Was this ethical?
Quote: AxelWolf
The baseball shop employee was not authorized to sell the card for that price. This would give people an open opportunity for fraud.
Right, but whom do you place the blame on for what happened?
A) the cashier himself
B) the owner who hired him, trained him, and left him in charge or,
C) the customer
Why am I responsible for making sure someone else does their job right?
What if you're at a garage sale and some old lady is selling valuable comic books dirt cheap because she doesn't know. Are you obligated to tell her? Yet when people watch Pawn Stars and someone walks in with something they obtained in exactly that way.. It doesn't seem as though anyone thinks they are a rotten thief. Instead they are congratulated on the great find.
Quote: WizardI 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 am the farthest thing from infallible so don't worry about disagreeing with me but let me explain further.
First, the Our Father is for the cashier because I feel she could have done her job better and has some part in this. It is a very Christian thing to do penance for the sins of others as an act of reparation and in imitation of Jesus Himself. Anyway for his sins I stand by my penance.
Secondly, I am against what could be considered an empty show of sorrow. Write a letter to headquarters with a check about a local store concerning less than 7 bucks. As someone already pointed out odds are they throw it away or get a chuckle out of it. Yes it will make you feel better to write the check and the letter but its not doing anything to really fix the problem. Even if they read the letter and act on it, it will be weeks. If we really want to make sure Target is not getting raked over the coals on this one, then simply go back and buy the same dog food and see what the price comes up, if it's still .70, call a manager over to fix it. Chances are it has already been dealt with.
Thirdly, I don't know if the main issue here is making sure Target gets it's 6 bucks, we are not going for financially fair. For Target the amount is immaterial, but as I tried to show above, we need to make sure the system is fixed. What we are trying to do is to give Ace peace of mind and teach him that walking out of a store paying an obviously wrong price for something is akin to stealing. So he goes back and pays the full price and I am assuming because he gives his dog a pound of ground beef that he likes dogs - so it should not be too heavy a burden for him to go out of his way to do something nice to our canine friends. While he is there he might pick up a brochure on how to volunteer at the local shelter and maybe it becomes an awesome experience for him.
Fourth, giving the benefit of the sacrifice to the wrong party is quintessentially Christian. I would certainly tell John to give the money back to Jim, but if that was impossible for any number of reasons or if Jim did not want the money back then John is not off the hook. In justice he still has to make amends or do penance and most likely a local charity or another person will benefit.
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.
This would be the unethical thing. What you did was all that was necessary. Rest your conscience.
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?
Wiz - I still fail to see the "taking advantage" part when I had the cash in hand offering it to her for the right amount and she refused to accept it - even after she discussed it with another employee who told her to ring it up at $7.49 - I implored her to take the money - should I have thrown the money at her and ran out?
Quote: pewWhat makes you so sure the real price was $7.49?
Well the price of a singular can was $.70 (incl. tax) BUT, the case of 12 cans was on sale for $7.49 per the sign attesting to that fact where the cases were stored
Forum members inferred from my post that my point was if you felt you were paying too much you should not have completed the purchase. No, the point I was trying to make is if you were not satisfied with the deal for *any* reason you should not have gone through with it, including feeling you were not paying the "right price."Quote: BleedingChipsSlowlyPrices are not fixed values like weight and volume. The flier 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.
Quote: aceofspadesWell the price of a singular can was $.70 (incl. tax) BUT, the case of 12 cans was on sale for $7.49 per the sign attesting to that fact where the cases were stored
Ace:
The cashier should have charged you for 10 cans...
Then you would have paid $7 + tax, and you would have been done.
Target had not entered a "new" code for 12 cans of that dog food = to $7.49. It still just had the per can price.
Would have solved a lot of problems...
SFB
PS: Their real intent was to give your credit info over to Mob in Russia, and since you paid cash, they were SOL ;)
It's a good policy to have: the store's managers are immediately alerted to the error, and they update their price sheets and fix the error as soon as they can.
For Target, this was the product of poor training and a poorly labelled case of dog food. The consumer should never be penalized for a lack of correct pricing -- that clearly is the store's fault. Forcing the consumer to wait there while the store sorts out their own error should have a benefit to the consumer, who expects a quick and faultless check out procedure.
