I’d like to point out that Safeway is unionized. This means two things in this situation:
1)The cashier was making a good deal more than minumum wage.
A single complaint against him would result in a note in his file, but he would almost never be fired on a first offense. If he corrected his behavior and never got another complaint, it would have no effect on his employment whatsoever. He’d only lose his job if he showed a pattern of rudeness. Even in that case they might just transfer him to a non-cashier position.
I was wondering about this as well. Given his attitude and the situation I’m sure he felt inclined to tell people about. I would have loved to be there for the aha moment.
What grocery stores have CARPET? How is that practical? You couldn’t push a cart across carpeting.
DrDeth, you’re full of shit. Plenty of people still use checks, and even if they don’t, again, this had nothing to do with checks and EVERYTHING to do with the fact that this guy typed in the wrong amount and refused to admit it.
I didn’t “take her side.” I said I understood why she might have acted as she did. Big difference.
That the register was incorrect already proves nothing regarding your *particular *case. Prehaps that cashier is not the only one who uses that register, so it would be impossible to know who made the mistakes.
All you asked was if the register was correct, not whether it was over or under. If it was already under, there was little chance she was just going to take your word for it and fish out more cash.
All things being equal, I would be inclined to trust the word of someone I work with rather than a complete stranger, especially since, as I noted, the manager may have been taught that it’s a common scam for people to ask for more change.
A bit of exaggeration on my part, yes, but you will agree that there are ways of concealing money on your person which wouldn’t be revealed by turning out your pockets?
I think the OP missed a wonderful opportunity to sow chaos and confusion into the system.
My first thought on reading his post was that i would have gone into the back of my checkbook, pulled out a deposit slip, made it out for $27 and given it to the cashier. I doubt the cashier would have noticed the difference.
“Yes, he sees that. Yes, they are the same but he says he (enunciating slowly for my benefit) a-c-c-i-d-e-n-t-a-l-l-y entered $58.60 so the machine thinks it needs $27 more dollars …”
He admitted it. He just did not know the proper way to fix the problem, he was attempting to use the same fix he would have (correctly) used had the OP used a Debit or Check card.
It had nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that it was a cheque (learn to spell, you mooks ). It was the issue that the cashier couldn’t figure out that paying $27 on top of $85 would leave the customer, who had already paid the $85 minus an extra $27.
Worst of all, the cashier didn’t have the sense to ask for help right off the bat. That’s the thing that drives me nuts about being a customer these days; service personnel will tell you the wrong answer rather than making any effort to get the right answer for you.
And Martini Enfield, I have no idea how you come by your philosophy that any moron deserves a job simply by dint of being able to draw breath.
As many times as you have repeated this now, it doesn’t become any more logical.
There was obviously zero chance that I was going to retrieve my stolen money, but I didn’t know that at the time.
The fact that it’s a common scam should be MY problem because…?
I wasn’t scamming. The cashier fucked up. The manager was wrong. Obviously, the logic that says, “I shouldn’t give this man a refund because this is a common scam”, was faulty.
I certainly understand the motivation for the manager to want to keep my money. It means more money for the store. But then, if the policy is to just assume every customer is lying when he says he got incorrect change, in order to maximize profit, why don’t they just steal my wallet, and dispense with the charade that they are actually running an honest business?
That’s all well and good, but he should be doing a job a moron can do. There’s plenty of jobs in a supermarket that involve little or no customer interaction. If he can’t do even those, then he better get another job. Or perhaps run for president. (Joking! So joking! See, there’s a smilie there! Don’t kill me.)
Okay, let’s look at it this way: If I see an article here on the Dope written by Unca Cecil which contains errors, does that mean that everytime we have differing opinions mine should take precedence because he was wrong once?
The fact that the drawer was wrong is irrelevant to your situation. As I said before, there’s no way of knowing if there was another employee who used that register and made the mistakes. It could have been the manager herself who screwed it up. Maybe the cashier in question had an exemplary record with it, inclining the manager to believe her when she said she had given correct change. Hell, the register could still have been wrong from mistakes made *yesterday *if the person closing forgot to clear it out. And, even if the cashier was the one to screw it up, just because she made a mistake an hour ago isn’t a sure indication that she made a mistake now (Yes, it’s an indication that a mistake on her part is more likely, but it’s not proof.)
Nor do we know how much the register was off or if it was over or under. If the register showed a two dollar difference either way, her statement to you that it wasn’t correct is true, but it still doesn’t provide any* proof *for your side of the story.
“Stolen” isn’t really the right word for this situation. “Stolen” implies that there was an intentional action on the part of others to defraud you of your money. There is no reason to believe that either of the people in the resturant intended to screw you over. I mean, honestly-- do you imagine they grinned secretly at one another when you came through the door and planned out the whole heist?
Well, look at it this way: you’re pointing at circumstantial evidence (the register being incorrect) as something to back up your side of things. She’s looking at circumstantial evidence (that this is a common scam) to bolster her reasons not to just hand you cash on your word.
