the greeter, who subsequently fell and hit her head. The greeter was taken to the hospital and the customer was arrested.

The 100-year-old, who was released from the hospital after undergoing a CAT scan, said it’s not uncommon for customers to get testy as they exit: “You get a lot of customers who are not out to hurt you, but they always give you a bad time.”

If stores are going to insist on checking receipts, is it wise to use elderly greeters for that purpose?

Woman arrested after pushing 100-year-old Wal-Mart greeter [JSonline.com]

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. CartmanPat says:

    I get that we don’t “have” to show receipts at places like Walmart, but I’ve never understood why people get SO upset over it.

    • spamtasticus says:

      You can get as upset as you want. When you attack them you just became a bigger problem yourself. Saying No and standing up for your rights and property is one thing. Unprovoked violence is a whole different story.

    • alSeen says:

      I don’t get upset. I just don’t do it.

      The big problem comes when they have one receipt person on days like Black Friday. There was a line of people 10 deep when I went to leave. I just walked past them and out the door. There was no way I was waiting.

      • Gorbachev says:

        That’s exactly what I do. I don’t say a word, and just walk by. There’s no need to get in anyone’s face.

        • Starfury says:

          My response (other than at Costco) is a polite “No Thanks” and I keep walking. So far this has not been a problem but then I also don’t shop much at Wal-Mart and haven’t been to a Best Buy in a year.

      • ianmac47 says:

        its not a problem really when the stores are empty. But no one should be employed as a “greeter” if there are not enough “cashiers.”

    • ihatephonecompanies says:

      People get upset about all sorts of stuff that other people don’t. This is just one of those things.

    • RevancheRM says:

      I’ve never understood why the individual employees get SO upset over when we don’t submit.

    • Leper says:

      People generally get upset because of the implicit assumption that they’re thieves, despite the fact they’ve just walked directly from the register to the exit in clear view of the greeter.

      • Griking says:

        People assume too much.

        It’s not personal people, it’s their job.

        • speedwell (propagandist and secular snarkist) says:

          It damn well is personal. It’s not the greeter making the personal insult, though, it’s the organization they are hired to represent.

    • tooluser says:

      How much should I tip the greeter?

  2. ubermex says:

    Violence against the greeter is doing it wrong. Be polite but firm.

    I mean, they shouldn’t be harassing us to begin with, but that doesn’t make this their fault.

    • obits3 says:

      First off, common sense tells us not to push old people for most any reason. That said, her age leads me to infer that it might have been taking longer than it should. There are really three issues here:

      1. Not having respect for old people just trying to make a living.
      2. Walmart putting this woman in a job she probably can’t do well.
      3. Forcibly checking my stuff after I own it is still a violation of my rights, even if it is done by a 100 year old.

      • obits3 says:

        This was suppost to be it’s own post, oh well =(

      • JennQPublic says:

        Umm, how forcible do you think the 100 year old woman was really being?

      • Griking says:

        I haven’t read any details at all that suggests that the woman wasn’t able to perform her job well. All they do is ask the customer to show their receipts. This sounds like another made up excuse as to why it’s such an inconvenience to comply.

    • JennQPublic says:

      Yep. Smile and say “no thanks!” when you walk by, you will be fine.

  3. jaysapathy says:

    I don’t get what the big to do is with this. Show them your receipt and move on.

    Oh yeah, and like, first or something.

    • cardigan says:

      Your comment is an epic fail in every conceivable way.

    • spamtasticus says:

      What you don’t understand is that rights are taken away from people in a very particular way. They often sight a lesser rule or law in order to pass or enforce a slightly stricter law. Put another way, each small and seemingly insignificant rule/law sets a precedent for the next, slightly stronger law. You and your fellow sheep adhere to very “slightly oppressive” rule and then they use your compliance as a tacit acceptance and use that as s step to the next level. If you want an example just think about how air travel has changed, specifically the security screening. Do you really think they would try to xray us and grab our balls if we had told them that searching our bags without any suspicion of wrong doing was a violation of our 4th amendment and stopped them back then?

      • Beeker26 says:

        Or you could just not be a sanctimonious d-bag and allow them to do their job. But I guess that’s really asking too much, isn’t it?

        • Difdi says:

          Pot, Kettle?

          Their job is to randomly accuse innocent people of theft, and demand proof that those people are not thieves. Nothing sanctimonious about being offended by a baseless accusation of being a bad person.

        • spamtasticus says:

          If you would like a good example of why this is not ok watch this video. If you want an extremely lucid and detailed example of what can happen if you don’t stop the snowball at the top of the hill then watch the whole series. I’m guessing you only have the patience for the one video… if that. But just in case I am miss reading you….

          http://www.youtube.com/user/etspictures#p/u/45/Uf5d_wREm0I

    • Kat@Work says:

      I hope you’re new here.

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      For everyone below’s sake…. WHOOSH!

    • mowz says:

      GTFO my /b/.

  4. speedwell (propagandist and secular snarkist) says:

    I don’t believe a thing until I see the videotape. I’ve been accused of “shoving” a receipt checker when I had both hands on the cart handle from the register through the door. All I did was keep pushing the cart when the receipt checker tried to grab it. The security guard came out while I was standing there figuring out where I parked and claimed I “shoved” the receipt checker and that “we don’t allow people to attack our employees.” I had a few words with him, which ended when he claimed “we have it on tape” and I demanded, “Good, let’s go watch it.”

    • obits3 says:

      This.

      The women is 100 years old. Not to be too stereotypical, but I bet that she was taking her time and the other woman was like “I own the stuff, I showed you the receipt, now let me go.” Then the old woman was like “but I have to do my job.” Here’s the thing, does being old give you the right to keep messing with someone’s stuff after they say no? I want to know if the 37 year old gave “fair warning.”

      • sonneillon says:

        fair warning does not give you the right to assault a person. The 100 year old had to represent a danger for it to be self defense. And I don’t think the judge is going to buy she was coming right for me.

        • obits3 says:

          What if the old woman grabbed your elbow and wouldn’t let go? Don’t you have a right to use force to stop someone from getting at you or your stuff? My rule of thumb is this: If I don’t want someone to hurt me, I don’t attack them. Even if she was doing her job, the old woman acted first. In order for the 37 year old to need to push the old women, the old women would have to be detaining the 37 year old from leaving. Don’t pick a fight if you don’t want to be in the fight.

          • speedwell (propagandist and secular snarkist) says:

            Actually, I disagree with that. It’s certainly possible that the old lady essentially placed herself in danger, but I doubt that. I think it is more likely that, for example, she got upset, tried to hurry, slipped, and fell. Old ladies fall and hurt themselves and have to go to the hospital quite often in fact, even when they are not working women who stand all day.

            • obits3 says:

              That is another good possibility. I bet the 37 year old moved the cart and the old lady lost her balance.

              • Bye says:

                Well, at least you can be thankful that you’ll never grow old.

