Was this ethical?
FOR SOME REASON PEOPLE VIEWING THIS THREAD ARE THINKING I WAS TRYING TO PAY LESS - I WAS TRYING TO PAY THE ACTUAL PRICE OF $7.49 AND THE CASHIER KEPT TRYING TO ONLY CHARGE ME SEVENTY CENTS $ . 70
OK - so I was at Target and waiting in one of the three queues then open—the lines were long. A new register opened and the manager grouped us over to the new lane.
I was now first in line and I was buying a case of canned dog food on sale for $7.49
The girl scanned the case and the register showed it being $.70 total.
We both looked at one another quizzically and I informed her that the price should have rang up at $7.49
She scanned it 3 more times on different bar codes on the package and 2 times it came up as $.70 and 1 time came up as "Error Invalid"
I informed her she could just punch in the item cost at $7.49 as I did not want her to get into trouble for not knowing how to scan properly or whatever it is she could get into trouble for…if, at all.
The people behind me mumbled that they should have stayed on the original line but, they saw what was going on and realized I was not contesting the price in an effort to get a discount and merely trying to assist the cashier.
Finally, the cashier went and spoke to another cashier who told her to just ring it up at the $7.49 price - my cashier waived this advice and instead found another price scanner and came back.
She once again scanned all 3 locations on the package with the same result. I once again informed her she should just ring up the $7.49 - to which, she replied "But it is only scanning for $.70" - I told her that is the price per can and not for the case. She shrugged her shoulders and said "$.70"
So I gave her the $.70 and was on my way
Just to clear this up - I wanted to pay the real price of $7.49 and the cashier refused to accept it, stating she had to go by the price scanner which only said $.70
SHE REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE $7.49
Was this ethical…?
WWBDD?
Quote: aceofspadesSo I gave her the $.70 and was on my way
Was this ethical…?
WWBDD?
If by BD you mean Bob Dancer I'm 99.54% sure he would have had no problem with what you did.
Personally, I would have paid $7.49 and walked away, if I were in a lousy mood, which I probably would have been after the cashier was holding up the line to do an unnecessary price check.
Personally, I don't think it is right to pay only $0.70, since the cashier clearly knew it was an error and overruled the price checker. I wouldn't go so far as calling it stealing, because you did it right in front of her and she didn't try to stop you. However, if you really want to clear your conscience, then send a check for the difference to the store.
Quote: WizardQuote: aceofspadesSo I gave her the $.70 and was on my way
Was this ethical…?
WWBDD?
If by BD you mean Bob Dancer I'm 99.54% sure he would have had no problem with what you did.
Personally, I would have paid $7.49 and walked away, if I were in a lousy mood, which I probably would have been after the cashier was holding up the line to do an unnecessary price check.
Personally, I don't think it is right to pay only $0.70, since the cashier clearly knew it was an error and overruled the price checker. I wouldn't go so far as calling it stealing, because you did it right in front of her and she didn't try to stop you. However, if you really want to clear your conscience, then send a check for the difference to the store.
WIZARD, I tried to pay the $7.49 on multiple occasions during the transaction - SHE, the cashier, kept insisting it was only $.70 as per the price scanner...
I wanted to pay the actual price but she would not enter it as such - she would only charge me the scanned price which was $.70
I was trying to be honest and forthright - she refused to accept the extra money from me
You didn't act in bad faith at all. In fact, you did more than what you were supposed to. You tried to tell the cashier on multiple occasions what the correct price was and she, the store representative could have called for a manager but instead chose to make the decision herself.
Nothing to do with you, move on and forget about the whole thing.
Quote: BleedingChipsSlowlyPrices are not fixed values like weight and volume. The flyer price, price marked on the shelf and price that scans may all be different. Stores change prices all the time. The point of purchase is where differences are resolved. If you did not like the price, you didn't have to buy the dog food.
LOL
I think you are all missing the point
I WAS TRYING TO PAY THE REAL PRICE OF $7.49
THE CASHIER WAS CHARGING ME ONLY SEVENTY CENTS!!!!!!!
