Refused to buy a U cert DVD as had no ID

powerful_Rogue

hollydays wrote: »

I'd love to see someone dismissed for not obtaining ID for a U dvd.
I think they'd be claiming unlawful dismissal.
Gross misconduct lol
The " you've never worked in retail you just don't understand our pain" brigade don't do themselves any favours do they?

Your getting the law and company policy confused.

If its company policy to check ID everytime it comes up on the screen and the cashier dosent do it, then its a breach of company policy and depending on the cashiers contract, could be deemed gross misconduct.

peachyprice

lucy03 wrote: »

Most importantly I'll see if I can get permission to name the ASDA store but apparently this very situation has occurred in their store and the cashier had to refer it to a colleague as per the rules they were told.

Which is like I said at the beginning. It might be the store rules and not the cashier.

Oh for goodness sake, stop being so full of your own self-importance.

Nilrem

JReacher1 wrote: »

You seems to be missing the point that no law was being broken...

I am pretty sure trading standards would not do a test to ensure that supermarkets ask for ID on a U rated dvd....

No law is being broken, but company policy (to check ID when an age prompt pops up) will be there in large part to prevent staff breaking the law.

So if you bypass it when store policy says you shouldn't, you may not be breaking the law, but are breaching what you are allowed to do by the store, and that can/will lead the store wondering how often you have done it in the past when they didn't catch you out.

For a cashier it is not worth their job to lie to the till, especially as a lot of stores have CCTV cameras pointing at the tills, and management/security can/do monitor them at random.

I've chuckled with store staff because the system has done an age prompt for things like cutlery (including plastic stuff), and wood glue, because they fall into a category that often does result in an age check and the system is either not smart enough to recognise that you can't get high on evostik wood adhesive, or something has accidentally had the age check box ticked when it's been entered into the DB (or more likely due to the category it's defaulted to "ask for id").

It's really pretty simple.
Store policy (and training) requires staff to check age via ID when prompted (in order to comply with the law).
Store policy won't care if the checkout operator can see that it's an obvious error in this case, as the policy is there to protect the store (and to a degree the operators) in the majority of cases where the prompt is likely to be legally accurate.
Break store policy and you tend to lose your job when discovered, or at the least given a warning (and then if you do make a mistake later on, you're utterly screwed).

hollydays

Jobsworths will love this -


Dismissal Register

A rather alarming new initiative was reported last week: the creation of the National Staff Dismissal Register, by an organisation called Action Against Business Crime (AABC), a consortium formed between the Home office and the British Retail Consortium. It is a database for employers to share details on those staff dismissed (but not necessarily convicted in the criminal courts) for offences of dishonesty; e.g. theft, forgery, damage to company property and so on. According to the AABC’s own press release the register seeks to create a central register to cover those employees not convicted or cautioned for criminal offences. It appears that it is aimed at the retail industry at the moment, although it will almost certainly spread if successful. It will go live this month. Apparently it is not in contravention of the Data Protection Act.

This strikes me as being a very dangerous development. What safeguards are there for employees placed upon it? It means that unscrupulous employers, or those with a grudge against a former employee could put an employee’s name on the register and effectively stop them getting work in the future. What about the old adage of being innocent until proved guilty? This scheme is aimed at those people who haven’t been cautioned or prosecuted and thus haven’t had the opportunity to defend themselves. It must also raise issues under the Human Rights Act. I don’t condone workplace crime by any means, but this intrusive scheme can’t be the right way to address the issue.

hollydays

Supermarket jobsworths

http://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/supermarket-jobsworths.49783/

JReacher1

Nilrem wrote: »

No law is being broken, but company policy (to check ID when an age prompt pops up) will be there in large part to prevent staff breaking the law.

So if you bypass it when store policy says you shouldn't, you may not be breaking the law, but are breaching what you are allowed to do by the store, and that can/will lead the store wondering how often you have done it in the past when they didn't catch you out.

