Posted by

If it is on the shelf and mismarked, that is the policy; if it is misstated or deceptive it is illegal, that is the law.

As I was talking to the woman, trying to get her attention and see the logic behind what she was doing, another customer contributed her two cents.  “She’s just doing her job,” she said.

I tried to sneak in before 8 but the store was already crowded.  Half the self-checkout area was open.  The woman was looking at a computer three feet in front of my little area.  I told her the bottles of soda I was buying were not ringing up properly.  It’ll correct at the end, she said.

When the end came I said again that it wasn’t happening.  She walked away without saying anything.  It was 18 cents per bottle.

It wasn’t a line, it was more like a mob.  Now the place was crowded and I still standing there.

The woman who calmly sided with the really strange woman manning the computer is absolutely right.  She was doing what she is told to do RE the 19 cents.

It is deeper or more complicated than have or have not.  If it hadn’t happened before I would have been way more compassionate.  I was beginning to put together a theory.

I still say there is more to it than grunt or snob, rich or poor, worker or employer, or customer or seller.

I don’t believe that.  I think if you are given a wrong and potentially illegal order it is you job to question it.  Some people will question it and there are other people like me too.  In this case I know where it comes from (the manager) and you should question it.  If you don’t it is just a bunch of yes people following a lot of bad orders.

Is it illegal too?


state attorney general

That was easy!  Just google “complaint respondent.”

Once a complaint is accepted, the Commission keeps all parties to a complaint informed and welcomes questions at any time. The complainant is the person who makes a complaint. The respondent is the person, organization or association against whom the complaint is made.

Is this the future of customer satisfaction?

It is also sufficient for the state to prove that the defendant caused the use of a wire transmission in order to commit or further the fraudulent scheme, even if the defendant did not intend the specific transmission, if it was reasonably foreseeable “in the ordinary course of business.” Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1, 8 (1954).