In > posted on
Sun, 16 Jan 2005 14:26:59 -0500, Dave Smith wrote:

wrote:
>
>>
>> IMO, the policy shoud be enforced by making those particular registers
>> ring up no more than the stated number of items. So if someone with 20
>> items goes to a 12 or less aisle, the only 12 can be rung up and a total
>> would be required before any more could be rung up.
>>
>> "I'm sorry, but this register only rings up 12 items or less. There's
>> oting I ca do."
>
>Let's face it. Those numbers are arbitrary. Some say 8 items or less, some
>10 items or less, or 12 items or less. There are codes on everything these
>days, and a few extra items is no big deal, just a matter of a few seconds
>extra to pass them over the scanner. There are some things that aren't
>worth fighting over, and even if you are inclined to fight, you have to pick
>your battles. The stores want to come out ahead too.

True, and IMHO the main problem is with customers who refuse
to follow the rules. However, there is an unresolved
question. Suppose I am in a store that has a policy of 10
items or less. I have 6 bags of potato chips at price "x"
and 6 x 2 litre bottles of soft drink at price "y".

Should these count as 2 items or 12 items? Obviously it is
much quicker to pass an item through the scanner once to
determine the price then multiply it by 6 which is an option
on some systems. On others, can simply make multiple passes
of items over the scanner.

This probably takes less actual time than a customer with
8 or 9 separately priced items. So why cannot stores make
their policy clear?

Another annoyance: A supermarket may have a display
of a soft drink on sale, but most of the top boxes will be
opened, thus awkward to handle. If I want 5 unopened
cartons I have to half dismantle the display to get to them.

Often an employee will ask me what I am doing, and I
patiently explain why, and suggest that the display include
some unopened boxes that are easy to get at. Alternatively,
I suggest that it will save us both trouble if I can simply
pay for the product at the checkout and pick it up at the
loading dock.

So far, I haven't managed to get any store to alter their
display practice, but they have no objection to the latter
arrangement.

I don't suppose that I have to mention that when I am forced
to dismantle a display to reach unopened cartons I take my
time about it and the aisle is soon half blocked by opened
cartons. Yes, I do return the opened ones to the display,
but don't bother with artistically arranging them.

Another minor annoyance if buying one unopened case is that
the case has a separate bar code than the individual
bottles, so all that should be necessary is to scan the box
code. However, have never encountered a supermarket which
was prepared for this, and I have invariably been asked to
open the box and pull out a bottle to be scanned.

Does anyone know the reason for this, if there is any
reason?

Years ago I was once told that there was a limit of two
cases. As I grew up in the days where the customer was
always right, my response was to point out that they had not
posted a sign to this effect, and in a deliberately loud
voice demanded that the manager either sell me the five
cases without wasting my time any further or write me a
signed note that he was refusing the sale.

When he asked why, I told him that I needed it as evidence,
and that I intended to forward one copy to his corporate
headquarters and retain the other as evidence to present in
my complaint for false advertising under the trade practices
act. He wisely decided that the best course of action was
to sell me the five cases.

As a customer, one should not allow oneself to be bullied by
business people.

Incidentally, if ever have to make such a complaint to
someone's corporate headquarters, don't bother to talk to
his area manager. Write a letter to the CEO of the chain
and send it by security post with a return receipt
requested. This ensures that either the CEO or his private
secretary has to sign for it. This means he is usually
curious enough to read it, and it prevents his underlings
from concealing the complaint from him.

Regards,
"nilkids"