I WAS TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING!
Where did this story get lost in translation?
What you talking about Willis :)
Quote: TomspurI didn't get it wrong
What you talking about Willis :)
Not you Tom
the poster above you
Quote: aceofspadesLOL
I think you are all missing the point
I WAS TRYING TO PAY THE REAL PRICE OF $7.49
THE CASHIER WAS CHARGING ME ONLY SEVENTY CENTS!!!!!!!
I WAS TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING!
Where did this story get lost in translation?
It's a business, not little Muffy's lemonade stand. Who's to say $7.49 wasn't a rippoff price? My point is both parties in the transaction agreed to the price so it's a deal. If this is eating you up inside you should not have agreed to the deal, IMO.
Quote: BleedingChipsSlowlyIt's a business, not little Muffy's lemonade stand. Who's to say $7.49 wasn't a rippoff price? My point is both parties in the transaction agreed to the price so it's a deal. If this is eating you up inside you should not have agreed to the deal, IMO.
The question is not whether a cashier has the ability to negotiate a price as if she was a vendor at a bazaar
The question is whether, by finally ceasing my argument that I should pay the actual price of $7.49 rather than the incorrect price of seventy cents, I was unethical or ethical?
Once you get to morals and ethics about every day things, you may never leave your house again!!!
Quote: aceofspadesWas this ethical…?
Yes, of course. You tried to pay the correct price and weren't allowed to.
You might have called a manager, but were under no obligation to do so. The cashier may have called a manager, and depending on the sore's policy she may have had an obligation to do so.
Ethically you're in the clear.
Funny thing, today I bought coffee, water and cigarettes at a convenince store. I had to remind the cashier, twice, to ring the coffee. I'm out almost $1.10 as a result ;)
Quote: aceofspadesThe question is not whether a cashier has the ability to negotiate a price as if she was a vendor at a bazaar
The question is whether, by finally ceasing my argument that I should pay the actual price of $7.49 rather than the incorrect price of seventy cents, I was unethical or ethical?
The points are related. If you can accept that the cashier has the ability to negotiate the price, then I know I wouldn't have an ethical issue with walking away. If you can't accept that point, then make it right with them next time you go back to Target.
You were completely ethical. Her books were not going to balance otherwise. No idea why she didn't ring it up under Misc for $7.49, but I'm not Target. As someone else mentioned, my local grocery gives you the item for free if the scan doesn't match the advertised price. Says nothing about under or over. Just good customer relations to resolve it in your favor, and Target is all about good customer relations.
The bigger question is, what are you doing giving your dog canned dog food? That soft stuff ruins his/her teeth and gums, and gives them terrible breath! You totally want dry crunchy food because it scrapes their teeth clean as they chew. lol...
Quote: beachbumbabsace, honey.
You were completely ethical. Her books were not going to balance otherwise. No idea why she didn't ring it up under Misc for $7.49, but I'm not Target. As someone else mentioned, my local grocery gives you the item for free if the scan doesn't match the advertised price. Says nothing about under or over. Just good customer relations to resolve it in your favor, and Target is all about good customer relations.
The bigger question is, what are you doing giving your dog canned dog food? That soft stuff ruins his/her teeth and gums, and gives them terrible breath! You totally want dry crunchy food because it scrapes their teeth clean as they chew. lol...
Nothing was resolved - she would only charge me the seventy cents because that is what the scanner told her to charge me
My dog gets dry food as well, plus about a pound of ground beef
Quote: WizardI'm 99.54% sure
Good one. I lol'ed.
Went back and got 30 more cases. Then gone to a different Target, where they were scanning them properly and asked for a refund at full price. I would help him.Quote: aceofspades
Was this ethical…?
WWBDD?
Quote: AxelWolfI would help him.
Well played :)
I didn't say anything. I didn't really give it much thought. If I wanted to spend my time making sure that the correct price was charged at check-out lines I would have become a cashier.
As a license plate collector there the philosophy of the club is that "a deal isn't a deal until both parties are happy." In this case, Target obviously isn't happy. As I said before, if you want to be completely above reproach, send in a check for the difference.
Long answer: A lot of people are giving you a pass because you "did your part" in pointing out the error. But did you really exhaust all reasonable options to correct the error? If the error resulted in an overcharge instead, how far would you go to correct it?
The cashier has the ability to manually input the price, but didn't do so because she's lazy and it's not her money anyway. Does the cashier's apathy also excuse you from meeting your own ethical obligations?
Quote: WizardThis reminds me of the story where a baseball card store priced a card worth, say $5,000, for $50. I don't remember the exact amounts, but something like that. So a kid came along about bought the card for $50 when a cashier was working that didn't know the card's true value. Later the store owner asked for the other $4950 or would happily buy the card back for $50, as a mistake had clearly been made. The kid, and his family, said "no," a deal is a deal. Not saying this story argues either side, but I do recall the story seemed to split public opinion.
As a license plate collector there the philosophy of the club is that "a deal isn't a deal until both parties are happy." In this case, Target obviously isn't happy. As I said before, if you want to be completely above reproach, send in a check for the difference.
Wizard do you still believe I was trying to get a reduced price? I was trying to pay full price and the cashier refused to believe the case of dog food was any price other than what she scanned - which was seventy cents...I WANTED TO PAY 7.49 AND SHE REFUSED IT
It dose not matter if she is incompetent lazy or whatever, you know its not her product, you know its the wrong price. If you want to be 1000% ethical and do the right thing you need to call management and ask if they want you to send them a check or go back and make it right. Personally I see no problem with it. The baseball card story is a perfect example of this. What if some really unknowable employee was selling something worth hundreds of thousands due to a a misprint on something? Even after you corrected them? Why should the business owner take the hit?Quote: aceofspadesWizard do you still believe I was trying to get a reduced price? I was trying to pay full price and the cashier refused to believe the case of dog food was any price other than what she scanned - which was seventy cents...I WANTED TO PAY 7.49 AND SHE REFUSED IT
Quote: stargazerShort answer: No. It's not ethical.
Long answer: A lot of people are giving you a pass because you "did your part" in pointing out the error. But did you really exhaust all reasonable options to correct the error? If the error resulted in an overcharge instead, how far would you go to correct it?
The cashier has the ability to manually input the price, but didn't do so because she's lazy and it's not her money anyway. Does the cashier's apathy also excuse you from meeting your own ethical obligations?
I think you're minimizing the actual interaction ace reported. He tried 3 times, with both the cashier and her boss involved, to fix this. They would NOT take his money. He didn't take the easy route, and he inconvenienced people behind him as well as wasting his time trying to do the right thing. The whole thing cost Target more than the disputed price in lost productivity and angry customers.
I say again; none of us knows Target's policy on this. I'm guessing the clerk was following the corporate policy in this incident, which probably happens hundreds of times a day across the Target nation, or her boss would have done an override entry and fixed it that way. Yes, he can send them a check along with the UPC cut off the bottom of the box and a letter. It will cost Target more administratively to process that than the money they're out now, but ace will feel better. Except that they generally respond to that kind of thing with special store coupons that you can use on either anything or for the full value of the product, and ace will be right back to in a funk for having an unfair amount of money.
Quote: AxelWolfWent back and got 30 more cases. Then gone to a different Target, where they were scanning them properly and asked for a refund at full price. I would help him.Quote: aceofspades
Was this ethical…?
WWBDD?
Hahahahahahahaha, this is awesome.
Well then they should have marked down Tide, not dog food its much harder to sell.Quote: IbeatyouracesMaybe the hackers got into more than just customers credit accounts.
Target has a forensic loss prevention team using finger printing on returned items and the works, Xbox's are a major concern to them . looks like they should have spent that money on CC protection measures instead.
Quote: aceofspadesWizard do you still believe I was trying to get a reduced price? I was trying to pay full price and the cashier refused to believe the case of dog food was any price other than what she scanned - which was seventy cents...I WANTED TO PAY 7.49 AND SHE REFUSED IT
No, I never thought that. However, as Axel pointed out, it isn't he cashier's money. I think you're taking advantage of a lazy and incompetent employee.
Ultimately, you bought the dog food from Target, not the employee. You clearly are somewhat conflicted about this to post about here. If your conscience is bothering you, then my prescription is to write a letter to Target explaining the situation and enclose a check for the difference. You don't need to include UPC symbols, just the gist of the issue will suffice. There is a good chance Target won't even cash the check, either because their policy is to eat it on scanner errors, or because they will admire your honesty.
I asked FrG to contribute to this thread. How about let him decide?
Why send a check? Just a letter and ask if they want a check. Besides a check may not be to secure @ Target ;)Quote: WizardNo, I never thought that. However, as Axel pointed out, it isn't he cashier's money. I think you're taking advantage of a lazy and incompetent employee.
Ultimately, you bought the dog food from Target, not the employee. You clearly are somewhat conflicted about this to post about here. If your conscience is bothering you, then my prescription is to write a letter to Target explaining the situation and enclose a check for the difference. You don't need to include UPC symbols, just the gist of the issue will suffice. There is a good chance Target won't even cash the check, either because their policy is to eat it on scanner errors, or because they will admire your honesty.
I asked FrG to contribute to this thread. How about let him decide?
God will forgive him. I know, I already have. I still think he should of said, hold on ill be right back. Perhaps, if he got 30 cases, that would have really got their attention. I have a feeling the last guy in line has a car full of dog food somewhere.
The "heavy hitters" there are notably uninhibited. A common tactic is purchasing gift cards to qualify for promotions and credit card rebates. My favorite exchange is from this thread on Fatwallet:
http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/finance/1329778/
A guy posted that he loaded $1,000 to a gift card, free of charge due to a cashier error. Another poster took issue, and here's how that went:
I say this so that you know that I may be a little biased on this issue even though we have the reverse situation here. The price is the price and it should be paid. I also think that something so obviously wrong should have definitely been brought to a manager's attention, heck they might have still have unfairly given you the scanner price. Therefore I would recommend an Our Father for the cashier and to go and buy another thing of dog food from the store to 1) make sure the problem has been corrected and 2) donate the food to a local animal shelter.
Quote: FrGambleTherefore I would recommend an Our Father for the cashier and to go and buy another thing of dog food from the store to 1) make sure the problem has been corrected and 2) donate the food to a local animal shelter.
I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one, Padre.
First, doesn't the bible teach that you should try to take the board out of your own eye rather than the speck out of your neighbor's eye? Ace shouldn't have to pay the price for the cashier's sins. I'm not saying he shouldn't do an Our Father, but if he should, he should do it for his own alleged sins.
Second, it is asking too much for Ace to go back to Target to conduct an investigation if the problem was fixed. The letter I suggested writing would have accomplished the same thing wouldn't necessitate making a special trip anywhere. If he shows up at Target he will likely deal with indifferent employees that won't care.
Third, buying a bag of dog food at the regular price won't make things financially fair. He will have got two bags of dog food, which should have cost $14.98 for $8.19. Not to mention making a special trip to the Animal Shelter. Time is money.
Fourth, donating the extra dog food to an animal shelter is giving the benefit of the error to the wrong party. Target will still be out $6.79. If John confesses to you that he stole money from Jim, would you tell John to give Jim his money back or to give it to charity?
I don't think that's allowed. There is a hierarchy....... IMO: Only God trumps Jesus, Jesus trumps the Padre, after that man is the head of their wife, then she is head of the children.Quote: WizardI have to respectfully disagree with you on this one, Padre.
Quote: AxelWolfI don't think that's allowed. There is a hierarchy....... IMO: Only God trumps Jesus, Jesus trumps the Padre, after that man is the head of their wife, then she is head of the children.
You have been reading too many books Axel :)
Quote: AxelWolfafter that man is the head of their wife,
At the risk of going off topic, I've yet to see a marriage where the wife wasn't subtly, if not overtly, the one in charge.
Quote: AxelWolfI don't think that's allowed. There is a hierarchy....... IMO: Only God trumps Jesus, Jesus trumps the Padre, after that man is the head of their wife, then she is head of the children.
augggghhhhhh!!!!...lmao
You would have to read my explanation why that is and how it all plays out. I think it was a great explanation. It might be in the thread where we were talking about how women(Babs;) seem to exploit power.Quote: WizardAt the risk of going off topic, I've yet to see a marriage where the wife wasn't subtly, if not overtly, the one in charge.
Back on topic: It makes my GF's day when she is undercharged for something, That's the first thing she will tell me when she comes home from shopping.
It doesn't seem that the girl will come up short but that doesn't excuse the fact that anyone smart enough to work a checkout should know that something was wrong. While writing a letter may make you feel better, consider how that action could possibly impact this girl's job.
It would be interesting to know how fast that particular item sold out that day.
Quote: WizardThis reminds me of the story where a baseball card store priced a card worth, say $5,000, for $50. I don't remember the exact amounts, but something like that. So a kid came along about bought the card for $50 when a cashier was working that didn't know the card's true value. Later the store owner asked for the other $4950 or would happily buy the card back for $50, as a mistake had clearly been made. The kid, and his family, said "no," a deal is a deal. Not saying this story argues either side, but I do recall the story seemed to split public opinion.
As a license plate collector there the philosophy of the club is that "a deal isn't a deal until both parties are happy." In this case, Target obviously isn't happy. As I said before, if you want to be completely above reproach, send in a check for the difference.
You're right, Target isn't happy, but they don't realize they aren't happy and they'll most likely never realize that they lost that $6.79. Her register will balance at the end of the night so the cashier won't get in any trouble either.
If you believe the argument that even the benefitting side of a financially unfair deal is ethically obligated to correct the mistake, then wouldn't you also believe that the dealer/pitboss or some casino employee is obligated to point it out to a customer everytime they go to make a less than optimal decision in blackjack?
If I were into power, your suspension would've lasted a LOT longer than 15 minutes. ;DQuote: AxelWolfYou would have to read my explanation why that is and how it all plays out. I think it was a great explanation. It might be in the thread where we were talking about how women(Babs;) seem to exploit power.
Quote: 1BBWhile writing a letter may make you feel better, consider how that action could possibly impact this girl's job.
In writing the letter I wouldn't indicate who was the cashier. Even if Target figured it out, I don't think they would fire her. She may have been right that it is store policy for cashiers to blindly trust the price reader. She could also make the valid point that she didn't want to create any customer ill-will over $6.79 and tried her best to get Ace to accept the 70¢ price, but he was the one disputed it.
Quote: michael99000If you believe the argument that even the benefitting side of a financially unfair deal is ethically obligated to correct the mistake, then wouldn't you also believe that the dealer/pitboss or some casino employee is obligated to point it out to a customer everytime they go to make a less than optimal decision in blackjack?
No. Let's consider a player standing on soft 18 against a 10, which is what most do. That is a mathematical mistake, not an ethical one. It is a game and both sides are trying to win. As long as it is within the rules, let the cards fall where they may. That said, I will say it bothers me when a dealer doesn't at least say something like "are you sure?" to a really blatant mistake. However, I view that as a niceity, not a moral obligation.
Quote: Wizard
No. Let's consider a player standing on soft 18 against a 10, which is what most do. That is a mathematical mistake, not an ethical one. It is a game and both sides are trying to win. As long as it is within the rules, let the cards fall where they may. That said, I will say it bothers me when a dealer doesn't at least say something like "are you sure?" to a really blatant mistake. However, I view that as a niceity, not a moral obligation.
I agree, and in my experience most dealers will at least hesitate for a second on a grossly incorrect move. (Ex hitting 16 vs a 6)., to make sure the person realizes what they're doing. But on the more popular bad moves (standing on soft 18 vs 10), they are so used to seeing it they just move to the next player.
