If you walk into a store

[guy n. cognito]

Originally Posted by Relic

I don't ever recall seeing the signs either to be honest, but I can tell you 100% that this has happened to me several times there. Maybe I look shady... Unfortunately I have absolutely no recollection of which stores it was, but if you really want names/places to validate that I'm not bsing or something: I Goldberg's in Philly does this, Princeton Record Exchange in Princeton, NJ does this (or used to, I haven't been there in about a year and half) and there are several more places that I've experienced this before.

No need. I'm sure there are some stores that don't allow bags, but I just want to counter the notion that this is as common as it would seem from the complaining in this thread.

[Relic]

Originally Posted by guy n. cognito

No need. I'm sure there are some stores that don't allow bags, but I just want to counter the notion that this is as common as it would seem from the complaining in this thread.

I just had a "duhhhh" moment for missing the blatantly obvious - it just dawned on me that the stores I've experienced this in before are almost all smaller neighborhood/ mom and pop owned shops. In that instance I can understand a little bit better as to why they would do something like this to prevent shoplifting. Obviously they probably have no where near the ability to absorb loss from theft as a Walmart or Target would.
Makes a little more sense in that respect. Still dont like it, but at least it's a bit clearer to me now.

[guy n. cognito]

Originally Posted by Relic

I just had a "duhhhh" moment for missing the blatantly obvious - it just dawned on me that the stores I've experienced this in before are almost all smaller neighborhood/ mom and pop owned shops. In that instance I can understand a little bit better as to why they would do something like this to prevent shoplifting. Obviously they probably have no where near the ability to absorb loss from theft as a Walmart or Target would.
Makes a little more sense in that respect. Still dont like it, but at least it's a bit clearer to me now.

Makes sense. Despite Phil's assertion above, most mom and pop stores don't have the financial means to hire security to follow around every guy with a backpack that enters the store.

[eyeballkid]

Originally Posted by guy n. cognito

Why is this concept so hard to understand. This protection from unreasonable search and seizure, only applies between you and the government. A private property owner does not have the same obligations to be "reasonable."

I value my rights with everyone. I don't let my neighbors search my house anymore than the cops.

[guy n. cognito]

Originally Posted by eyeballkid

I value my rights with everyone. I don't let my neighbors search my house anymore than the cops.

We're not talking about your house. We're talking about somebody else's private property. They maintain certain rights, including the right to refuse entry to those that don't conform to their rules. You're confusing private property and the government.

[fdeck]

Originally Posted by Munjibunga

No, I don't work for you. I'm not a public employee. I offer goods for you to purchase on my private property. What's so hard for you to understand about me not wanting you to bring tools commonly used for theft into my emporium? If you don't want to have your bags examined, don't patronize my store.

How do you feel about having your bags inspected when you enter a sporting event or concert? You've already purchased a ticket, but your right to enter the venue can be revoked if you refuse to submit your bags for inspection. Seems to me that would be even more onerous to those who don't understand why the inspections are appropriate and necessary.

How about when you want to board an aircraft, and you are x-rayed? That's about as personal as it gets. They can even see the stent in my heart.

I realize that I should have clarified. You don't work for me. You only work for me if you want my business.

Sporting events and airports are places where there is a reasonable public safety interest at stake. As for merchants, if it seems like there is a reasonable case to be made for heightened security, I can be flexible. Intrusive security measures are not a show stopper for me, but would go into a category similar to a restaurant with rude waiters. The food might still be edible, but I will probably make my visit a short one, spend less money, and not recommend the place.

Edit: By the way, it is illegal to carry thieves tools in most localities, so instead of freaking out over my backpack, you could just have me arrested, or shoot me.

[spade2you]

Originally Posted by guy n. cognito

Makes sense. Despite Phil's assertion above, most mom and pop stores don't have the financial means to hire security to follow around every guy with a backpack that enters the store.

When I was a kid working at a grocery store, I was always amazed with the amount of stuff people could steal without a backpack.

