|
|
| Author |
Message |
popcorn
|
|
Supermarket Scanner Law?
| 
Apr 27 01:25 UTC 1994 |
This item has been erased.
|
| 97 responses total. |
jason242
|
|
response 1 of 97:
|
Apr 27 01:31 UTC 1994 |
Call the management, they _love_ to hear from happy customewrs like you!
|
steve
|
|
response 2 of 97:
|
Apr 27 01:41 UTC 1994 |
You can only get the maximum of $5.00 per type of item, so four
of the same thing overcharged still only gets you $5.00. Also,
unless the law has been ammended, it's 10 times the difference, not
five.
Yes, it always pays to look at things. Krogers has been the
worst at this (or best, if you look at it from the monetary
standpoint), but all stores do this all the time.
|
dam
|
|
response 3 of 97:
|
Apr 27 01:54 UTC 1994 |
870 is the department number for housewares. it should be on just about
everything in that department.
the overcharge law applies to all things scanned, not just groceries.
I guess you really have to make sure that the item you grabbed was the one
that the sign was advertsing, exactly. sometimes they stick the 6 digit
SKU number on the sign, so you can look for that on the product. sometimes
a product model number. sometimes nothing. sometimes the sign hasn't been
taken down after the sale expired, in which case you ARE entitled to the
correct price, a refund, and 10 times the difference or $5.
as for if you bought 4 dishes of the same UPC#, you would only be entitled
to one 10x or $5 bonus. but, if you had 4 different dishes, differentiated
by UPC number, then you should get the 10x|$5 for all of them.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 4 of 97:
|
Apr 27 02:33 UTC 1994 |
This response has been erased.
|
omni
|
|
response 5 of 97:
|
Apr 27 04:15 UTC 1994 |
no. MIchigan law says that all items must be tagged with the price.
|
carl
|
|
response 6 of 97:
|
Apr 27 10:28 UTC 1994 |
Valerie, I used to work for Meijer's and they have a great customer
satisfaction policy. If you present yourself as a "regular customer"
who can't figure out why the prices don't match, are a little dis-
appointed, and would like to purchase them at the lower posted price,
odds are very good that a manager will sell them at that price.
Put it this way: it doesn't hurt to ask.
|
danr
|
|
response 7 of 97:
|
Apr 27 11:44 UTC 1994 |
I'd take them back. They overcharged me for some vitamins and I got
$5 back because of it.
|
klg
|
|
response 8 of 97:
|
Apr 27 12:57 UTC 1994 |
To quote State of Michigan PA 344 of 1984:
"Except as provided in subsection (3), this section applies to a sale at
retail which meets all of the following conditions:
(a) There is a price stamped on or affixed to the item.
(b) The sale is recorded y an automatic checkout system.
(c) The buyer is given a receipt which describes the item and states the
price charged for the item.
Subsection (3) : THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY AT RETAIL IN WHICH THE
SELLER INTENTIONALLY CHARGES MORE FOR AN ITEM THAN THE PRICE STAMPED ON
OR AFFIXED TO THE ITEM.
In any casee, though, this law would not apply to the problem at hand
since the allegedly misscanned item was not actually purchased. You've
got to consummate the sale, then go back and ask for the refund.
|
randall
|
|
response 9 of 97:
|
Apr 28 01:33 UTC 1994 |
Don't you just love the media circus?
I was working (and still am) in a grocery store at the time the news gave the
"BIG" story on overcharging. For two weeks after we were assaulted by greedy
people wanting more than their share back. We need to educate people on the
law, especially if they want to get something out of it. I'm not saying that
what happened was right (If a item is marked by a sign, it should ring up that
way at the counter, and if it doesn't, you should say something. It not only
gets you the correct price, but it alerts the management that the item in
question is not in the computer correctly.) I've been in Meijer's and Kroger
, and twice I've been offered a scanning overcharge. They thank me up and down
when I tell them it's not necessary, and to just give me the difference. Do
you have any idea how much a pain in the butt those things are for everyone
involv- ed? Filling them out, entering them into the register, justifying them
in the accounting department...? Big fun! I saw a fellow employee lose his
job because he failed to correctly price tag a product, resulting in five
scanning overcharges before it was fixed.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 10 of 97:
|
Apr 28 03:59 UTC 1994 |
This response has been erased.