The OP tried to pay the correct price and the official from Target (the Cashier) stated that .70 was the correct price, for the case. An attempt was made with a Target representative to make it right, and was refused. Ethically, at this point, I believe that I am in the clear. Training an employee is not in the scope of duties for a consumer, and neither is correcting UPC codes to pick up the right amount. An attempt was made to pay the correct price for the item, and the attempt was not feeble.
The only other thing the consumer could have done is go back and get a different case or dog food, or better yet (I've done both) bring the sign with the price to the cashier. But I won't do that if there are a number of people waiting behind me or if the cashier is being a complete jerk.
Quote: aceofspadesWiz - I still fail to see the "taking advantage" part when I had the cash in hand offering it to her for the right amount and she refused to accept it - even after she discussed it with another employee who told her to ring it up at $7.49 - I implored her to take the money - should I have thrown the money at her and ran out?
I don't dispute that you knew the price should have read as $7.49 and made a good faith effort to pay that. However, I think we all know that some Target cashiers are not the sharpest tools in the shed. Some of the cashiers at the Target on Rampart and Charleston here in Vegas look like they are half asleep and resent being bothered by customers.
Option A: After considering FrG's remarks, the morally highest course of action would have been to nicely pay the 70 cents and then call the manager on one of those red phones and explain the situation, including offering to pay the $6.80 difference. Hopefully the manager would be grateful to know about the error and let you keep the difference for your trouble.
Somebody is sure to say that might get the cashier in trouble if you do that, but she deserves to get in trouble. As I have written many times, the attitude that nobody should ever lose a job is uncapitalistic and unproductive. If this were her first offense, I think she would have just received an explanation about how to handle such situations in the future.
Option B: Let's say you're not an Option A kind of man because employee training and bar code programming is not your responsibility. Then I would have put $7.49 on the counter and said, "I'm putting $7.49 on the counter because I know that is what the price should be. So that your drawer doesn't read as being $6.80 over at the end of your shift, I would recommend doing a manual override for $7.49, as the other cashier suggested." Then leave.
p.s. Happy pi day everybody!
Quote: boymimboThe local grocery store has a scanning policy where as if the price is in error, you get the item (up to $10) for free. Its competitors do the same. I've only taken "advantage" of it a couple of times, when asparagus came up at the wrong price (should have been per unit, was charging me a higher price per pound).
FYI, as a former grocery store employee, it's best to reiterate that policy (if the store offers it) to the cashier if an error occurs. At my store, it took a bunch of hoops to correct the price, so no way I was pointing it out to the customer on my own accord unless there was no one else in my line. Normally I would just correct the price to what the customer said within reason. Was I lazy and unethical? Hell yes.
Quote: tringlomaneWas I lazy and unethical? Hell yes.
Not necessarily. It would be bad customer service to make him sit there while you jump through several hoops to correct the price.
Quote: boymimboThe local grocery store has a scanning policy where as if the price is in error, you get the item (up to $10) for free. Its competitors do the same. ...
Where I live, the law requires stores to honor the lowest price of the first like item when the shelf, tag, or scan price disagree. Perhaps there is a similar regulation in place where Ace bought the dog food. If that is the case, the cashier would be breaking the law by accepting a higher amount for the mis-scan, and Ace would have been an accomplice (in addition to costing everyone behind him time and grief by insisting that she break the law...)
Yeah but who made the sign?Quote: aceofspadesWell the price of a singular can was $.70 (incl. tax) BUT, the case of 12 cans was on sale for $7.49 per the sign attesting to that fact where the cases were stored
Quote: pewYeah but who made the sign?
I assume a printer hired by Target made the sign…what bearing does that have on this situation?
Quote: michael99000Why am I responsible for making sure someone else does their job right?
This is exactly my view. Watching over employees and making sure that they do a good job is work. If you want me to do it, you'll have to pay me.
But the reality of retail in a big box store like target is this
the cashiers are told that if a customer challenges a price...they should believe it if its reasonable and change the price. Why is this? Well for many reasons
1- sending someone to look up the shelf price and then come back makes people waiting behind pissed off. Its not worth losing customers (or guests in target)
2- a complaint to weights and measures with a cell phone picture and a inccorect price on the receipt can cause big fines
Conversely, if something rings up lower, they should let it go and report to manager. Again to avoid pissed off people behind. Its basically a cost of doing business.
The cashier wuld not get in trouble for erring on the side of a customer. Unless it was proven to be collusion with a friend or relative.
Sometimes in some states due to past scan violations....companies are guided by a set of rules where mis rings are always going to go in the favor of the customer.