[1958Bassman]

Originally Posted by JAUQO III-X

That they assume that I'm coming in there to steal.

And when they ask me to check my bag I tell them that I did not come in there to steal.

I have spoken with store managers and they have always said it's to deter shoplifting. I understand that but don't ask me to put my bag behind a counter. It still comes down to you assuming that I am coming in to steal.


One does not need a bag to carry a weapon or bomb into a store to do harm.

You want my money but you don't trust me enough to come in your store.

They should say nothing to me or just a simple hello.

Get a job in a retail store and come back in a year to add your change of attitude about this. When someone loses enough, they won't trust ANYONE. You won't think of this in the same way- I guarantee it.

[1958Bassman]

Originally Posted by fdeck

My viewpoint is: What's so hard to comprehend about me wanting a merchant to value my privacy and convenience?

There's another thread going on in this forum right now about Succeeding At Work. Well, if you're a merchant, you're at work, and you work for me.

No, the merchant is NOT working for you. The merchant works for him/herself and the employees work for the company. Customers don't have a right to expect privacy in a public place, other than in sensitive areas like changing rooms and rest rooms. OTOH, a customer can't be searched for stolen goods until after they have left the store, so I think the search of the backpack should have waited, or they should have a place to keep these while the person shops. That said, should the shopkeeper be the one who's required to pay for the added store fixtures to accommodate this, the mall/building owner? Or, should it be reflected in the prices? Shoplifters cost all of us a lot of money and this is one reason B&M prices are higher- it costs a lot more to operate a B&M store than an internet store. OTOH, B&M stores are screwed every time someone tries something and scurries off to jump on the internet to find the best price. There's a real cost associated with having demo items and people just don't give a rat's ass about someone who provides this.

Look at this issue as if you owned the store and think about how much you think they lose in the course of a year. Then, multiply that by at least 100.

[eyeballkid]

Originally Posted by guy n. cognito

We're not talking about your house. We're talking about somebody else's private property. They maintain certain rights, including the right to refuse entry to those that don't conform to their rules. You're confusing private property and the government.

as usual, youre confusing what Ive actually said with the assumptions youve made about what Ive said to further your argument. Ive never said anyone/any business doesnt have the right to make whatever stipulations they would like as condition for doing business with you. In fact, the shop I work in has a big sign on the door that reads "No Children Under the Age of Ten Permitted in the Shop". We are a tattoo shop and when people come in with a toddler in tow for a 3 hour tattoo it is incredibly disruptive and affects the quality of our work. When we put the sign up, we knew there would be some people who decided not to do business with us. If you go back to my first post in this thread you will see that I choose not to do business with people that want to subject me to a search or put their paws in my pockets as condition of potentially being the recipient of my money. They can ask. I will refuse. If they insist its their loss. There was a record store in the area that i would drop hundreds of dollars a month in that would follow me around because i guess I look a certain way. I am impeccably honest in my dealings with people to the best of my abilities. It irked me, especially when I watched a more "respectable" looking guy pilfer a box set while they were busy hawking me. I found it to be poetic justice. I would never steal from them, or anyone, but I purposely came to them because I preferred to give my money to an independent music store. They finally started asking to hold my bag. I left, and took the thousands of dollars i spend there elsewhere. Im sure they thought they prevented a thief. They are now out of business.
I do not confuse my rights over personal or govt interactions. I understand them clearly. However, If a friend wanted to search me so i could hang at their house, see ya. If a business wants to search me to get my money, see ya. I expect decency and mutual respect in this world from people I choose to engage with. Its simple decency and I will not subject myself to demeaning treatment to satisfy someone else's paranoia.

[fdeck]

Originally Posted by 1958Bassman

No, the merchant is NOT working for you. The merchant works for him/herself and the employees work for the company. Customers don't have a right to expect privacy in a public place, other than in sensitive areas like changing rooms and rest rooms.

I have not mentioned a "right" but a condition of doing business with (working for) me. I am not entitled, but merely empowered.