                • obits3 says:

                  I’m not saying that I will keep my youth forever. What I am saying is that you should only do what you are capable of doing. I saw a video where the 100 year old lady seemed to need help walking. It is very possible that she simply cannot do this job.

        • speedwell (propagandist and secular snarkist) says:

          Did the videotape show that any assault was committed, or did everyone just go, “Gasp! A hurt old lady!”

          • sonneillon says:

            we don’t know. If it is not clear from the tape because companies generally use most of their cameras to watch the merchandise and their cashiers not look at the exits, it will be her word versus the word of the greater and 1 or 2 other Walmart employees. That’s easily enough to convict.

      • mythago says:

        It’s so much easier to be right when you just pull facts out of the air, amirite?

        The woman fell and hit her head. It’s obvious that she didn’t invent the fact that she was shoved.

        • speedwell (propagandist and secular snarkist) says:

          “Obvious”? Wow, am I glad you’re not on the jury. People slip and fall all the time. All it could take might be for the old lady to get upset and hurry too fast and slip and fall. Old women commonly end up in the hospital after falls that you or I would consider trivial.

        • obits3 says:

          I don’t doubt that she fell, but here’s my problem:

          Water bottles are usually kept under the cart or in the main part of the cart.
          People usually stand next too the handle of the cart.
          Thus, there is a cart between the old lady and the 37 year old.
          How did she “push” the old woman if this was the case? Something doesn’t seem right about the story.

          Also, how long does it take to look at a receipt that says “fun water,” look at the package that says “fun water” and let everyone keep moving?

          • speedwell (propagandist and secular snarkist) says:

            She could have pushed the receipt checker with the cart.

            I’m in no way trying to excuse violence. I’m just saying that there is no reason to automatically believe that the story as reported is necessarily true unless the video evidence corroborates it.

            • mythago says:

              Oh, well, pushing somebody with a cart is much, much safer than pushing them with your hand.

              Look, we’re not a jury here. Nobody is advocating the alleged pusher be burned at the stake. People are saying that if this went down as reporter, it’s completely unjustified, and Walmart’s receipt policy is no excuse to get violent.

          • The Porkchop Express says:

            where the water is kept in the cart has nothing to do with it. you can see the water down there and be standing next to the lady.

    • Hoss says:

      Shoving your way forward while someone is holding your cart is of course shoving. Asking to see tapes after a 100 yr old hits her head because you think she made things up is of course being a total moron

      • speedwell (propagandist and secular snarkist) says:

        Sorry, but “of course” you are wrong. I didn’t shove anyone or anything, I just kept on walking past a grabby receipt checker.

      • Difdi says:

        Assault is one of those crimes that permits the victim to engage in acts of self-defense without themselves committing a crime. If someone steps in front of a cart, grabs onto it, and pushes on it, that is assault on the person holding the handlebar. It’s not the most extreme case of assault ever, but continuing to walk is certainly self-defense.

        • Hoss says:

          The word assault is not part of her remark

        • Excuse My Ambition Deficit Disorder says:

          That’s not assault…when you physically touch someone that’s battery….assault would threating the 100 year old lady that you are going to push her. When you follow through with the threat…it then becomes battery.

  5. JM says:

    I don’t understand why people are so offended by showing their receipt. It takes 2 seconds. Just let them do it and be on your way.

    • Darrone says:

      Why should i waste the 2 seconds. I just say no thank you, and keep my 2 seconds to myself. If the guy wants to follow me, that’s his problem, and his wasted time.

    • Beeker26 says:

      Because some people just like being pains in the asses. Makes them feel special I guess.

    • alSeen says:

      And when there is a line to get out because the receipt person is 90+. No way. Walk past the line and head out the door. Say “No Thank You” and keep going.

    • peebozi says:

      Where is my profit? I am expected to work for a retailer by assisting in their loss prevention methods but they won’t compensate me? Unfortunately, corporations are so unbelievably greedy I get angry. They want all of the marbles…everyone of them and if it takes polluting our drinking water or raping our family pets then that’s what their going to do (as long as the fines, bad PR, overtime, etc are calculated beforehand and it’s determined their is profit in dog-raping).

    • Harry Manback says:

      you ASSUME it takes two seconds. What if there is a line? Why should I have to wait in line to leave the store? I don’t even like to wait in line to buy my stuff, there is no way I’m waiting in line to leave (unless I’m at Costco of course). What if it actually takes 30 seconds? A minute? 2? When is your cut-off?

      Yes I’m impatient, but it is entirely within my rights to be impatient. No, I don’t push people and I absolutely believe this woman belongs in jail (before you try to accuse me of feeling otherwise).

      • bcsus83 says:

        What is so different about Costco? You’ve still already paid for your merchandise, and are still being required to show your receipt to leave the store.

        • Harry Manback says:

          Because I agreed to it, and I’m aware that I am going to have to deal with it every time I go in there. I wish they wouldn’t, but I love Costco enough to overlook it. If I have to go to Wal-Mart I want to get out of there as quickly as possible.

          • menty666 says:

            that’s one of the reasons I ditched my Sam’s membership and went back to BJ’s. They check your membership card on the way *into* the store. Mind you, you can’t buy anything without this card, there’s no day pass, so what’s the point? I got fed up with it and cancelled my membership. BJ’s checks when you leave, but we knew about that, and given there’s more than 6 feet from the cashier to the door, I’m fine with that.

            • El Sabor Asiatico says:

              I’ve never been to a Costco where they did more than glance in the general direction of my card, so I’m no sure what the point of this policy even is. I could have an expired card, someone else’s card, or for that matter a rectangular piece of cardboard with the Costco logo printed on it, and I’d be in. Talk about security theater!

            • Ragman says:

              Both Sam’s and Costco in my city don’t check membership cards when you walk in. The walmarts here don’t ask for your receipt unless the detectors go off, and even then they only look at your receipt.

        • speedwell (propagandist and secular snarkist) says:

          You signed a membership contract at Costco saying you agree to allow your receipt to be checked. At Wal-Mart and practically everywhere else, you don’t.

          Full disclosure: Not a Costco member now, though I was a couple years ago.

        • Julia789 says:

          At Costco you sign a membership agreement prior to shopping there, stating in this private contract that you agree to have your receipt checked and cart searched before leaving the store. That makes it different than a regular (non-membership) store, where you have agreed to no such detainment and search of your private property.

    • Julia789 says:

      Detaining someone from leaving a store and demanding to search personal property that I’ve paid for and is now legally mine, invades my privacy and keeps me against my will. They might as well ask to search my purse and not let me leave until I’ve shown them everything in it.

      I don’t mind showing my receipt voluntarily. It’s being *required* to do so with no suspicion of shoplifting that is the problem. I normally do show it if the line is short. If the line is long, I say “no thanks” and leave usually without a problem.

      If an alarm is set off, or if an employee reported someone stuffing items in their pockets, etc. then I can see reason to detain someone. But it should be up to cashiers to see that all items in a cart are paid for, at the purchase point.

