Wouldn’t the way this whole thing works lead BARS to send out 25 year olds who do in fact look older to increase their “success” rate. If they send out people who actually look close to the age of a minor they will be carded and no-one caught. I think this would be a good secondary employment opportunity for crack whores, you know 20 year olds that look 45. Maybe I should write to BARS?
Possibly even at post 27. 
My Grandpa was once at a college event with me where I had to buy him his beer because he didn’t have ID with him. While he did not lay in any mud at Normandy, he did get a purple heart taking the beach at Anzio, and did throw in a gratuitous line about how the guy selling beer would be speaking German.
I get you need to be cautious, but it might make people less angry if you drew a line somewhere obviously over 27 (40? 50? Must have wrinkles and gray hair?). If they look old enough to have grandchildren, you’re going to be safe.
Wow. When I saw that this thread fucking exploded over the past six or seven hours, I thought it might have had something to do with the fact that I indirectly called the OP a “petty, officious thug.” Silly me, no one even noticed (except Obsidian – thanks, bud). I can see the bar has been raised yet again. It’s getting harder and harder to stir the turd. . .
Seriously though, regarding the argument for government non-intervention that Carol is making: she’s presenting it in a way that’s sure to attract lot’s of criticism, but it’s not as ridiculous a position as people are making it out to be. If you don’t want the state enacting harmful regulations, you might have to be willing to say that it shouldn’t have the power to enact regualtions which you think are beneficial (in a vacuum). I don’t necessarily agree with her in this case, but whenever an authority tells you that “you can’t do this, this, or this, and you have to do this,” I think it’s a very healthy first response to say “go fuck yourself.” Maybe you can reason out a way that the regualtions are actually justified, but if your gut isn’t getting liquored up and challenging the law to a fight, I’m don’t think I want you in charge of my rights.
Being cautious is one thing. Making up your own policy on the spot and denying service to your employer’s customers is quite another. I would, if I were the employer, feel quite safe in considering that to be not doing the job which I hired you to do.
Here’s the thing that bothers me about the turnip-headed one’s responses in this thread. She didn’t begin making arguments until after she’d Godwinized herself. Prior to that point she was making snarky questions asking why the stated policy from the OP would actually have the benefit it is intended to have. Which, when she got several factual answers explaining the reasoning behind it, she responded by insulting anyone who bothered to answer her questions.
That’s not making an argument, that’s stirring shit.
Your posts, on the other hand were making an argument, and one that I felt no need to respond to, because they were logical, and ones I have a certain sympathy for. So, I really felt no need to support your arguments, since you presented them well, IMNSHO, and there was no desire to argue them, because of that agreement. Personally, the issue of requiring proof of ID for the purchase of age-restricted products is very, very low on my radar. If I were going to be concerned about having to provide ID, I am far, far more upset by the fact that an officer of the law can detain someone, simply because they won’t provide ID upon request.
As I said before, the laws punishing retailers for selling to minors, are harsh enough that whether I like the reaction by the retailers, or not, I understand how they happened. And blaming the retailer for it, seems to me like blaming your friend who insists that you buckle up when riding in his or her car. The problem is the law , not the retailer’s reaction to it. The law makes no provision for that minute fraction of the population that looks much older than their calendar age, so the retailer has to set up policies that are based upon the necessity of preventing that corner case from causing them a hardship. In fact, if you look at the link I’ve provided, the state of NY requires that anyone who’s age appears less than 25 be carded.
My understanding is that for most small stores that sell tobacco, it’s one of the higher profit items, and can often spell the difference between being in the black or being in the red for a small store. By threatening the store’s ability to sell that class of products, and the state lottery products as well, the law forces a compliance that gets a bit irrational.
The solution is not to castigate the retailer for obeying the law, it’s to try to get the law changed.
On preview: Monty, given the hazards to the small business, and the fact that at least in NYS, the law appears to require carding persons who apppear to be 25 years of age, or younger, I’m not so sure that as a retailer, I’d be upset with a clerk who started insisting on carding everyone. If there were a change in profits after a month of that policy, I may have to rethink that - but until that point, I’d be inclined to let it go.
Missed the edit window:
Of course, if I wanted my employees to avoid going nuts and acting like apparatchiks, I might consider backing them up when an honest mistake occurs while they’re trying to follow my policies, so they don’t feel that their jobs are at risk for following the policies I’ve put in place.
I agree with Carol for the most part, but I don’t blame a business. I think it is outrageous that the government would impose its responsibility of law enforcement on a private business.
