In follow-up to my entry about stores harassing their customers all in the name of loss prevention, I’ve read a lot of comments about Michael Righi’s situation on various blogs. I must attribute Barnyard BBS for the term “Receipt Nazi” and I must tell you that I don’t use the term “nazi” lightly because I’ve done a lot of studying and research into that regime. It is, thus, vastly more ominous to me than to the average person. But let me get back on topic…
The thing that frustrates me most about receipt checking is what’s the point? The theory is they’re verifying the items were paid for. In my experience, they’ve never compared my purchases with the items listed. Another theory is this process is intended to catch fraudulent cashiers. Hmm. First take: if I’m now a part of the store’s loss prevention effort targeting their employees, where’s my compensation? Next, I wonder in this day and age where nothing gets bought that doesn’t scan, is this as prevalent as it used to be? Yeah, I realize a cashier could have a “cheap” item under the counter—why not have managers check the counters regularly rather than let customers feel you think they’re criminals? Finally, several comments or posts noted the “highlighted” receipt now shows it’s been used so it can’t be re-used. This is the only point that seems to have any benefit. But what’s the point if the only thing between the cashier where you got the receipt and the door is the receipt checker? How does that mark on the receipt really change anything?
Can anyone show me valid statistical data to show receipt-checking saves money by reducing store losses? If someone can show me receipt checking catches criminals, then I’ll apologize and become a supporter. Note that I’m not holding my breath…
So What Should You Do?
To begin with, I’m not giving legal advise. This is a personal issue with societal ramifications. How you respond is your choice. That said, the laws vary from state to state, so the first step is probably to know what the law says regarding retail fraud (the fancy name for shoplifting and employee theft), detention, and false arrest.
The common trend among those willing to buck the system seems to be to simply decline to show the Receipt Nazi your receipt—a simple “no, thank you.” Typically the store did, after all, only ask to see it. Alex Halavais even goes so far as to have a “you’re harassing me” document to give to store employees checking receipts at the door.
Another technique, one that I strongly endorse, is to complain to the management and/or corporate headquarters. In my recent experience at Lowe’s, I first asked for the store manager. Then I popped on the web and gave them bad ratings on the “tell us how we’re doing” survey followed immediately with a strongly worded complaint using their “Contact Us” form. I’ve not heard back from them, but in fairness I told them I didn’t want to hear from them.
Which leads to my third tactic: don’t shop at places that treat all customers like thieves by checking receipts at the door! Duh! If you continue to spend your money there, you can rant all you want, but you’re just supporting their policy of mistreatment! Ok, so you might pay more somewhere else. Which is the higher cost to you? Surrendering your integrity for little or no benefit to the common good? Or paying a dollar or 2 more because you didn’t frequent a big-box. I’m not naive. I know Best Buy could care less if I don’t shop there. But if we stand together, they’ll think about losing 100,000 or 1,000,000 customers! The Boston Tea Party wasn’t the first time Colonials stood up to the British, but it worked because they stood together.
Here’s How I Came Up With This
As noted, there are several blogs that have picked up Michael’s story and a number that were posting on this issue previously. Some of these sites have literally run into thousands of comments. They seem to be split about 1/3 thinking Mr. Righi deserve what he gets with the rest being supportive of his stand. Check out some of these other posts to get a sense of how much interest there is about this erosion of the basic principle of “innocent until proven guilty:”
And some pre-existing posts on the same topic: