On Jun 21, 2:53*pm, "Pete C." > wrote:
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> > "ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
> > > Behooves. Haven't heard that term in years <lol>. However, I think it's
> > > one of those "It was a good idea at the time" things. "They" i.e. the
> > > barcode boffins didn't take into account a) garbage in, garbage out - e.g.
> > > I took a tin of tomatoes to the check-out the other day that allegedly
> > > cost 50 bucks instead of 50 cents - had to raise hell about it before a
> > > 'supervisor' was called to sort it out; b) how 'inventive' the staff could
> > > be in making the system work to their advantage e.g. cases of purposely
> > > 'fixing' the system to reflect the wrong pricing on certain items - and
> > > last but not least... c) shoppers with less than optimal eyesight who find
> > > it difficult to read the shelf tags - if they are actually even *there*.
>
> > It was no better before bar codes. *We used to do the pricing out of a book
> > and stamp the cans. *I'd say they were less accurate back then. *Yes, fixing
> > an obvious problems was simple, but if the can is stamped 69 does that mean
> > it is correct or should it have really been 49 ? *There were no shelf tags
> > to check it against.
>
> I remember (barely) those days and the benefits of spending an extra few
> seconds looking at the stock of a given item on the shelf for a
> mismarked one with a lower price. You could save a few dollars a visit
> just by grabbing things from the back of the shelf.

I got a manager;s goat one time when I found a bag of cat litter
marked $0.50 for the 50# bag. When I told him it wasn't the only one
mispriced, he started swearing, gave me the bag for the price marked,
and tried to make me feel like a thief. Didn't work.<G> Their
mispricing policy is clearly readable, even by a blind bat like me,
from the registers....

maxine in ri