And it is even worse that they send in underage stooges (I know that wasn’t this case) to try to intice a clerk making a meager salary into breaking the law. At least in my job, I don’t have government agents trying to force me to commit crimes…
I’d fire him so fast it would make gods blink. As I said, it’s one thing to be cautious, but quite another to start making policy for your boss.
But if your employee is getting black marks for following your policy, he just has to suck up and deal with it. Per the OP’s account store policy was followed, and he got a red card. If he gets another within 12 months, he’ll be suspended and a third is termination.
So, the store policy that he’s supposed to follow is leaving him at risk of being fired for doing his job, as he was told to do it. If he adjusts policy to protect himself, without breaking any laws or safety regulations, he’s going to be fired anyways.
Sounds like it’s time to get a new boss.
I disagree with your appraisal of the situation. First, the employee was “written up” for following the policy. His recourse is to complain about that to the boss. “Hey, boss. I followed the policy and didn’t card the dude because he looked older than 25 to me. You’re not going to hold that against me, are you?” Nope, he didn’t do that. He decided all on his own that he would expand the policy to include everyone, no matter how old they are or appear to be. He even got into a confrontation with customers over it. I say it’s time to get a new employee.
Don’t confuse the poor girl by asking questions that require logical thought to answer…
Or a new policy. The OP’s manager is quoted as saying he had no problem with the OP deciding to simply card everyone, and I can’t entirely blame him. The criteria of the policy are too subjective: what does someone who looks 25 look like? A given person of, say, age 25 might, to some, look 27 while to others, 23. How do you define a standard of age appearance when variances between individuals of the same age are so extreme? It’s not possible. The fairest solution, then, is to card everyone who attempts to make an age-restricted purchase.
Because you are not 25 unless you have papers to prove it. The default age for everyone is 17.
I don’t disagree with you about the wisdom of that policy, given the legal environment.
The question I have, though, is what should the worker do until such time as the flawed policy is changed? Continue to follow the policy that already got him in trouble once? Or take the initiative to adjust the policy?
If you looked at the cite I provided earlier in the thread, NYS’s guide for Tobacco Merchants says: “If you are not sure of the person’s age and he or she appears to be under 25 years old, you must request and review proof of age.” (emphasis added)
That implies to me that should the State run the exact same sting as BARS did on the OP, both the OP and his store may be at risk of the penalties described on the linked page for failing to properly control sales of age-restricted materials. The way that the linked page is worded, I’m not sure that there’s any official difference between selling to an actual minor and failing to check the ID of someone who appears less than twenty-five years of age. (Of course I tend toward the paranoid end of the spectrum when it comes to trusting officialdom, which may be coloring my view of this issue.)
I agree with that. The issue, though, to me is that the OP didn’t call the manager until after the OP’s shift. He should’ve called the manager immediately after the BARS sting.
That’s fair. I’ll admit that I’d see no problem with the call being: “Hey, I just got a red card because this guy coming through the line looked about 28 to me, but was only 25. Unless you disagree, I’m going to start carding everyone.” But, he’d have cleared the change with his chain of command.
That’s what I think. Is the world really going to come to an end if a 17.9yo buys a cigarette or a sixpack? Why is it so fucking important that the law be enforced down to the exact minute of age? Is this really going to improve society?
If you say yes, why don’t we ticket every driver that goes 1 MPH over the speed limit or doesn’t come to a full stop at each and every stop sign?
Once again, we’re not concerned here with the facts of the law here or whether it’s appropriate or not. The law is what it is; if you don’t like it, there are mechanisms in place to change it. The discussion here is about what stores and employees ought to do to comply with the law as it exists. Complaining that the law is unfair or intrusive is all well and good, but it doesn’t help help harried retail workers who are caught between a rock and a hard place, now does it?
No, but unfortunately, I don’t particulary care to get fired, or suspended. I’m guessing that the OP feels the same.
They don’t. The Gov’t sez that it is illegal to sell certain products to minors. Thus the Gov’t is enforcing the law upon the entity who is violating it. And, “the Gov’t” is us, by and large. We, the People, agree that allowing minors unrestricted access to certain products is bad and should be controlled.
And no, the minors can’t just make that choice for themselves as they are not mature enough to do so. Although the strawman example of a “17.9yo” might be able to, do we think an 8yo can? And 8yo’s do smoke. We, as a society, have decided to draw the line at 18 for most things. Seems reasonable to me.