That sucks, sorry to hear that they’re so unflexible. I was going to say you probably shouldn’t have freaked out and carded everyone over this, but since you’re looking at consequences if it happens again, I guess the store should expect it.
I also think the BARS program is pretty much a joke, for basically the same reasons you posted. Bottom line is the guy they sent in was still 7 years past the legal age, and looked even over than that. I could understand if this was for liquor, but this was just cigarattes too. Bad deal.
Okay, this is just stupid. Your defense would be, “But in my opinion, he looked over 25!” How can you be officially reprimanded and punished for a difference of subjective opinion? Tell me where you work so I can write a nasty letter of complaint to the boneheads who run your company. Heck, I’ve got nothing better to do right now.
18-25 year olds are within the carding age limit and legally allowed to buy tobacco products. Management can test that policy is being followed without breaking any laws.
Somewhere on the internets, presumably on matlockfanatics.com, there’s an old man posting a rant about a petty, officious thug of a cashier who refused to sell him cigarettes because he didn’t have ID, even though he’s clearly a senior citizen (and probably a Normandy veteran who saw his buddies die face down in the mud so you can have the right to sell cigarettes in a language other than German, dagnamnit).
And, no offense, but if I were reading that rant I’d be inclined to agree with his judgement. Before you had the experience referenced in the OP, I bet you’d agree with him, too.
Is this a “secret shopper” thing, that is, a group that your employers hire to check up on you, or a completely independent party that snoops around stores?
Well, it helps stores avoid selling cigarettes to minors by keeping old-looking minors (such as tall seventeen-year-olds with heavy five o’clock shadow) from slipping through. Whether it prevents underage smoking I don’t know.
I don’t know about you, but I’ve never been able to 100% determine someone’s age simply by looking at them. AIUI, the reasoning involved here, is that so long as everyone who looks 27 years old, or younger, gets carded there will be no mature looking 17 year olds who will slip through the cracks. I realize that we’re talking about a fraction of one percent of all 17 year olds, but the law makes no provision for someone looking more mature than their calendar age - so the stores have to create policies that are designed to catch such corner cases. No matter how unusual, or rare, they might be.
Given the penalties for the stores (which are usually even more draconian than those for the workers, such as were listed by the OP) begin with fines, and can result in revocation of a liquor or tobacco license - the stores have a vested interest in taking what might seem to be excessive steps to ensure that they don’t risk breaking these laws.
For that matter, hiring an independent group to run ‘sting’ tests, like the one mentioned in the OP, will also help the management/owners ensure that their clerks are following store policy and will be less likely to inadvertently sell age restricted products to a minor.
When you ask a question, some people might actually try to give you an answer. (Having bumped into your version of logic before, I’ll admit I should have known better.) Whether I approve of the phenomenon, I understand how it happens, given the legal environment. If you can’t accept that a legal environment that penalizes retailers for selling to people under the age of 18 is going to encourage this sort of idiocy, go back to kindergarten. Or, horrors of horrors, stop posting stupid questions on an internet message board, and start lobbying your legislators, or even try running for office yourself.
Since I’m sure that’s far too much effort, I’ll suggest that if you want to argue the idiocy of such laws get off your clueless horse and make a reasoned argument. If you’re too special to actually involve yourself in making that kind of mental effort, shut up.