In the late 90's in california, when Rite Aid tookover the chains of thrifty and pay-less...their scanning was so innaccurate in the transition...that they were fined and ordered to give for free any item that scanned higher than displayed on the shelf.
So some companies are more sensitive than others and some companies in certain states are more senitive than others,,,,based on prior governmental interaction.
Last week at my supermarket I bought a package of candy from a display that was just put up. there wasno price..but i wanted it no matter if it was 1.99 or 5.99. It just looked good. So at the register with a line behind me....it doesnt ring up. The cashier asked me if I noticed the price. I said, there wasnt a price. She said "yeah, they just put up that display". So she puts in in my bag, and scans my other items....and gave it to me for free.
I am guessing she would tell managemnt when the lines were smaller to enter the price in the system. But it was a cost of doing business not to hold up the line and get someone to look up the rpice from an invoice somewhere...since the price was not on the display.
Yes it was ethical for me to accept it...because it was their error, and i didnt complain that it was taking too long. I was quiet and they could do what they wanted to get the price. It was their call.
It was the cashiers call in your case to give you the lowered price. saying basically "we screwed up and we will pay for the screw up"....case closed...and on to the next customer that was waiting on line. Everyone is happy. It cost the company about 7 bucks.
Quote: WizardI don't dispute that you knew the price should have read as $7.49 and made a good faith effort to pay that. However, I think we all know that some Target cashiers are not the sharpest tools in the shed. Some of the cashiers at the Target on Rampart and Charleston here in Vegas look like they are half asleep and resent being bothered by customers.
Yes, but the point is, Target chose to hire those people, presumably saving money in the process. If Target wants to save some money by hiring people who aren't capable of doing the job, that's their choice, but it's not really fair to expect the customers to step and and correct the mistakes of those employees for free. When I go to Target to buy something, it is not reasonable for me to spend my time doing free quality control for them.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceYes, but the point is, Target chose to hire those people, presumably saving money in the process. If Target wants to save some money by hiring people who aren't capable of doing the job, that's their choice, but it's not really fair to expect the customers to step and and correct the mistakes of those employees for free. When I go to Target to buy something, it is not reasonable for me to spend my time doing free quality control for them.
Oh sure it is! Just like it is your responsibility to alert the floor when you see a flashing dealer!
[/sarcasm]
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceYes, but the point is, Target chose to hire those people, presumably saving money in the process. If Target wants to save some money by hiring people who aren't capable of doing the job, that's their choice, but it's not really fair to expect the customers to step and and correct the mistakes of those employees for free. When I go to Target to buy something, it is not reasonable for me to spend my time doing free quality control for them.
I applaude that cashier. She wasnt an untrained moron as people portray.
If she rings up each can, and the price s still wrong for the case at the expense of the customer(being higher)....the company can be fined if someone complaine dto consumer affairs.
Consumer affairs sends out weights ad measures and they will find other errors for sure...its impossible to be perfect in a store so large.
its best to err in favor of the customer....no one ever fines you for charging less.
But if she couldnt get a direct managerial answer, and so neighboring cashier tells her to ring it up seperately...it isnt consolation if she is the one fingered for causing a fineable situation...over a lousey 7 dollars.
Big stores like target and walmart are cash cows for govt agencies that need funding. A visit for inspection causes great amounts of revenue for their agency.
And they dont feel as bad fining a big corp rahter than fining Joes hardware store.
LIKE THE OLD SAYNG....the bigger they are...the harder theyfall
the big corps know this and gladly lose 7 dollars as in this case
the cashier did the right thing, since if the price per can was really 69 or 59 cents cents....she would have overcharged. And overcharging in this "i gotcha" world costs money.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceYes, but the point is, Target chose to hire those people, presumably saving money in the process. If Target wants to save some money by hiring people who aren't capable of doing the job, that's their choice, but it's not really fair to expect the customers to step and and correct the mistakes of those employees for free.
+1
Quote: treetopbuddyWalking out of the store not paying full price throws in the Law Enforcement wild card.
i WORKED FOR TARGET AT ONE POINT IN MY CAREER
This happens all the time.
cashiers are empowered to make that decision to protect the company from govt fines, and at the same time make the custoner happy,
In the wake of the bad publicity target got from the hacking credit card info.....they will be bending over backwards to keep lines moving, not overcharging. and making customers happy.
