Charged short when buying something: How many of you actually bring it up?

[Lucifer]

I usually mention the error, unless it's only a few cents difference. The way I look at it, I'd probably say something if I was charged more, so there's no difference in saying something if I was charged considerably less.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

What if it's a big Co-operative like Calgary Co-op, a government run crown corp?

I have little patience with people with this type of attitude. Business is business, fair is fair, big or small. If you think it's morally wrong to walk away from the small retailer then it should be wrong to walk away from the world's biggest retailer and all sizes in between. No single raindrop thinks its to blame for the flood.

You honestly don't see the difference between a mom and pop corner store and Wal-Mart in a situation like this? A $20 error for the corner store could be 10% of their daily profit (I have no idea how much corner stores earn, but when you factor in overhead $200 a day doesn't seem that out of line does it?). A $20 error at Wal-Mart is .00000001% of their daily profit.

Sure no single rain drop is to blame for the flood, but if that flood is taking out Wal-Mart that's one hell of a storm.

[gottabekd]

Well, from my time working in retail, there are often times when things ring up cheaper than the sign says.

That can be broken down many ways. Sometimes it could be a genuine pricing error, other times it may be marked down by the head office and they forgot to tell the stores to change the signs (or the store just hasn't got around to it yet). In such a case, I see no reason to ask the cashier to be charged more.

If the cashier missed scanning something or gave you too much change, then I agree the morally correct thing to do would be to bring up the error.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by MissKat

Happened to me this morning, bought a movie ($30) only charged $20, didnt say anything about it.

I'm curious how you know it wasn't on sale and just priced wrong?

I never say anything when I am undercharged because you just never know what the price is suppose to be. Someone could have forgotten to change it on the shelf. However I do say something if they forget to scan something because then it can be considered stealing.

[alltherage]

Originally Posted by valo403

You honestly don't see the difference between a mom and pop corner store and Wal-Mart in a situation like this? A $20 error for the corner store could be 10% of their daily profit (I have no idea how much corner stores earn, but when you factor in overhead $200 a day doesn't seem that out of line does it?). A $20 error at Wal-Mart is .00000001% of their daily profit.

Sure no single rain drop is to blame for the flood, but if that flood is taking out Wal-Mart that's one hell of a storm.

This just depends on whether you believe in the objective morality of the issue. If you take x-factors in to consideration regarding moral issues then I see where you are coming from.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by valo403

You honestly don't see the difference between a mom and pop corner store and Wal-Mart in a situation like this? A $20 error for the corner store could be 10% of their daily profit (I have no idea how much corner stores earn, but when you factor in overhead $200 a day doesn't seem that out of line does it?). A $20 error at Wal-Mart is .00000001% of their daily profit.

Sure no single rain drop is to blame for the flood, but if that flood is taking out Wal-Mart that's one hell of a storm.

He's just saying morally there shouldn't be any difference between the two. He wasn't denying that it hurts Walmart way less than it hurts a mom and pop shop.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by valo403

You honestly don't see the difference between a mom and pop corner store and Wal-Mart in a situation like this? A $20 error for the corner store could be 10% of their daily profit (I have no idea how much corner stores earn, but when you factor in overhead $200 a day doesn't seem that out of line does it?). A $20 error at Wal-Mart is .00000001% of their daily profit.

Sure no single rain drop is to blame for the flood, but if that flood is taking out Wal-Mart that's one hell of a storm.

I can certianly see the impact difference. However I really do not like the size generalization because it's the thin edge of the wedge of a slippery slope.

I work in finance, and I wouldn't hire anyone who rationalized things in that way. Every major fraud in history has people implicated who fit two categories:

1) Sociopath. Ultimately they are out there and the best thing we can do is attempt to root them out to expose them to others as people to stay away from.

2) People who rationalize things in that way, except as time goes on the numbers get bigger. They ultimately are the enablers whose morals get compromised and bought off by the spoils of fraud.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by flameswin

He's just saying morally there shouldn't be any difference between the two. He wasn't denying that it hurts Walmart way less than it hurts a mom and pop shop.

Fair enough, but I'd argue that most people who wouldn't say anything at Wal-Mart, and would at a small store, do so because they see a moral difference between the two and I think it's a legitimate claim based upon the disparate impacts.

[MoneyGuy]

I do and don't. If I notice it immediately, or moments afterward as I'm counting my change, I go back and give the money back to the clerk. It's the right thing to do and I figure he/she may be out the money and I don't want that. If I drive home for 30 minutes and then notice it, I usually won't bother. I'm an honest person but there are limits. Plus, it depends on how much it is. Larger amounts I'm more likely to speak up.

[Ford Prefect]

I worked as a cashier when I was younger, so I will correct cashiers and waitresses if they make a mistake regardless of where they work. I figure what goes around comes around. Surprisingly, I have encountered several cashiers whose math is so bad they still insist they're right after I've pointed out their errors. At that point I just shrug my shoulders, roll my eyeballs and let them make their mistake. How can you argue with stupidity?

[WesternCanadaKing]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

What if it's a big Co-operative like Calgary Co-op, a government run crown corp?

I have little patience with people with this type of attitude. Business is business, fair is fair, big or small. If you think it's morally wrong to walk away from the small retailer then it should be wrong to walk away from the world's biggest retailer and all sizes in between. No single raindrop thinks its to blame for the flood.

Wow. Step down from your high horse.

