Rant about asda

Azari

OlliesDad wrote: »

I personally think there would be more arguments at the checkout if a customer thought there was a chance to get the decision over ruled.

I can see that that could be a problem, which is why I would not have a procedure that operated at the checkout.

I would say to checkout staff, if in any doubt refuse to serve anyone you believe may be under (whatever age they choose >= 18) and if the customer is sober, polite, and claims to be well over the threshold age (and is not clearly trying it on), suggest that they go to customer services and ask to speak to a duty manager.

That way the cashier feels they are part of the process of review rather than undermined by it, no one is held up at the checkout (which they are more likely to be at the moment if the customer demands to speak to a manager who then has to make their way to the scene), and there is a good chance that an older person with more experience of assessing ages can take a look at the situation and possibly avoid unnecessarily annoying a customer.

powerful_Rogue

Quite simple to understand why they dont overrule.

Customer 1 looks under 25. Refused sale. Appeals to manager - Refusal overruled.
Customer 2 looks under 25. Refused sale. Appeals to manager - Refusal overruled.
Customer 3 looks under 25. Refused sale. Appeals to manager - Refusal overruled.
Customer 4 looks under 25. Refused sale. Appeals to manager - Refusal overruled.
Customer 5 looks under 25. Refused sale. Appeals to manager - Refusal overruled.

Customer 6 looks under 25. Cashier thinking shes bad at judging ages due to all previous refusals being overruled sells the alcohol. Its a test purchaser, cashier loses job and gets a fine.

Buying alcohol is a privilege your entitled to when you turn 18 - its not a right. Either carry ID or take your custom elsewhere.

Azari

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Quite simple to understand why they dont overrule.

Customer 1 looks under 25. Refused sale. Appeals to manager - Refusal overruled.
Customer 2 looks under 25. Refused sale. Appeals to manager - Refusal overruled.
Customer 3 looks under 25. Refused sale. Appeals to manager - Refusal overruled.
Customer 4 looks under 25. Refused sale. Appeals to manager - Refusal overruled.
Customer 5 looks under 25. Refused sale. Appeals to manager - Refusal overruled.

Customer 6 looks under 25. Cashier thinking shes bad at judging ages due to all previous refusals being overruled sells the alcohol. Its a test purchaser, cashier loses job and gets a fine

What a load of drivel!

In the first place, if a cashier is repeatedly refusing to sell alcohol to people who are well over 25 and are very likely to complain about it, the management are not going to lose money by keeping that person as a checkout operator. They probably won't give them an honest explanation but they are not going to leave someone someone on a checkout who is repeatedly alienating the customers unnecessarily and is losing the shop money.

In the second place, why would the cashier would not have been overruled as they were part of the review process in the first place?

In the third place, why would the cashier know or care if the customers in question got the alcohol in the end?

Under my scheme each cashier can refuse to sell the alcohol themselves safe in the knowledge that someone else, probably with a lot more experience, will make the final decision, and the customers are only mildly inconvenienced if they get it wrong.

powerful_Rogue

Azari wrote: »

What a load of drivel!

In the first place, if a cashier is repeatedly refusing to sell alcohol to people who are well over 25 and are very likely to complain about it, the management are not going to lose money by keeping that person as a checkout operator. They probably won't give them an honest explanation but they are not going to leave someone someone on a checkout who is repeatedly alienating the customers unnecessarily and is losing the shop money.

In the second place, why would the cashier would not have been overruled as they were part of the review process in the first place?

In the third place, why would the cashier know or care if the customers in question got the alcohol in the end?

Under my scheme each cashier can refuse to sell the alcohol themselves safe in the knowledge that someone else, probably with a lot more experience, will make the final decision, and the customers are only mildly inconvenienced if they get it wrong.

I could say exactly the same about your post.

Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree.

Azari

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

I could say exactly the same about your post.

You could.

Feel free to explain exactly why the reasons I have given are 'drivel' in the same way I have done with the reasons you gave.

Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree.

True.

I'm quite prepared to believe that I am wrong and there is a good reason why the system works in the way that it does. It's just that no one has actually managed to provide it, yet.

I suspect that it's nothing more than that situations such as this are actually so rare that no one has thought it worth while doing anything about it.

If it happened to me I would quietly acquiesce with the cashier (thus not drawing any attention to myself) and then do another circuit of the store picking a mature looking operator at the other end of the checkout line to purchase my alcohol.

Pragmatism is normally the best solution in these cases.

marliepanda

Azari wrote: »

Pragmatism is normally the best solution in these cases.

So surely it would just be easier for all involved, customers, managers, cashiers, if everyone just carried a valid form of ID and produced it when required.

Why fuss about who should ID, who gets final say, what situations require what.

Just show your ID. Done.

powerful_Rogue

Azari wrote: »

You could.

Feel free to explain exactly why the reasons I have given are 'drivel' in the same way I have done with the reasons you gave.

True.

I'm quite prepared to believe that I am wrong and there is a good reason why the system works in the way that it does. It's just that no one has actually managed to provide it, yet.

I suspect that it's nothing more than that situations such as this are actually so rare that no one has thought it worth while doing anything about it.

If it happened to me I would quietly acquiesce with the cashier (thus not drawing any attention to myself) and then do another circuit of the store picking a mature looking operator at the other end of the checkout line to purchase my alcohol.

Pragmatism is normally the best solution in these cases.

Because if you dont carry ID then it becomes a guessing game as to the persons age.

Cashier 1 might think 24
Cashier 2 might think 21
Cashier 3 might think 26

Just because a person holds a higher position in the supermarket, dosent mean they will be able to guess correctly. The cashiers are paid to serve. They have the responsibility to check the person is old enough. Mangers are not there to be called down to the shop floor to guess peoples ages. If you want alcohol, then carry ID.

pmduk

I'm just upset I never get challenged for looking under-25!

Azari

marliepanda wrote: »

So surely it would just be easier for all involved, customers, managers, cashiers, if everyone just carried a valid form of ID and produced it when required.

Yes it would, but this particular problem is something that is just sprung on someone out of the blue.

Most people never need to produce photo Id (or, if they do, they are warned about it well in advance).

What you are saying is that everyone in the entire country (who may wish to purchase alcohol/cigs/glue/etc.) should carry Id on the off chance that some shop worker is so bad at estimating ages that they may at some point, be refused a legitimate purchase. That is, everyone should carry photo Id every time they go shopping for certain goods when, the overwhelming likelihood is that they will never be asked to show it (after a certain age).

You are saying that the entire population should do something that it would very probably not otherwise do just for the convenience of a few shops who should be concentrating on serving us.

powerful_Rogue

Azari wrote: »

Yes it would, but this particular problem is something that is just sprung on someone out of the blue.

Most people never need to produce photo Id (or, if they do, they are warned about it well in advance).

What you are saying is that everyone in the entire country (who may wish to purchase alcohol/cigs/glue/etc.) should carry Id on the off chance that some shop worker is so bad at estimating ages that they may at some point, be refused a legitimate purchase.

You are saying that the entire population should do something that it would very probably not otherwise do just for the convenience of a few shops who should be concentrating on serving us.

This isnt exactly a new thing though! It changed from Challenge 21 to Challenge 25 back in 2009 - 5 years ago.

What people are saying, is that if you want the convenience of purchasing alcohol, then carry some ID. When it comes to alcohol, shops and workers have a lot to lose, so absolutely they should be concentrating and challenging 25.