Again if she took the word of the customer and rang up a dozen cans seperately, and it happened to be the wrong high price.....she would be wrong.
some customers are just waiting for a mistake thats not in their favor to file complaints and try to parlay that into something bigger...
the cASHIER IN THIS CASE DID FINE.
if a manger from target knew about it she whould be thanked
people on the outside see this as incompetance....its actually asset protection. Trading off 7 bucks in exchange an overcharge is avoided, and customers are happy that no one is going to lookat the shelf to verify the price. The line moves, the customers are happy, except for one agonizing over ethics.
If she didnt soon report this to management...then she would be the incompetant cashier you talk about. But if she did soon report it....THEN SHE HANDLED THE SITUATION VERY WELL
Quote: treetopbuddyWalking out of the store not paying full price throws in the Law Enforcement wild card.
Really—when I have witnesses who will testify I paid the price asked of me - even after I tried to pay her the full price.
So I went to Target to check if they still had this dog food ( I was going to see what it rang up as this time ) - there is normally a manager at customer service but she was not there
Unfortunately, the shelves were now empty of the cases of food (Oh, but I was incorrect on the case price - it was $7.59, rather than $7.49)
Additional ethical question
So, I picked up a few other times and got in line
The lady in front of me decided to pay with three different types of payment:
1—She wrote a check for a portion of the amount;
2—She then swiped a debit card for the next portion (whig I would assume was drawn on a different bank than the credit card); and
3—Cash
However, the cash portion took the longest as the cashier attempted to run the two $20 bills through the currency checking machine…after about 5 attempts per bill, she gave up and just completed the sale…
Was this lady now ethically obligated to tell the manager the bills she gave could have possibly been counterfeit or did the cashier, realizing the line was growing as the minutes ticked by, make the correct judgment call?
Quote: aceofspadesReally—when I have witnesses who will testify I paid the price asked of me - even after I tried to pay her the full price.
if a representative of a retail organization offers youan authorized discount, and you accept it...there is nothing illegal.
In big box stores where sending someone to walk a city block to look at a shelf tag is not pudent....cashoers have the authorization to deal with incorrect prices in a way to protect the company from overcharging fines, and make the customer and the customers behind the customer happy.
this is a common....its no big ethical fiasco.
its smply a retailer seeking the path of least reisitance and least possible fines in order to make the customer happy.
If you send in a complaint about this cashier telling managemewnt that she cause your ethical angst......this is what would happen
she would be called into the managers office, and told of the complaint....and told that 99.9 percent of customers would be happy with the resolution. Keep up the good work, and here is a free drink coupon to starbucks for following policy.
Quote: aceofspades***UPDATE***
So I went to Target to check if they still had this dog food ( I was going to see what it rang up as this time ) - there is normally a manager at customer service but she was not there
Unfortunately, the shelves were now empty of the cases of food (Oh, but I was incorrect on the case price - it was $7.59, rather than $7.49)
Additional ethical question
So, I picked up a few other times and got in line
The lady in front of me decided to pay with three different types of payment:
1—She wrote a check for a portion of the amount;
2—She then swiped a debit card for the next portion (whig I would assume was drawn on a different bank than the credit card); and
3—Cash
However, the cash portion took the longest as the cashier attempted to run the two $20 bills through the currency checking machine…after about 5 attempts per bill, she gave up and just completed the sale…
Was this lady now ethically obligated to tell the manager the bills she gave could have possibly been counterfeit or did the cashier, realizing the line was growing as the minutes ticked by, make the correct judgment call?
just as perfectly good bills dont get accepted into slot machines ..the same for bill checking machines at the register. There are other ways to check
well maybe not
or would I have.. hmmmmm
Quote: LarrySpeople on the outside see this as incompetance....its actually asset protection. Trading off 7 bucks in exchange an overcharge is avoided, and customers are happy that no one is going to lookat the shelf to verify the price. The line moves, the customers are happy, except for one agonizing over ethics.
I never thought about it like that. As a former Target employee, thanks for your thoughts. I'm rethinking my position on this, again.
Quote: WizardI never thought about it like that. As a former Target employee, thanks for your thoughts. I'm rethinking my position on this, again.
This is the most I probably have agreed with LarryS on anything since we both seem to have retail experience over things like this. However, if the cashier did exactly what aceofspades requested (charge him the higher correct price), Target would have profited further, and both parties would be optimally satisfied.