      • AustinTXProgrammer says:

        I hate to call those alarms a valid reason. They go off if get a text message while walking through.

        • Julia789 says:

          Yes there are problems with the alarms, I agree. Security guards or employees will sometimes put an item in their pocket and walk through at the same time as someone they suspect of shoplifting, in order to set off the alarm and get a valid reason to stop and search them. There was a consumerist commenter post about it a few weeks ago, it was very interesting.

          • FuzzyWillow says:

            You know, I have never stopped for those alarms. I just keep walking. I have never had anyone even care.

            Same goes for receipt checking. A quick “No Thanks.” and I am on my way – with my rights intact.

    • Rachacha says:

      HA, I WISH it took two seconds!

      The only place that I frequent that checks receipts is Costco. They will often have a line 3-4 deep (or more) waiting for a receipt check, so you wait several seconds in line for your turn, they glance for 10 seconds at your 2 carts of 100+ items and then draw a line on the receipt and then proceed to draw a smiley face on the back for the kids.

      There are several problems with this situation (and yes, I know I signed a contract agreeing to receipt checking, but I will assume that similar scenatios happen at WalMart, BestBuy and other retail stores.
      1) If you are going to demand that receipts be checked, have sufficient staff at the door to check receipts. Sure, it may only be a delay of 30-60 seconds (I hope), but that is 30-60 seconds of MY TIME (my bill for $0.50 is in the mail)
      2) The stores claim that the receipt check is to ensure that I receive all the items I paid for (and to ensure I paid for all the items I have). So If I pull up to the door with a cart overflowing with merchandise, in bags, all stacked up on top of each other, and they spend 10 seconds looking at my cart, how thorough can you honestly tell me this check is? The answer is, it isn’t, so can we just cut to the chase and say you don’t trust your customers, and this act of receipt checking is simply to discourage the amature thief from stealing while the professional is walking out the door with a stolen $1000 laptop shoved in his coat 3) About the smiley face you drew in an attempt to keep my kids happy…First, my kids are old enough that the simple act of drawing a smiley face on the back of the receipt is not going to impress them. Second, the reason why my kids are acting up is because they are tired of waiting in line to get the receipt checked, they want to go home, and you are keeping them from that showing your “artistic talents”, third, when my kids were younger and they were impressed by your smiley face, they always wanted to take the receipt and save it (until something else caught their eye) so when I return a few days later saying that I was overcharged for something and neither the cashier or the receipt checker caught it, I can’t produce my receipt because the kids dropped it somewhere in the parking lot.

      • Akuma Matata says:

        +1

      • JennQPublic says:

        I recently went through a Costco exit with two carts and three separate receipts. I only handed over the two large receipts, but after about 20 seconds, the girl checking the receipt started to look confused. Turns out, she WAS actually checking everything.

      • El_Red says:

        Well, just get a membership elsewhere.
        This is one of few negative points at Costco. They offer great prices, great return policy.
        Employees get good pay.
        Receipt checker at Costco prevents thiefs walking out with full carts. They are mainly a deterrent during crowded times.
        Or you can shop before or after work, to avoid crowds. What? Too complicated?

        • harrier666 says:

          The posters comment wasn’t a diss on costco. In fact, he/she stated that there was a contract. He/she is using the Costco experience to discuss the experience at Walmart or elsewhere that he/she does not frequent so is not as aware of their policy as Costco.

          Critical reading, ftw.

    • Me - now with more humidity says:

      Do you actually read Consumerist? Or is this your first day in class?

    • kmw2 says:

      You don’t even go here, do you?

    • farlo666 says:

      i agree, there’s no reason to get butt-hurt over a minor inconvenience.

      • LandruBek says:

        My butt feels fine, thank you; nevertheless, no you may not snoop around in my stuff. Why on earth would you think you could?

    • dg says:

      Because we’ve already completed the transaction and don’t have to show them a damned thing – that’s why. They’re treating us like criminals because they can’t trust their own employees (and that’s a whole different discussion).

      I’m sorry, but I paid, this is my stuff now so go F’ yourself. I’m not waiting, I’m not stopping, I’m not showing you a damn thing. I’m leaving. Either get out of my way or suffer the consequences.

      If that receipt checker has been doing the job for 10 years, she’s no stranger to this – and given that she’s 100 years old – if someone doesn’t want to show it to you, leave them alone.

      That said, if she’d grabbed me, I’d have said “Release me now, or I will remove your hand from me” If she didn’t, I’d remove her hand from my body – if that means she was injured, then that’s too bad for her.

    • Canadian Stoner says:

      For me its more a question of..I am Only asked to show my receipt when i need to be somewhere else within 10 minutes of leaving the store, i cant begin to explain How many times ive missed the first 15 minutes because the check took their sweet ass time. And at one point my mother in law had to remove her purse from the cart because the checker was about to look inside for ‘small loose items’

    • ames says:

      What I have learned from Consumerist:

      a. gift cards are evil (even though I find them highly convenient and would rather get a gift card from far away relatives than an inappropriate and hard to return gift)
      b. receipt checking is evil (period. this is not to be questioned.)
      c. Posts about tipping bring out really mean and spiteful comments for completely out-there reasons
      d. it is probably the parents’ fault for not watching their kid.
      e. Also evil: Best Buy, all cell phone companies, Walmart, and cable television.
      f. Costco, however, is pretty awesome.

  6. scoccaro says:

    I hate showing my receipt as much as the next person but that isnt an excuse to shove an old lady!

  7. Julia789 says:

    I would never get angry with someone who has been told it’s her job to check receipts. They don’t know any better.

    I would remain calm, inform them that what they are doing is not legit unless I’ve set off an alarm or made them suspect I was shoplifting. Then I’d take the matter up with the store manager or corporate.

    Until the receipt checker hears from their boss that showing receipts is “voluntary” they are going to continue thinking it’s “required” because their boss told them so. They are going to believe their boss, not some customer. You have to make the change at a higher level.

    That poor little old lady, just doing her job.

    • outlulz says:

      But 99% of the time no one is ever physically stopped for not showing their receipt, so hopefully you’ve never had to take it up to the manager.

    • teamplur says:

      In most cases, even if you set off the alarm you are not required to stop and it’s not probable cause. You have to be seen taking an item.

  8. * says:

    The people who find it offensive to their civil liberties to show a receipt on the way out of a store need to find a new hobby. No one is assaulting you or your civil rights. Big Box stores choose to check receipts because it reduces theft and KEEPS PRICES DOWN. Since big box stores are competitive on the basis of their ability to sell at a lower price and maintain a high inventory, this makes perfect sense.

    If you want big box prices, you shouldn’t make a stink about big box policy. If you don’t want your receipt checked, don’t shop at a big box store. You can’t have your cake and eat it to.

    • obits3 says:

      “No one is assaulting you or your civil rights.”