For a cashier it is not worth their job to lie to the till, especially as a lot of stores have CCTV cameras pointing at the tills, and management/security can/do monitor them at random.

I've chuckled with store staff because the system has done an age prompt for things like cutlery (including plastic stuff), and wood glue, because they fall into a category that often does result in an age check and the system is either not smart enough to recognise that you can't get high on evostik wood adhesive, or something has accidentally had the age check box ticked when it's been entered into the DB (or more likely due to the category it's defaulted to "ask for id").

It's really pretty simple.
Store policy (and training) requires staff to check age via ID when prompted (in order to comply with the law).
Store policy won't care if the checkout operator can see that it's an obvious error in this case, as the policy is there to protect the store (and to a degree the operators) in the majority of cases where the prompt is likely to be legally accurate.
Break store policy and you tend to lose your job when discovered, or at the least given a warning (and then if you do make a mistake later on, you're utterly screwed).

You're making things up now to try and support your (very weak) position.

It is not store policy to ask for ID when the "think 25" pops up on the till. It's store policy to ask for ID if they thing the person looks under 25.

Therefore it's pretty much impossible for CCTV to Monitor this as cctv can't say whether or not the cashier thought the customer looked over 25.

Helix

ciderboy2009 wrote: »

It would be interesting to know if the person was just buying the DVD or other items as well - bear in mind that the think 25 would only normally come up once per transaction so overriding it would potentially allow age restricted products to be sold to a minor.
In my opinion the law should be changed so id has to always be shown when buying age restricted items regardless of the purchasers age.

From what I remember with DVDs and Games - Think 25 didn't disable the prompt from appearing again. This is because it was a generic Think 25 prompt - it didn't tell you what age someone needed to be you had to check the product. Therefore you might have said Yes for a 15 DVD but then want to say No to Alcohol. With Alcohol and Cigarettes it would come up Think 25 - Is this person over 18 and as 18 is the highest age restriction it would disable the prompt for further items.

powerful_Rogue

hollydays wrote: »

Jobsworths will love this -


Dismissal Register

A rather alarming new initiative was reported last week: the creation of the National Staff Dismissal Register, by an organisation called Action Against Business Crime (AABC), a consortium formed between the Home office and the British Retail Consortium. It is a database for employers to share details on those staff dismissed (but not necessarily convicted in the criminal courts) for offences of dishonesty; e.g. theft, forgery, damage to company property and so on. According to the AABC’s own press release the register seeks to create a central register to cover those employees not convicted or cautioned for criminal offences. It appears that it is aimed at the retail industry at the moment, although it will almost certainly spread if successful. It will go live this month. Apparently it is not in contravention of the Data Protection Act.

This strikes me as being a very dangerous development. What safeguards are there for employees placed upon it? It means that unscrupulous employers, or those with a grudge against a former employee could put an employee’s name on the register and effectively stop them getting work in the future. What about the old adage of being innocent until proved guilty? This scheme is aimed at those people who haven’t been cautioned or prosecuted and thus haven’t had the opportunity to defend themselves. It must also raise issues under the Human Rights Act. I don’t condone workplace crime by any means, but this intrusive scheme can’t be the right way to address the issue.

All the articles online regarding this are dated 2008. Can you show evidence that this has been implemented or any articles about it that are not 6 years old?

Quiet_Spark

JReacher1 wrote: »

It's a U dvd which means anyone can buy it. The till may flash the message up but anyone with a bit of intelligence would have just clicked the accept button.

An action such as the one you suggest above would quite legally result in instant dismissal for the employee concerned these days if it is true that real ID was actually required, welcome to the world most of you are alleged to have voted for.

JReacher1

Quiet_Spark wrote: »

An action such as the one you suggest above would quite legally result in instant dismissal for the employee concerned these days if it is true that real ID was actually required, welcome to the world most of you are alleged to have voted for.

No it wouldn't. The cashier can just claim they thought the buyer was over 25....