What I really wonder, is ace this ethical in the courtroom?
Quote: tringlomaneThis is the most I probably have agreed with LarryS on anything since we both seem to have retail experience over things like this. However, if the cashier did exactly what aceofspades requested (charge him the higher correct price), Target would have profited further, and both parties would be optimally satisfied.
What I really wonder, is ace this ethical in the courtroom?
the reason that the cashier did ok in my mind is using the following logic
1- the cashier knows the price is wrong but it favors the customer..she knows for sure somethingis screwed up
2- the cashier doesnt know for sure if the customer is right in the price that he suggests,,,,,maybe the customer doesnt realize that there is a weekly ad advertising the can price at 59 cents.,.....so ringing them up at 79 could be overcharging even if it momentarily makes the customer happy
3- over ringing merchandise is a big big deal and leads to big fines....she has no idea how this customer will react if he learns later that he was overcharged.
for a 7 dollar loss...this is a good move. If she promptly notifies management to fix the issue then she handled the situation very well. If she said nothing and forgot about it....she was wrong in how she handled the follow up.
If you google walmart or target overcharging....you will get stories of big fines. for each.
Quote: tringlomaneThis is the most I probably have agreed with LarryS on anything since we both seem to have retail experience over things like this. However, if the cashier did exactly what aceofspades requested (charge him the higher correct price), Target would have profited further, and both parties would be optimally satisfied.
What I really wonder, is ace this ethical in the courtroom?
Well considering I just was granted a motion to remove myself from a case when a client hinted at lying on the witness stand, I would say, I believe I am
As punishment for changing my mind, I owe Ace 25 push-ups.
Quote: WizardAfter considering the other posts, especially those by LarryS, I may have been too judgmental in my initial position. I retract what I said about putting $7.49 on the counter and stomping off. The way Ace handled it is now fine with me.
As punishment for changing my mind, I owe Ace 25 push-ups.
No push-ups necessary…you are a stand-up gentleman
Quote: aceofspadesNo push-ups necessary…you are a stand-up gentleman
Thank you for saying so.
Quote: 1BBLet's also remember the people in line behind ace. They should have a reasonable expectation to a smooth and speedy checkout. I would think that a manager would deem $6 a very small price to pay for goodwill.
Me thinks the manager would have been looking like the idiot here ... seeing as it was likely him or his assistant that entered the bar code for the CASE of 12 cans for the price of a single can.
Shoppers Drug Mart is huge here in Canada... they have the policy where if the scanner charges you too much for an item you get it for FREE up to a value of $10.... if the item is over $10 you get $10 off the real price
Sunday at 12:01 am the new sale starts for few items they use to get people into the store for Sunday /Monday ... one weekend I got off work around 1:30 am and knew pop was on for $2 for six bottles of 710ml Coke( usually about $5.79 or so)... stop there on way home load up the limit of 4 and also a bunch of the other two day sale items . Well its almost 2 am and and nothing scans at the correct sale price... I point this out to the cashier and she says I get everything free.... but have to pay the deposit on the pop bottles.... took a bit to fill out all that paperwork but nobody else was in line waiting
Quote: coilmanMe thinks the manager would have been looking like the idiot here ... seeing as it was likely him or his assistant that entered the bar code for the CASE of 12 cans for the price of a single can.
Shoppers Drug Mart is huge here in Canada... they have the policy where if the scanner charges you too much for an item you get it for FREE up to a value of $10.... if the item is over $10 you get $10 off the real price
Sunday at 12:01 am the new sale starts for few items they use to get people into the store for Sunday /Monday ... one weekend I got off work around 1:30 am and knew pop was on for $2 for six bottles of 710ml Coke( usually about $5.79 or so)... stop there on way home load up the limit of 4 and also a bunch of the other two day sale items . Well its almost 2 am and and nothing scans at the correct sale price... I point this out to the cashier and she says I get everything free.... but have to pay the deposit on the pop bottles.... took a bit to fill out all that paperwork but nobody else was in line waiting
Given that store policy, and knowing that the new prices take effect at 12:01am... I'd say shopping at 12:15am is +EV
My favorite similar type story... Local Wegman's announces 'remodeling' sale, and perchance it is right after Halloween. They are getting rid of a 'bulk' section temporarily, and have a sign up saying something like 'bulk candy $.50'. I am assuming it means 50 cents per pound, because 50 cents per piece is ridiculously high. 50 cents per pound then was better than half off, as it was. I go and ask a worker for clarification to avoid embarrassment at the checkout register, and I am told it is 50 cents per bag! The bags there are huge! I am guessing we stuffed 5 pounds in a bag, and when we checked out, yes, they charged us 50 cents for the bag. My ex went back and filled many more bags... we had around 50 pounds of candy at home.... We dumped it in our living room... It almost looked like decorations...The worker we asked was clearly not 'management', but my guess is the employees misinterpreted managements intentions. My ex is an attorney, so by definition she can have no ethics, but I felt we were ok ethically because we specifically asked an employee before we made it to the checkout line.