      I beg to differ. I agree that this went to far, but that doesn’t nullify the argument that once you own your stuff, it is your personal property (i.e. your effects). Thus, it is protected from search and seizure by the 4th amendment.

      Also (just for kicks), Walmart has the right to say “We will ban anyone who does not let us check their receipts.”

      • jshier says:

        The 4th amendment only protects you against government search and seizure. Having to show your receipt when you’re leaving, or opening your bag/purse when entering, isn’t a violation of the 4th amendment in any court.

        • obits3 says:

          Your right, that is just plain assault and/or unlawful detainment. My bad.

          • pv845 says:

            Except it isn’t unlawful detainment as almost every state has some sort of shopkeeper’s privilege that allows a property owner to reasonably detain people without fear to make sure its property isn’t being stolen. And I know you say that you aren’t stealing anything and therefore you shouldn’t have to stop. I agree and as soon as the shoplifters all admit they are leaving with stolen property, then this practice becomes inappropriate.

            It is the height of stupidity to think that somehow a private entity check your receipt is going to be the end of the world. Good lord, there are a lot worse things going on and if this is at the top of your list, I feel very sorry for you. If you don’t like it, shop somewhere else.

            • obits3 says:

              I don’t think shopkeeper’s privilege means what you think it means.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shopkeeper's_privilege

              “In some jurisdictions of the United States, the courts recognize a common law shopkeeper’s privilege, under which a shopkeeper is allowed to detain a suspected shoplifter on store property for a reasonable period of time, so long as the shopkeeper has cause to believe that
              the person detained in fact committed, or attempted to commit, theft of store property.”

              Key words: “so long as the shopkeeper has cause” Stopping everybody is not proof of cause.

              • Buckus says:

                It’s the same logic the TSA uses. Buying a plane ticket is reasonable suspicion that you’re a terrorist. In the same vein, purchasing merchandise at a store is reasonable suspicion that you’re a shoplifter. Sheesh! Get with the program! /sarcasm

              • pv845 says:

                I actually know what the terms means. I also think that most jurisdictions will construe it narrowly as you have said, but in the same vein, I doubt you would find many juries that would award you a dime for filing a lawsuit over your “detention”. BTW: love the cite to wikipedia, That is a source that I know courts would love to see when you file your petition/complaint alleging the violation of your rights.

                As most people have said, if you don’t like the policy, go somewhere else. As the SCOTUS has said repeatedly, money is speech.

                • obits3 says:

                  I cited a wiki because we were talking in general terms. It is obvious that I would have to cite laws with proper jurisdiction in a court case.

            • jackbishop says:

              Except it isn’t unlawful detainment as almost every state has some sort of shopkeeper’s privilege that allows a property owner to reasonably detain people without fear to make sure its property isn’t being stolen.

              In almost all jurisdictions, shopkeeper’s privilege is very narrowly construed, so that it requires reasonable prior suspicion. In particular, neither spot-checking nor universal checking policies are grounds for detention: you need a reason to suspect that the particular customer being detained is a shoplifter.

              Of course, asking to check a receipt isn’t detention, but attempting to keep those who decline from leaving is. And declining a receipt check isn’t grounds for suspicion to the best of my knowledge.

            • Alvis says:

              In order to detain you, they need to have observed you, continuously, take an item and attempt to leave the store with it without paying.

            • LandruBek says:

              “There are worse things going on.” “It won’t be the end of the world.”

              Rhetorical FAIL.

              I’m not going to wait for the end of the world, or for the worst thing to happen. It’s unacceptable, and the kind of arrant presumption up with which I will not put.

        • ludwigk says:

          However, it is a violation of the U.C.C. and consumer protection laws in my state. Consumer protection laws vary by state, but I know mine, and they are fantastic.

          The U.C.C. specifically states that, absent further contractual clauses, an exchange is complete after tender and delivery. At that point, neither party may assert rights or obligations upon the other party not previously specified. No receipt checking clause in our contract for sale? Then no right to check my receipt. Show my receipt? No thank-you, I’ll be leaving now.

          The store could have bargained for that opportunity prior to the sale, but it failed to do so.

          Further, maintaining the appearance of the right to check receipts is deceptive and misleading in asserting a right or obligation which a party does not have. This in itself is a statutory violation. Maintaining a business practice that is misleading or deceptive further triggers unfair competition laws, for which there are both common law and statutory causes of action.

      • captadam says:

        Until Wal-Mart is owned by the state, the 4th Amendment doesn’t apply here.

        I don’t want to turn over my receipt on the way out the door, but it’s hardly the worst thing to happen to me. I’m on private property, after all. I expect that I won’t be able to do every single thing I want to do, given that I’m a guest in somebody else’s place.

        • LandruBek says:

          You’re right, of course, about the 4th amendment — but “not the worst thing to happen to me” is a weak criterion. If you wait till things get that bad, it’s too late. I’m not going to play along until we reach the “worst-thing” level of outrage. I’m going to stop cooperating and start making noise much earlier than that: when we reach the “It’s a bad thing” level. And receipt-checking qualifies as that for me. My stuff is my stuff; no you may not nose around in it just to satisfy your loss-abatement curiosity.

        • Bill610 says:

          Common mistake here. The Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, does not create or grant any right. It merely asserts that those rights are recognized by the government, and that the government does not have the authority to infringe on those rights. Therefore, the rights spelled out in the fourth amendment are MY rights, and apply to anyone who wants to search me, because the rights are inherent to me–even though I can’t cite their actions as a Fourth Amendment violation. I may yield my rights voluntarily, as in a contract, but the fact that someone isn’t acting on behalf of the government doesn’t give them permission to violate them.

    • Julia789 says:

      I thought most theft in large stores took place in the back rooms, by employees stealing items? Wasn’t there a study out a while ago, someone on Consumerist cited it. I can’t find it.

      • Arcaeris says:

        You are correct. Theft by employees or those in the supply/distribution chain is the vast majority of theft at retailers.

      • Trick says:

        I had a snooty receipt checker say they check the receipt to make sure I didn’t over pay… So I asked how much the bottle of Tide was and how much my Mach 3 razors were. Deer in the headlight look response said everything. I asked her how she knew the price of every item in the store. She didn’t. She told me her boss makes her stand out here and check receipts because the boss thought it would be better than having a security officer work and it would look better on the books.

        So basically the customer has to be inconvenienced and bothered by this stupidity because the store manager is playing around with the hours for his/her own personal greed.

    • Mom says:

      This^. Stores, big box or otherwise, are dependent on people buying things. Every time you buy something at a store that checks receipts, you are telling the store that it’s okay to check the receipt, whether or not you take it out on the little old lady checking the receipts. The store already has your money. If enough people stop shopping at stores that check receipts, then the stores will change their practices.