We know you weren’t but how is the manager supposed to know that? She doesn’t know you from Adam. She doesn’t know what a nice person you are. All she sees is an agitated stranger off the street who’s insisting she should give him money with no proof.
But how was the manager supposed to know that? You were in the right-- I’m not arguing that the manager did the right thing. I’m trying to explain* why* she did as she did.
Look at it from her perspective:
There’s no proof you gave her a twenty.
Her employee is insisting that you didn’t. Let’s assume the girl hasn’t been known to be dishonest before. (And she might not have been dishonest in this case. She might have sincerely, though mistakenly, believed you gave her a smaller bill.)
The register does not show an overage of the amount you’re claiming.
Ergo, to believe your side of it, she would have to disregard the word of an employee with whom she works every day and also disregard the fact that the expected overage isn’t there. Maybe she got all Occham’s on the situation and decided that the most likely solution was that you were mistaken about the bill that had been handed to the cashier.
There’s no reason to assume that the manager was doing this to increase her resturant’s profits. I know you’re angry about it, but that doesn’t mean the manager is evil or that the business is crooked. Shit happens.
I agree, Lissa. I’ve worked retail management and the “But I gave you a twenty!” is indeed emphasized as a common, common scam that only newbies fall for.
Again, to look at it from the manager’s point of view: one of four things is going on here: 1. you’re scamming, 2. her employee is lying, or 3. it was an honest mistake on your part, you thought you gave a larger bill than you really did or 4. the employee made an honest mistake, and gave you back the wrong change.
I can verify that numbers 1 and 3 happen far, far more often than 2 or 4. How do I know? From running a register for years. Even with laying your bill out in plain sight before counting the change, and counting the change upwards from the total, people would still claim I was short changing them. Now, I know this $10 on the counter didn’t magically turn from a $20 to a $10. I know I didn’t palm it. I know my tills were rarely - and I mean twice a year rarely - off. So I know, full certain, that most of the time, it’s the customer, even without all the bullshit manager training seminars which pounded the same thing into my head.
The only way to verify number 4 is with an immediate till count. Which she did, and it came up inconclusive.
You might say, “Better to lose the $10 than to piss off a customer,” and sometimes, you’d be right. If you were a repeat customer who spent enough money in my shop that I recognized you, I might eat the $10 as a good-will gesture. But there’s two problems with making that “customer is always right” policy: one - in a food court, chances are real good that you’ll rarely or never order from there again. If she didn’t personally recognize you, you weren’t repeat enough to lose the money and get a write-up over. And two - chances are even better that you are indeed a scammer, and giving in and giving you the $10 is only going to encourage you to try the same scam next week.
But when it comes down to he-said, she-said, and there’s no evidence in either person’s favor, and I trust my employee, then I’m sorry. You lose. Please, take it up with my district manager - here’s his number. I’d like him to know I’m following store policy.
And always, always count your change before the cashier is out of sight.
Had he debited her account $58 rather than $85 (and I personally am not aware of how a retailer’s employee can create such a debit, as opposed to the customer punching in the amount), then yes, he would be entitled to get the $27 still due and payable. That it was the cashier’s error in entering the amount of a check changes the entire picture.
As for me, the totality of the story being taken into account, I’d submit the whole thing (which would include the URL of this thread) to the regional or national management of Safeway. The cashier’s attitude was unconscionable, the effort to obtain an additional $27 over and above a negotiable check for the full sum due and payable was quite frankly theft or extortion, the managers were acting with at best marginal competence, and the customer/OP deserves a full formal written apology from chain and store management.
The cash register slip shows the total. The total matches the number on the cheque. If dumdum can’t handle that, then dumdum is too dum to have his soul crushed by being on the dole.
Yes. If he input $58 rather than $85, then te card was only charged $58, so the till is due an extra $27. I see Poly has said it better.
But the fact you you, Liberal, a rather intelligent poster here, can “not get it” shows that that cashier’s error wasn’t all that stupid. What was moronic was his continued insistance.
For one, had the register been off by exactly the amount you claimed to be out, that would be pretty good evidence that the cashier screwed up and owes you. I’ve had that happen. I once shortchanged a customer by $500, and boy was my face red when I counted out my drawer. That was just embarassing. But let’s say that the drawer was off by -$4.62 or +$2.91 or +$43.28. It surely indicates that the cashier is not terribly competent, but there is no evidence that you get a $10 chunk of that. There is no numerical correlation. Sucks for you, to be sure, but I can’t blame the manager. She acted on the best evidence she had.
For another, it’s rare that a manager is trying to increase store profits by ripping off customers. That would be committing crime to profit someone else, likely someone you don’t like much and who pays you shit. I’ve met few managers that dedicated to their bosses. It is possible, of course, that the manager wanted to line her own pockets. That’s far more common. But she likely wouldn’t do that so openly. That’s a back office manuever.
I’d say you were the victim of incompetance and bad luck, not evil.
(Joking! So joking! See, there’s a smilie there! Don’t kill me.)