True, business is business, but large companies can absorb the loss pretty easily. In fact, they probably won't even notice it. I know, I've worked plenty of retail. I won't do it on purpose (as in steal), but if they make a mistake, I'd feel like an idiot for not taking advantage. I still gave them some money for it, it has almost no effect on their sales for the day; I honestly find it very difficult to feel anything but happy I saved a few bucks.

A small business can't handle that, its hard enough as it is to compete with Wal-Mart or Superstore, a small mistake still puts a sizeable dent in their daily sales. Things are not as black and white as you make them out to be.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

If it's a waitress/waitor then yes, because they will be on the hook during cashout! Other then that, probably not!

It certainly isn't just waitresses and waitors that are on the hook for cash shortages/mistakes.

[ken0042]

Just looking back at some of my own experiences, I think part of it is any time I have reported a pricing error it has been met by thinly disguised discontentment on the part of the employee, or a long delay for me as they try to figure out how to correct it.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I can certianly see the impact difference. However I really do not like the size generalization because it's the thin edge of the wedge of a slippery slope.

I work in finance, and I wouldn't hire anyone who rationalized things in that way. Every major fraud in history has people implicated who fit two categories:

1) Sociopath. Ultimately they are out there and the best thing we can do is attempt to root them out to expose them to others as people to stay away from.

2) People who rationalize things in that way, except as time goes on the numbers get bigger. They ultimately are the enablers whose morals get compromised and bought off by the spoils of fraud.

The numbers are used as an illustration, I didn't have Wal-Marts quarterly reports on hand.

I get your point on the slippery slope to rationalizing bigger and bigger moral departures, but I'd say that a pretty sizable number of people share this moral outlook on this particular issue, I just don't see it as a road to ruin.

I don't think it's necessarily based on the numbers either, I think it has more to do with seeing small shops as part of the community, friends almost, and large stores as simply profit earning corporations. It seems pretty logical to me that people would look at the corner store and think 'I don't want to take money out of that guys pocket', in fact most of the posts in this thread seem to have that view. When you get to a large corporation that impact isn't there, who's pocket are you taking money from? Shareholders? the Waltons? It either gets incredibly abstract, or it's coming from the pockets of the insanely rich. I don't blame people for treating those situations as opportunities to get back some of the profits they've paid over. It seems like a perfectly logical response to me.

Side note: In your first post you made the point that "business is business", I'd say that it can be argued that part of business is making correct charges to customers and absorbing the cost of screw-ups.

As for the original question, I typically use a card and generally don't look at the receipt. Seems that when I do check it I get ripped off for often than I save, but it usually evens itself out.

[algernon]

Originally Posted by Lucifer

I usually mention the error, unless it's only a few cents difference. The way I look at it, I'd probably say something if I was charged more, so there's no difference in saying something if I was charged considerably less.

I find it interesting that the "Prince of Darkness" is mostly a moral person...

[corporatejay]

I never say anything when I am undercharged because you just never know what the price is suppose to be. Someone could have forgotten to change it on the shelf. However I do say something if they forget to scan something because then it can be considered stealing.

I agree with this, if someone gives me too much change, or forgets to ring something in, then yeah, I tell them, but if something scans in "wrong" I don't say anything, Wal-mart changes their prices weekly and it's probable the pimple-faced kid forgot to change the sticker, then I'm going to have to wait 20 minutes while they sort it out, if their computer system says that's the price, then that's the price (usually modified at head office).

Also, if I don't notice until I get home or something, then I probably won't go back, that being said, if I get overcharged a few dollars for something, I usually don't go back either, it's just too much hassle, I figure it all evens out in the end.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by valo403

The numbers are used as an illustration, I didn't have Wal-Marts quarterly reports on hand.

I get your point on the slippery slope to rationalizing bigger and bigger moral departures, but I'd say that a pretty sizable number of people share this moral outlook on this particular issue, I just don't see it as a road to ruin.

I don't think it's necessarily based on the numbers either, I think it has more to do with seeing small shops as part of the community, friends almost, and large stores as simply profit earning corporations. It seems pretty logical to me that people would look at the corner store and think 'I don't want to take money out of that guys pocket', in fact most of the posts in this thread seem to have that view. When you get to a large corporation that impact isn't there, who's pocket are you taking money from? Shareholders? the Waltons? It either gets incredibly abstract, or it's coming from the pockets of the insanely rich. I don't blame people for treating those situations as opportunities to get back some of the profits they've paid over. It seems like a perfectly logical response to me.

As for the original question, I typically use a card and generally don't look at the receipt. Seems that when I do check it I get ripped off for often than I save, but it usually evens itself out.

I understand why, and how many people make that rationalization. The fact that so many people are dishonest is exactly why it's not a road to ruin. That's why insurance exists, why companies create allowances for doubtful accounts, why companies hire loss prevention specialists, and actually ultimately why companies act like faceless profit earning corporations. They are only doing to people as people would do to them in return. I just don't like people pretending that because they don't steal from their direct neighbor, but have no problems stealing from a faceless stranger (Or group of millions of strangers), that somehow in the big scheme of things their actions are just.

[troutman]

We need a poll.

[Sainters7]

Depends where I'm at, and also who's serving me. If I'm at some mom & pop store then I'd probably mention it. If I'm somewhere like Best Buy, f*** em. It's overpriced anyway.

[Esoteric]

If it's coins, then no.

If it's a bill, then yes.