      I also don’t get why people get so huffy about the 30 seconds they have to wait to have their receipt checked. They’ve already driven 20 minutes to get to the big box store, hiked across a huge parking lot, hiked around a huge store, and stood in a long line to pay. What’s an extra 30 seconds? If they really want to save time, they should just go to the local mom-n-pop store. They’d be to the store, done shopping, and back home in the amount of time it takes to walk through walmart’s parking lot. And they would probably save enough on gasoline to make up for the difference in prices.

      • LandruBek says:

        Wrong. Every time I buy something in a big-box store, I’m telling the store that I’m willing to exchange X amount of dollars for gizmo Y. That is all. Not that they may rummage around in my belongings because they just like to have a little looky-look.

    • Suburban Idiot says:

      How does it keep prices down to have to employ someone specifically to check people who aren’t stealing?

    • LandruBek says:

      No. Store policy does not trump state law. If the store wants to sell stuff, for the most part they don’t get to write their own laws (“policies”) about how their customers leave the premises. And AFAIK there isn’t a state that says I have to let them sniff around my bidness just because they like to do a little pre-emptive snooping.

  9. bsh0544 says:

    It’s entirely possible the person was simply trying to be “polite but firm” as suggested and keep walking. Greeter tries to block with her body, gets slightly nudged, falls over, shopper is villified.

    • obits3 says:

      That’s what I was thinking. Need video….

    • Corinthos says:

      Exactly what I was thinking also. When I worked at walmart I witnessed this. The receipt checker said the lady pushed her. No the reeipt checker tried to grab the lady and the lady kept walking and the receipt checker fell. Even told the LP guy that. Cops showed up I don’t think anything happened after that.

  10. cardigan says:

    It always bugs me to hear about this happening. I used to work at a Walmart, and more than once I heard about violence against our greeters: someone getting knocked over by a thief making a break for the door, or someone getting punched in the face for asking for someone’s receipt (true story), among other things.

    It seems that more than anyone else, greeters get the brunt of the verbal and/or physical abuse bestowed by unruly customers. Yet, Walmart continues to hire the elderly for these positions. If they’re going to make the requirements of the job more rigorous than just a friendly smile and a sticker for ingoing merchandise, I think they either need to give these positions to someone less vulernable, or have another greeter nearby for assitance.

    • Me - now with more humidity says:

      It used to be that greeters were just that — they said “Welcome to Walmart” and smiled a lot. Perfect gig for a retired biped. It’s different today.

      • Verdant Pine Trees says:

        Perhaps we need to move up from bipeds, to someone who will not easily be messed with. For instance, an elephant wearing a giant happy face sheet over her back might do the trick.

    • Sparty999 says:

      Maybe they think like any sane person would… that you are less likely to mess with an elderly person than someone else.

    • Difdi says:

      The problem is not that being a greeter is dangerous. The problem is that they have greeters doing loss prevention duties, which IS dangerous.

  11. Hoss says:

    It wouldnt take much in a situation like that to turn into a manslaughter case, and juries arent going to be sympathetic to the receipt issue. Six to 18 for what?

  12. Buckus says:

    “I don’t understand why people don’t just [action which is contrary to civil rights or property rights] and just move on. After all, it’s all in the name of [some ideal outcome].”

    Let’s try two:
    1. “go through the Backscatter x-ray” and “security”
    2. “get the pat-down” and “security”
    3. “show the receipt” and “reduced theft and keeping prices low”

    • BradC says:

      “I don’t understand why people don’t just GIVE ME ALL THEIR MONEY and just move on. After all, it’s all in the name of MAKING ME HAPPY.”

    • * says:

      That would be a difficult thing to understand, if it were the case here. We’re on the same page as far as backscatter machines, the TSA, etc are concerned but if you’re going to try to argue that you have a RIGHT not to be asked for your receipt, you need to read up on what your rights in this country really are.

      They’re allowed to ask you for a receipt. You are allowed to say no. They are allowed to try to convince you to stay, or to call the police if they believe you are stealing. You are allowed to leave.

      They do it because it deters opportunist thieves. You waste both your time and theirs when you fight them on it. There’s no harm done to anyone when you show someone a record of what you just bought from them.

      • LandruBek says:

        Fine, fine. So they can ask for your receipt — Buckus never said otherwise. But SO VERY OFTEN they don’t accept “no” as an answer. Then it turns into the checker grabbing the customer, blocking the customer, chasing the customer into the parking lot. Someone gets punched, someone gets knocked down, some dumbass LEO uses poor judgment.

        Basically, asking for the receipt is asking for trouble. From a risk management perspective it’s an absurdly risky exposure to liability (in my opinion).

      • LocalH says:

        Let me guess, do you believe that the Constitution outlines what rights we are limited to? Or that it outlines certain rights explicitly (which was a huge blunder), limits the federal government, and reserves everything else to the people?

        Since there is no law stating that receipt checking can be required, by default, we do indeed have the RIGHT not to show a receipt. And it would (in theory, anyway) be illegal for the federal government to pass such a law. State governments could, but I’d imagine there would be a massive backlash in any state to attempt such a thing.

        • Excuse My Ambition Deficit Disorder says:

          You are correct but on the other token there is no law stating they can not ask to see your receipt.

    • El_Fez says:

      It’s like a civil rights mad lib!

  13. donovanr says:

    Personally I think that once a receipt checker so much as slows you down that you have every right to use whatever force is required to get them out of your way. But in the case of a 100 year old I think you can find an alternative. Unless you are 100 yourself I suspect you could scurry to another door or maybe jump over them. Keep in mind that at 100 their reaction time is slow.

    • speedwell (propagandist and secular snarkist) says:

      “Whatever force is required”? Seriously? I don’t think you mean that, exactly. Care to reword it?

      • obits3 says:

        That’s why I plant shaped charges on my cart before leaving:

        “I don’t think you want to touch that…”

    • Sparty999 says:

      douche…

    • RayanneGraff says:

      So you think that it’s ok to use force against an innocent person who is just doing their job, because you don’t like having to show your receipt?

      You sir(or ma’am), are an asshole.

  14. backinpgh says:

    I’m more disturbed by the fact that a 100 year old woman needs (I presume, anyway) to work at Walmart to earn a living. She deserves to sit at home and play with her great grandchildren and play bridge and watch soaps, or whatever old people like to do.

    • CFinWV says:

      Elder abuse ranks up there with child abuse, imo. There’s a place in hell for people who would use violence against an old person.

    • Southern says:

      Many people, both young AND old, need to feel a ‘purpose’ in life, to make themselves feel useful, or to just plain old defeat boredom and have something to DO. She may not NEED to work, maybe she just enjoys it.

      I know I’d get bored off my ass sitting in a retirement home, day after day after day after day watching nothing but Game Show Network reruns.

      Ask just about any senior living in a retirement home if they’d rather be WORKING or SITTING, and I betcha most of them would reply that they’d rather be working.. Unfortunately, at that age, their job prospects are very limited. I give props to Walmart for at least making her feel like a productive member of society (if that’s what she’s there for).