|
kentn
|
|
response 11 of 97:
|
Apr 28 04:06 UTC 1994 |
The over charges that are hard to catch are the extra scan they do
once in a while when you have 50 cans of the same thing...
|
rcurl
|
|
response 12 of 97:
|
Apr 28 04:24 UTC 1994 |
Like, what?
|
kentn
|
|
response 13 of 97:
|
Apr 28 04:53 UTC 1994 |
Um, cat food?
|
omni
|
|
response 14 of 97:
|
Apr 28 05:41 UTC 1994 |
I have a copy of this law on the computer somewhere. I'll post it when
I can find it.
And please keep after m if I have not done it.
|
steve
|
|
response 15 of 97:
|
Apr 28 12:17 UTC 1994 |
Randall, the whole point of the exercise in filling out forms, etc.
is to make it painful enough that stores will do something about it.
I clearly remember the attitude in food stores that basically went:
oh, we overcharged you? Oh well, here's your money
and that was it. Nowdays they're scrambling to get it right.
Back when I was a little kid, I remember going shopping with my
mother, and one of the games I played was to memorize the price of
things and make a running tally of the total, which I'd then use at
checkout time. I can only remember one occaison where I caught
something being overcharged. And remember, I'm ancient. This was
all manually entered data. So now that we have electronic systems
there is anywhere as much of an excuse for this as there was in
the 60's? Hah! I think the law is wonderful.
|
wjw
|
|
response 16 of 97:
|
Apr 28 12:18 UTC 1994 |
My wife _regularly_ checks her receipt at Meijers and Krogers and
_more often than not_ there is a scanner error. She gets a scanner
award every time. We must have collected hundeds of $$.
By the way, I'm looking at a rendering of the law (Act# 449 of Public
Acts of 1976, Section 45.360a)
The scanner award is 10X the difference, but not less than $1 or more than
$5. This is of course in addition to the actual difference you were
overcharged.
Example: overcharge 20 cents each on 50 cans of cat food:
Scanner award = $5.00, plus 50 X .20 = $15.00 total refund.
(You don't get to multiply the penalty times the number of an item
purchased)
Years ago the service desk people at Meijer and Kroger would try to
make up excuses such as, "You have to go home and come back", or
"It doesn't apply to (Fill in item name such as meat, ethnic food, sale
items etc.)" and a few other excuses I can't remember. Now they just
hand it over. I would not say they act "happy"
Two comments about the whole thing:
Is it intentional? I think so, in a way. I think the retailers pay
a lot more attention to keeping the prices _up_ in the computer than they
do to _reducing_ them. Or they raise prices without changing the price
tags. They are definitely more likely to err in their own favor than
in your favor.
Recently 20-20 did a piece on this subject. One of the retailers said
"hey, we're not that bad. We get the right price at least 97% of the time!"
Can you believe that??!! He thought that was _good_! They only rip off
the customer on about 3% of all purchases!! They did not even challenge
him on this! They thought that was OK! Give us a break! 97% is not OK!
(wjw steps down off soap box, agrees to switch to decaf)
|
jason242
|
|
response 17 of 97:
|
Apr 28 19:12 UTC 1994 |
Hey everybody, CHILL OUT! Who enters the numbers? People! Of course they're
gonna make mistakes. This law is a farce. Our society continually helps out
individuals that make mistakes, bu insists upon punishing businesses. I may
just be an eternal optimist, but I don't believe these supermarkets are
intentionally misentering info. The paybacks simply don't cover the potential
dangers. All businesses into public services want the trust of their
customers. Thats why they will fix their mistakes. I used to be a manager
at a McDonalds <insert wisecrack>, its the same kinda thing, public service.