I'm torn on the baseball card store example. I feel that the fault is with the store for allowing a not properly trained employee to work the register, and that having bad employees can hurt your bottom line in many ways so why should this way be any different.. And I wonder if the kid had overpaid for the card, would he have been given a refund if his mother came back to the store with him? Baseball cards and other collectibles are a tricky subject, it can be argued that a card worth $50 to me can be worth $500 to you, based on sentimentality , perhaps you needed it to complete a set, etc.
What if it were a million dollar card?Quote: michael99000I agree, and in my experience most dealers will at least hesitate for a second on a grossly incorrect move. (Ex hitting 16 vs a 6)., to make sure the person realizes what they're doing. But on the more popular bad moves (standing on soft 18 vs 10), they are so used to seeing it they just move to the next player.
I'm torn on the baseball card store example. I feel that the fault is with the store for allowing a not properly trained employee to work the register, and that having bad employees can hurt your bottom line in many ways so why should this way be any different.. And I wonder if the kid had overpaid for the card, would he have been given a refund if his mother came back to the store with him? Baseball cards and other collectibles are a tricky subject, it can be argued that a card worth $50 to me can be worth $500 to you, based on sentimentality , perhaps you needed it to complete a set, etc.
Quote: AxelWolfman is the head of their wife
That's just what she wants you to believe.
Quote: AxelWolfWhat if it were a million dollar card?
Every employee is an extension of the company, and if I walk into your baseball card store and offer to pay $50 for a card that's worth a million, and the person you've put in charge says yes, then I don't feel I've done anything wrong.
If a casino has a whale who bets 100k a hand in blackjack and he insists on never ever doubling down or splitting pairs, has the casino committed an unethical act by letting him continue playing? Does it matter whether or not he knows the monetary loss it's causing him? What if both the pitboss and dealer overhear him tell a friend that he thinks doubling is always -EV? No casino in the world is gonna cut that guy off so long as he's sober, and yet it's deemed totally fine by society and the law. He's overpaying the same way I underpaid for that baseball card. This is why I totally disagree with PaigowDans opinion on card counting. Why is it perfectly fine for a casino to allow the house edge to be raised due to bad play, but not ok for it to be lowered due to smart play? If you're gonna stop me from counting then don't look away when the guy next to me splits his 5s
If both sides are aware of what they are doing, I don't feel any wrong has been done. So whether it's the Target cashier who insisted on taking 70 cents instead of 7.49, or the whale who never doubles or splits, or the casinos who agreed to give don Johnson 20% loss rebates.. I don't see any wrongdoing.
What If the bank teller gives someone 20k instead of 10k ? I don't see any difference an obvious mistake should be given back in certain cases. I think the law would see it that way to. We are not talking about some yard sale, where someone sold something they wanted to sell, and then later found out it was worth much more.Quote: michael99000Every employee is an extension of the company, and if I walk into your baseball card store and offer to pay $50 for a card that's worth a million, and the person you've put in charge says yes, then I don't feel I've done anything wrong.
If a casino has a whale who bets 100k a hand in blackjack and he insists on never ever doubling down or splitting pairs, has the casino committed an unethical act by letting him continue playing? Does it matter whether or not he knows the monetary loss it's causing him? What if both the pitboss and dealer overhear him tell a friend that he thinks doubling is always -EV? No casino in the world is gonna cut that guy off so long as he's sober, and yet it's deemed totally fine by society and the law. He's overpaying the same way I underpaid for that baseball card. This is why I totally disagree with PaigowDans opinion on card counting. Why is it perfectly fine for a casino to allow the house edge to be raised due to bad play, but not ok for it to be lowered due to smart play? If you're gonna stop me from counting then don't look away when the guy next to me splits his 5s
If both sides are aware of what they are doing, I don't feel any wrong has been done. So whether it's the Target cashier who insisted on taking 70 cents instead of 7.49, or the whale who never doubles or splits, or the casinos who agreed to give don Johnson 20% loss rebates.. I don't see any wrongdoing.
I don't think the kid or the kids parents should feel guilty or ashamed, I'm not sure if they knew the value of the card, I do think they should return the item. If for nothing more then to teach the kid whats right.
The baseball shop employee was not authorized to sell the card for that price. This would give people an open opportunity for fraud.