      • peebozi says:

        The op beat me to this point by one minute…but, regardless, you’re wrong. She works there because she needs the money.

        You can now applaud all efforts to reduce any social welfare benefits Americans have been receiving.

      • webweazel says:

        One of my relatives is in his 70′s and has always liked to dabble/work on his property, but I think is running out of stuff to do. He’s been working with tractors for many, many years. I found out yesterday, he’s applied to work at a new tractor supply company opening near him. He doesn’t need the money, he wants to do it to find a new purpose, and maybe have some fun along the way. You go boy!

    • Hoss says:

      The article explains much of this. She seemed to be lonely after her closest relatives died

      • RandomHookup says:

        That’s one of the problems of living so long. At 100, even your youngest children would be in their 60s and could be as old as 80.

  15. backinpgh says:

    I’m more disturbed by the fact that a 100 year old woman needs (I presume, anyway) to work at Walmart to earn a living. She deserves to sit at home and play with her great grandchildren and play bridge and watch soaps, or whatever old people like to do.

  16. peebozi says:

    More importantly, is the 100 year old woman working because she likes to or because she spent her youth partying, stealing, getting her hair done, hanging out on the street corner…or is it because our social welfare programs have failed those who need it most.

    I did not RTFA.

  17. carefree dude says:

    Around the beginning of september I think it was, an elderly store greeter tried to shove me away from my cart because i didn’t show my receipt. Shoving me didn’t get her very far, so she just took stuff out of my cart, and ran back into the store. I could have grabbed her or fought her (she was a very small old lady), but I knew it was a poor idea. I did chase after her though, in order to get my stuff.

    I told the manager of the store, who acted like he cared then just kinda blew it off. I later contacted the central office for the area, who called me and such. Then the manager of that store called me, and offered me a $25 gift card. A few minutes later he called back, and said “nevermind, I can’t give you that”.

    • deejmer says:

      I would have remained outside the store adn dialed 911. “I was leaving the store when someone robbed me. They came and took items from my cart and ran inside. Please send an officer right away!” Press charges for theft.

    • carefree dude says:

      the real killer was that the “greeter” didn’t have a namebadge on, just had the usual blue shirt and such. Coming into the store, i thought she was a customer waiting on her vehicle.

      Oh, the items in my cart? Cardboard boxes and bubble wrap.

  18. Hoot says:

    It seems they’re always either elderly or disabled to some degree.

    I think they do that to pull at your heartstrings. It’s harder to blow off or get hostile with granny than it would be with some teenage punk.

    • RayanneGraff says:

      Yeah, I never understood why they hire the feeble to man the doors. There’s a wheelchair-bound door greeter in my town, and I dread to think of some ass-fedora shoving him over if he tries to check their receipt. There’s also a mentally retarded girl who I see checking receipts sometimes, and I worry about people messing with her too. They should put the young bucks at the front and put the little old ladies in jewelry or crafts, where they won’t get hurt.

  19. sonneillon says:

    Just because you don’t have to show your receipt doesn’t mean you get to assault a person. Is it to hard to be polite even when telling them no?

  20. Costner says:

    Since Walmart is not a government entity, and nobody is forced to shop there, and it is safe to say everyone here knows about their receipt-checking practices, then if you are so offended by the practice, why do you still go there?

    Last I heard Target doesn’t check for receipts and I’m sure they would appreciate your business. Oh thats right, you like the idea of Walmart doing everything in their power to keep the prices as low as humanly possible including being tough on shoplifting and outsourcing production of the vast majority of their trinkets to China regardless of what human rights violations might be involved… but you draw the line on having to show your receipt. Check.

    Newsflash – if you carry your receipt in your hand on the way out, 98% of the time the Walmart greeter won’t even bother to ask you to see it. I don’t make a habit of shopping at Walmart, but out of the 25 or 30 times I have been in one in the last 5 or 6 years I think I have been asked to look at my receipt once – because I know about the policy and I carry my receipt in my hand visible to the greeter. They don’t have to ask – I don’t have to stop and be “inconvenienced”, and everyone is happy. Novel concept right?

    • Bativac says:

      I agree 100% with your comment.

    • Suburban Idiot says:

      At my Wal-Mart the receipt-checking is relatively random. They don’t check everybody or every time. I’ve only been asked once, and I shop at Wal-Mart pretty frequently (for one thing, it’s the closest grocery store to my house).

      If they made it an all-the-time check, and it was sucking up my time (only ever having two registers open already sucks up about as much of my time as I’m willing to give), I would go elsewhere.

      I have been asked to show my receipt at Target more frequently, actually (but, there again, it’s nowhere near every time).

      The only places I shop where the receipt check is constant are Fry’s and Sam’s.

    • Martyfrom Seattle says:

      You are correct sir. And since Costco is a Club, they can set their own rules.

      But yes, I have my receipt ready because I know what’s coming and 98% they just mark it with their colored pen as I walk on by.

    • El Sabor Asiatico says:

      What you said.

    • 24NascarDude says:

      It doesn’t matter that Wal-Mart is not a government entity. The Constitution recognizes certain rights that are inherent to humans. While only the government is expressly prohibited from denying those rights, it is implied that no one may deny those rights to another (unless the other person voluntarily surrenders them).

      Someone earlier posted that, according to the U.C.C (used in most states, btw), the transaction is done when exchange and delivery are completed. This means that, unless a contract is in force stating otherwise, no other rights may be exercised by the seller or the buyer (the “contract in force” part is the reason that Sam’s Club and Costco can get away with this, since a receipt-check clause is included in the membership agreement). Since the seller may not enforce other rights, I can now exercise my 4th amendment inherent right to prevent searches and seizures of my person, papers (including receipts), and effects.

      The part about outsourced labor is a red herring. The fact that Wal-mart may be violating human rights in China does not affect nor diminish the ability to exercise my rights in the United States.

      Now, Wal-mart could do a couple of things. One, they could require that every one that is buying something must sign a contract beforehand that includes a receipt-check clause. Two, they could ban people who do not consent to the check from the store.

    • harrier666 says:

      Seriously, who cares about standing up for your rights and demanding a warrant if someone wants to search you? I mean, for black people, there is no mystery that the cop is going to cuff us even if he is pulling us over for a broken tail light. So, just shut up and submit! You knew what was coming when you drove in Oakland!

      • Costner says:

        I love it when people compare a random receipt check at a retail store to a warrant for a police search and/or the obligatory racial profiling issue because yes… those are in fact practically the same exact thing.

        I often find myself refusing to allow someone to cut my hair, because sooner or later I figure they are going to just cut off my entire head!

        /sarcasm

  21. octowussy says:

    Leave it to Consumerist and its readers to blame or question a hundred-year-old than question what kind of scumbag puts their hands on a hundred-year-old. Stay classy, Consumerist!

    • speedwell (propagandist and secular snarkist) says:

      Hundred-year-olds are infallible repositories of wisdom and virtue, of course. They send you your Exalted Master certificate, suitable for framing, in a golden envelope. Don’t try to tell me you’ve never seen them.