Axel considered flying out to Buffalo.....
Quote: coilmanMe thinks the manager would have been looking like the idiot here ... seeing as it was likely him or his assistant that entered the bar code for the CASE of 12 cans for the price of a single can.
Shoppers Drug Mart is huge here in Canada... they have the policy where if the scanner charges you too much for an item you get it for FREE up to a value of $10.... if the item is over $10 you get $10 off the real price
Sunday at 12:01 am the new sale starts for few items they use to get people into the store for Sunday /Monday ... one weekend I got off work around 1:30 am and knew pop was on for $2 for six bottles of 710ml Coke( usually about $5.79 or so)... stop there on way home load up the limit of 4 and also a bunch of the other two day sale items . Well its almost 2 am and and nothing scans at the correct sale price... I point this out to the cashier and she says I get everything free.... but have to pay the deposit on the pop bottles.... took a bit to fill out all that paperwork but nobody else was in line waiting
the manageror assistant manager dint do such meanial work as enter in prices of every item on the sales floor. That is usally done corporately.
My guess is that the cans were never meant to be sold in cases and someone put cases on the shelf rather than opening the case up and stacking individual cans on the shelf
or
As has been put forth.....there was a keypunch error that needed to be corrected...either at store level or at corporate level.
it happens...
Quote: LarrySthe manageror assistant manager dint do such meanial work as enter in prices of every item on the sales floor. That is usally done corporately.
My guess is that the cans were never meant to be sold in cases and someone put cases on the shelf rather than opening the case up and stacking individual cans on the shelf
or
As has been put forth.....there was a keypunch error that needed to be corrected...either at store level or at corporate level.
it happens...
There were single cans and cases...both marked with prices.
Quote: LarrySMy guess is that the cans were never meant to be sold in cases and someone put cases on the shelf rather than opening the case up and stacking individual cans on the shelf
That doesn't jive with the $7.49 $7.59 displayed pricing. If you read the thread you'll see that.
Quote: LarrySAs has been put forth.....there was a keypunch error that needed to be corrected...either at store level or at corporate level.
Yes. (Keypunch? Ha!)
either way....its was handled fine
situations like this happens all the time when u are dealing with tens of thousands of items.
especially in big box stores like target where sending a runner to look at the shelf tag involves running a city block back and forth, then it involves relaying the info to the customer, who then could insist on seeing it for himself because he is positive the sign said otherwise.
bottomline....dont get into that situation. It just aggrevates the customer, and the customers in line behind.
and target of all retailers is in no position to aggrevate any customers after the hacking fiasco.
Indeed, the incident is reaching "fiddled while Rome burned" proportions. Target Says It Ignored Early Signs of Data BreachQuote: LarryS... target of all retailers is in no position to aggrevate any customers after the hacking fiasco.
Quote: LarrySso you see...7 dollars in the grand scheme of things is but a speck of sand in the desert.
As is the totality of human existence…
Jus' sayin'
I was thinking that they sell the cans individually at a set price, the case had an individual can price bar code on it. I know if you get a case of soda and take one from that case and they can it the price of the entire case will come up. looks like the opposite was happening here.Quote: LarrySA third possibility which has happened is that the manufacturer sends out a bunch of cases with the wrong barcode on it...a barcode equal to the barcode on single cans. A printing error at the vendor.
either way....its was handled fine
situations like this happens all the time when u are dealing with tens of thousands of items.
especially in big box stores like target where sending a runner to look at the shelf tag involves running a city block back and forth, then it involves relaying the info to the customer, who then could insist on seeing it for himself because he is positive the sign said otherwise.
bottomline....dont get into that situation. It just aggrevates the customer, and the customers in line behind.
and target of all retailers is in no position to aggrevate any customers after the hacking fiasco.