What was the number one goal I was to have? Make that customer happy. We
did whatever it took to make the cust. happy. Give these poor guys a break.
|
aruba
|
|
response 18 of 97:
|
Apr 28 23:25 UTC 1994 |
I recall the news story mentioned above saying that statistically scanner
errors are are much more likely to be in favor of the store than in favor
of the customer. If it weren't for that, I'd agree with Jason.
|
srw
|
|
response 19 of 97:
|
Apr 29 02:10 UTC 1994 |
Since it was the stores' idea to go from a system that made fewer errors to
one that makes more errors (just to save money, which it did), I am in
favor of the law too.
|
steve
|
|
response 20 of 97:
|
Apr 29 04:27 UTC 1994 |
Jason, I'm just old enough to have grown up with manual systems
when I was younger and bought food for the family. I simply do not
remember the sheer number of errors that exist today. Of course
people make mistakes; thats a given. But the incresed number? No.
And worse yet, they're using technology that makes it so much
easier.
|
srw
|
|
response 21 of 97:
|
Apr 29 06:16 UTC 1994 |
They're making a completely different kind of mistake now. With the old
system a human read a price off the can. Misreading and miskeying were
the sources of error. Now, to save $$, they don't put prices on the can.
These new errors are extremely systematic. As soon as the shelf and the
computer disagree, all instances of people checking out with the affected
item will produce errors. This boosts the number of individual errors way
beyond what we used to see. And technology makes these errors possible
(while eliminating the old ones, of course).
|
curby
|
|
response 22 of 97:
|
Apr 29 11:51 UTC 1994 |
[Is this a version of The Monty Question from an eralier Item? 8^) ]
|
wjw
|
|
response 23 of 97:
|
Apr 29 12:42 UTC 1994 |
Re: Jason's post
There are _some_ retailers who seem to be trying to please the customer
and some that are not. And it appears the grocery stores are happy
to get away with ripping off those customers who are unaware of the
scanner errors. As stated above, if it were simply human errors, half
of them would be in favor of the customer, and it's been pretty well
established that that is not the case.
Regarding McDonalds philosophy of pleasing the customer: I've noticed
with McDonalds and also other frachises particularly Domino's and
Avis Rent a Car -- If it's a company owned location, they are more
likely to try to please the customer than if its a franchise. The
franchise owner is using his _own_ money to please the customer, whereas
the company store employee is using the company's money.
I've actually had employees of frachise locations of the above 3 outfits
tell me "we're a franchise, not a company owned store. We set our own
policy, and that's the way it is"
So regarding scanner errors, I think the law is necessary to force them
to clean up their act. If anything, the scanner award should be greater.
97% correct is mighty poor. Would you fly on an airline with a 97% success
rate?
|
jason242
|
|
response 24 of 97:
|
Apr 29 17:29 UTC 1994 |
Clean up their Act? What are they, intentionally doing it? I don't think so.
Consider the vast number of products a grocery store carries, I've never
counted but have seen inventory sheets that go on forever. In the old days
(apologies to all) when products were labeled by hand there were only two
sources of error, mislabeling and misreading. Now with the advent of
computers there are multiple places for error, with teh frequent price
changes and sales. Higher error is understandable. You are very right about
franchise stores, and it is up to the customer to keep the business in line,
not the government. I wonder if you all would be so hard if you saw the
money the stores were saving with computers. Think lines are long now,
what if each item were manually entered! Stores are able to keep prices
lower by increasing check out speed (thus increasing volume) and by saving
on labeling. Any error found should be reported to a manager, and he should
be willing to help. If he isn't, go somewhere else. (oops, forgot to be
PC, should have used woman and she). Consumers can work wonders on keeping
businesses inn line. Just ask the people at consumer reports.
As for the airline analogy, I would hope a life and death situation like
that would have lower error margins. Last I checked there were no instances
of 400 people dying in flames due to a mis-scan of soup.
|