      • speedwell (propagandist and secular snarkist) says:

        By which I mean, of course, that you were obviously there and saw the whole thing and know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it happened the way they said. Rather than, say, everyone going “awwwwww” to the hurt little old lady and lynching the so-called “criminal maniac.”

        If the arrested person actually did commit an act of violence against the old lady, I say throw the book at the scumbag. But which do you think is more likely… a receipt checker overstepped themselves, or a woman pushed an old lady down and hurt her on purpose?

    • cardigan says:

      Uhhh, last time I checked, neither the article nor any commenters here were questioning or blaming the 100-year old lady. In fact, most of the comments have been to the tune of, “What kind of asshole assaults a 100-year old greeter?” I think you need to RTFA, then RTFC before you think about posting something.

  22. Warren - aka The Piddler on the Roof says:

    Nice. What kind of douche pushes an old lady?

    If I’m not mistaken, assault and battery is a class 1 felony that carries jail time of up to 3.5 years.

  23. treesareheavy says:

    They put elderly and disabled people in these jobs for two reasons:

    1. They are probably not fast enough to meet whatever IPM the store has set
    2. Most people are unwilling to be an asshole to an old or infirm person.

    Obviously, there are exceptions the the rule.

  24. Press1forDialTone says:

    The elderly woman should press assault charges and press
    hard. She should be fined, forced to pay for all the woman’s
    medical expenses, a couple thousand for pain and suffering,
    and may a couple of weeks in lock-up. Wal-Mart brass should
    back up the employee and the video will confirm what happened.
    The customer should be banned from that Wal-Mart for life.

    As a society we -have to draw the line somewhere and clearly –
    and start enforcing rules we make. If we don’t like the rule or law,
    we change it….

    **hole customer.

  25. dolemite says:

    “People tend to get testy when I accuse them of shoplifting right after they just had the good graces to spend $150 in my store. I’ll never figure it out!”

  26. megafly says:

    If she is 10 or 100, does that make any difference in the fact that she has NO RIGHT to detain you and demand to see your papers?!

  27. billybob9280 says:

    This Walmart is notoriously “ghetto.”

    Go there if you don’t believe me..

  28. Happy Tinfoil Cat says:

    Seems like an ideal job for elderly greeters with little or no family. Making them metermaids would be far more dangerous for them.

  29. Donathius says:

    I’ve just never been to one of these draconian Wal-Marts apparently. The greeters at the Wal-Mart near my house only asks to see your receipt if you don’t have your stuff in a Wal-Mart bag. The one time I’ve had to show my receipt was when I was walking out with a brand new TV in a cart. I can totally understand asking for proof of purchase in that case since it looked like I had just picked the TV up and plopped it in the cart.

  30. RayanneGraff says:

    *sigh* I fucking hate people. Poor old lady.

    • macruadhi says:

      If you “fucking hate people”, then I can only presume you’re sympathy for the old lady is completely false.ok

    • macruadhi says:

      If you “fucking hate people”, then I can only presume you’re sympathy for the old lady is completely false.ok

  31. u1itn0w2day says:

    A Walmart employee is not worth a criminal charge, not even an executive.

    This reciept checking thing is getting a little extreme on both sides.

  32. EverCynicalTHX says:

    I don’t mind showing my receipt – but if I did, I’d simply go somewhere else.

    Why would anyone frequent a place they feel is violating their “civil rights” …Don’t shop there and it sure beats dealing with store managers, security, looking like a thief to casual observers or punching little old ladies.

  33. MacUser1986 says:

    At 100 years old she shouldn’t be working anyway, damn this country and how they treat the elderly!

    Still, there’s no excuse for the assault.

  34. Sparty999 says:

    why is this a privacy issue? They have your transaction on record… it’s not like they do a full inventory of your shopping cart!

    Show your stupid receipt… move on!!

  35. Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

    It’s no secret that the big box stores don’t treat their employees well and have annoying policies like checking receipts.

    If somebody has a problem with this, then the best thing to do would be to stop spending money there. Throwing a tantrum AFTER spending money there wont make any difference.

  36. RogueWarrior65 says:

    It comes down to this: If criminals were treated like, oh, I don’t know, call me crazy…CRIMINALS and prison was more like, oh, I don’t know, call me crazy…PRISON instead of summer camp, maybe fear of the consequences would keep the riff raff in line and we wouldn’t need receipt checkers.

  37. yulingo says:

    I’ve honestly never had a problem with receipts at Wal-Mart. They wanted to check my receipt at Target on Black Friday and I made an exception.

  38. TheSDBrat says:

    A similar situation happened to me on Saturday in San Diego. I had a few things in my cart, and needed to pick up an MP3 player. Figured, why wait in line twice, and had them ring up the 10 other items i had. They sure as heck werent going to let me leave the electronics dept without paying for the MP3 player. So, with my cart of dog food, other items and the tiny MP3, i “tried” to exit thru the garden section. An employee asked “may i see your receipt?” – i said no. He actually pulled my cart to the side then let go so he could call the assistant manager on the phone. I took the opportunity to exit and go to my car. My question is: what if they had followed me out to my car? What if they had called the police? What would be my obligations to the police? And FWIW – the MP3 DID NOT set off the alarm… Im not looking to get flamed, but truly would like some advice should this happen again in Walmart or Fry’s, who also asks for receipts….

    • outlulz says:

      I’m guessing because anyone could claim they bought their non-garden merchandise and walk out the garden door rather than the front door where the normal cashiers are. The store should put one of those beeping sensors at the garden exit, at the very least.

  39. emptyV says:

    someone is getting a lump of coal for Christmas…

  40. PsiCop says:

    Re: “As we’ve already seen today, receipt checking at big box stores can get ugly, but there’s no need for violence.”

    Huh. Consumerist’s position has always been that receipt checkers are pond scum who deserve to be pushed around.

  41. Chaosium says:

    “If stores are going to insist on checking receipts, is it wise to use elderly greeters for that purpose?”

    It is a bad idea to use ANY of your employees as bouncers. I want as few standing in my way as possible and not trying to tackle me as I exit.

  42. nocturnaljames says:

    Maybe they are angry at being assumed they are a criminal, when they have no legal right to force them to show a receipt as it is already their property at that point.

  43. sopmodm14 says:

    its up to the consumer, if they dont want to take, 5 secs for employees to take a glance at their receipts, then went ppl steal, they’ll just pay for it

    they ppl who take advantage are thieves who exploit ppl’s naturally good intentions

  44. sopmodm14 says:

    if ppl don’t really care about getting x-rayed at the airport, they can live with a min or so for a quick receipt glance

    think of it as a formality

    otherwise, those automatic doors won’t open for exits until everyone is checked……how long do you think those lines will be then ?

  45. livingthedreamrtw says:

    I think the only case I wouldn’t be upset with a greeter for receipt checking is if they were a cute, wrinkly 100 year old. I mean, how could that be threatening in the least bit? This woman needs a mental check.

  46. radio1 says:

    I have not read the article.
    I don’t really like showing my receipts upon leaving a store.
    I usually have it out, so it’s easily checked on my way out.
    I also understand the principle of not showing a receipt.

    But,
    If your receipt checker is; disabled, challenged, infirmed, elderly (or over octogenarian status, in this case)– just be nice and careful of them.

    You,
    Can be the bigger person, even if they don’t treat you with respect. I’m sure most people here would not want to be that guy/gal who gets a elderly person injured– even if you did nothing physical to that person. Especially if that person was one of our family or friends.

    What has happened to this country? Is any politeness or civility left? Those checkers are being paid to do that job. I can’t believe people here are blaming the 100 year old Wal-Mart employee…?! (And I am not blaming those person who got arrested, I don’t know the facts.

    What’s next, a poster complaining seriously or sarcastically that the woman does not have enough sense to die already?

  47. gamehendge2000 says:

    Why is it that everyone who uses the argument that it’s personal belongings, private paid-for possessions, etc and that it is an invasion of privacy for someone to look through the bag/cart…. Not 60 seconds earlier, these “private” possessions were on a conveyor belt for all to see, the cashier to handle, the next person in line to gawk at…

    So once it’s on the belt in plain view, no problem showing anyone you’ve got Depends and Summer’s Eve, but as soon as the cash trades hands, these are intimately personal items that no one can see without some huge invasion of privacy?

    Not that I am a receipt checking fan, just seems a little graspy methinks

  48. El_Red says:

    Can anyone tell me why a 100 year old woman still works? And at Walmart? No one else sees a problem?

  49. Toolhead says:

    The main reason I don’t go to Walmart is because the type of people that go shopping there.This article proves my point I’d rather go to Ralps or CVS and pay a couple bucks more then deal with trailer trash etc.

  50. StrangeEmily says:

    I’m starting to think that all the people who complain about Receipt Checkers are the kind of people who wake up in the morning, then wonder where they can go to complain about something or pick a fight to make themselves feel better about their miserable lives.

    • Southern says:

      Actually, I think of people who get upset about “Receipt Checkers” as the kind of people that are just getting *fed up* with all the rules, restrictions, laws, and everything else that is getting shoved down our throats on a daily basis, all in the name of “Security”, “price control”, “for the protection of the children”, or whatever else they can think of.

      Full body scans at airports, or intrustive pat downs (security)
      Telling private businesses they aren’t allowed to give away toys (it’s for the children!)
      Banning the sale of all “flavored” cigarettes, but hey, menthols and regular cigar/pipe/cigarette tobacco is still just fine!

      Every day it seems there’s something new that chips away at our rights.

      Would we stand it if they went REALLY radical on us? Such as in India, it’s now illegal for single women to use cell phones.
      Infidelity in some countries is punishable BY DEATH.

      So what’s the big deal? Don’t cheat on your spouse, and you won’t be stoned to death.

      Of course we wouldn’t stand for that – so why would we stand for being threatened with ARREST and JAIL TIME for not showing a receipt when exiting a store? Why do we stand for either submitting to a full body x-ray or intrusive pat-down, just to get on an airplane? (And don’t bother refusing, because if you do you can be fined $10,000!)

      These are OUR rights, and some people are perfectly willing to let them take them from us – a little at a time – a little more each day.

  51. PupJet says:

    Hmm…I’ve often battled with this concept of people throwing a bitch-fest about receipt checking. Personally I don’t mind it because even though it IS my property, I am still on their property.

    If all you are going to do is bitch and whine about taking a minute or three for a receipt check, then you REALLY have nothing else going on in your life. If you don’t like it, shop in a store that doesn’t do these checks.

  52. parsonsdj1 says:

    How about people just not be assholes for a change?

  53. coren says:

    It shouldn’t matter who you have checking receipts – there’s no reason anyone should be getting violent, period.

  54. fuceefacee says:

    Refusing to show your receipt “because I don’t have to”, is like Don Quixote tilting at windmills. What’s the point? I save acting like an asshole for when it really matters.

  55. AngryK9 says:

    Oh come on. I can understand being annoyed, but that is probably the only job left on the planet that this elderly lady can get. There is no harm in showing her the receipt. Allow her to continue to feel useful in twilight twilight years!

    If you really don’t want to show your recipt, then wait until the checker is busy with someone else then pass on their blind side. This is what I often do and it works about 98% of the time.

    Or you could just stop shopping at Walmart and buy all of your useless junk that you think that you need online.

  56. angus1357 says:

    when i’m trying to leave with a screaming 8 mo. old baby and a 3 yr old with the attention span of a fart the last thing I need to do is stop so you can double check my receipt….thats what the scanners are there for. HOWEVER pushing an elderly woman is absurd and that woman should be exiled…OR she could just apologize and state she was under stress yadda yadda yadda.

  57. Jarod says:

    I put my receipts in my wallet at the counter, so I don’t lose them; I might need to return something and I always verify my CC bill against receipts – every time! I seldom get stopped where I shop, but if I do, I have to take the time to get the receipt out and hold up the line. Other customers behind get upset. They should set the check-out lanes up so that you don’t need to stop and be frisked on the way out.

    Usually these elderly people just want someone to talk to. If I know them personally, I might want to stop and talk, but they are doing a job and aren’t supposed to be chit chatting. Many of these individuals in our area are so disabled that they couldn’t tussle with your cart or you. I just don’t get the greeter idea.

  58. frenchcheesemuseum says:

    Is it wise to use 100 year olds as receipt checkers? How about this instead, how about you don’t lay your farking hands on another human being at all. How about you don’t get pissy because someone is doing their job and you don’t knock them down. I hope she gets a solid year in jail. Maybe she’ll learn to not be an entitled coont.

  59. Sean says:

    Problem with Wal Mart’s receipt policy is they ask for a receipt for any item that is not in a bag. If you were the crime commiting type you could bring a Wal Mart bag with you (or just take one from the registers) and put any item that does not have a security tag on it in the bag and walk out of the store.

    With the security tags I have seen some items that are $50-60 without security tags and then some $5 items that do have security tags.

  60. quagmire0 says:

    Aye aye aye. Here we go with the ‘IT’S MY RIGHT NOT TO SHOW MY RECEIPT BLAH BLAH BLAH”S again. People, just show the dumb receipt, it’s not worth anyone’s health and well being.

    Honestly, I feel more violated by the stores that train their employees to automatically ask you if you need any help – which makes it impossible to shop in peace. Instead every five feet ANOTHER employee is asking if they can help you. Frigging annoying! :)

  61. consumedchick says:

    Lifehacker did a big writeup on this topic. Saying , in summary’ if you just smile and say hi, most of the half -assed ones will just say hi. It’s the militants you have to worry about.