OTOH, a customer can't be searched for stolen goods until after they have left the store, so I think the search of the backpack should have waited, or they should have a place to keep these while the person shops. That said, should the shopkeeper be the one who's required to pay for the added store fixtures to accommodate this, the mall/building owner? Or, should it be reflected in the prices?

Whatever those parties want to negotiate.

Shoplifters cost all of us a lot of money and this is one reason B&M prices are higher- it costs a lot more to operate a B&M store than an internet store. OTOH, B&M stores are screwed every time someone tries something and scurries off to jump on the internet to find the best price. There's a real cost associated with having demo items and people just don't give a rat's ass about someone who provides this.

Look at this issue as if you owned the store and think about how much you think they lose in the course of a year. Then, multiply that by at least 100.

I care about the plight of B&M stores. I shop online mainly for variety and convenience.

[Chico16]

Originally Posted by Munjibunga

Even if that's true, the store can set checking inside all bags as a requirement for license to enter the store. You don't let 'em check, you don't get in. Entering the store is implied consent.

Of course. I didn't say that this meant you can say no and just waltz right in. I'm just saying in case you're ever FORCED to open your bag. For example, I have to check each associates bags before they leave the store at any time of their shift. When they were hired, they agreed to this. However, I can't go in the bags myself, nor force them to open it as they can sue the company (they wouldn't get anywhere though since they had already agreed upon being hired.)

[Phil Smith]

Originally Posted by guy n. cognito

This is, of course, incorrect. Stores can set certain requirements to allow entry onto their property. You can refuse, but they don't have to allow you entry, either.

By refusing, it means they can't check your bag and it also means you can and are ready, willing and able to take your business elsewhere.

[Chico16]

Originally Posted by Phil Smith

By refusing, it means they can't check your bag and it also means you can and are ready, willing and able to take your business elsewhere.

BOOM

[Phil Smith]

Originally Posted by 6jase5

This is unbelievable and I'm seeing a bunch of whining "you can't make me do it" going on. I happen to like security...it tells me that a corporate decision is being made to thwart theft which keeps the cost to the consumer down. I shop with my 2 year old all the time and to have my hands free I sometimes bring a backpack. Sometimes they ask to check it, I don't care, what do I have to hide? Takes all of 2 seconds, happened two nights ago at Target. Never thought twice about it.

I don't think people are "whining", people have a right to not have their property searched or "held on" to. The also have a right to not shop and provide profits to those stores that want to subject them to this. If people collectively didn't shop at stores with this policy, that policy would change without question because you can't be in the business of selling very long when people aren't buying.

Why is it that I constantly see people that "just so happen" to have current or former problems obeying laws have such issues with things like rules, police, security, etc.? Pilferage/shrinkage is huge in retail and warehousing for retail and high tech (my industry). You should see the security we have in place for some products (you come in with your clothes, strip, put on a jumpsuit and do the reverse on the way out). You don't like it, fine, get another job, because what you can put in your pocket could cost us 6 figures and a 30mil a year client.

An employee that agrees to take a job agrees to the conditions required to remain an employee on that job. Not even remotely relevant to what we are talking about here.

Some folks need to get over themselves and their view of rights. You DON'T have some human right to do whatever you want on someone else's property, like a store, which is private property. You have the choice to NOT go in, that's your right.

Another nifty suggestion....online shopping - no bag check.

You as a property owner do not have a right to do whatever you want to someone that's on your property. You can't rape them, you can't take their money, you can't take their property and you also can't prevent them from leaving.

[guy n. cognito]

Originally Posted by Phil Smith

By refusing, it means they can't check your bag and it also means you can and are ready, willing and able to take your business elsewhere.

A business MAY choose to institute a "no bags" policy, and you MAY choose to do business elsewhere. That's how it works. You can't refuse to abide by their policy and still expect entry.

[Phil Smith]

Originally Posted by guy n. cognito

Yes, but this is an entirely different concept that what you stated above. A business MAY choose to institute a "no bags" policy, and you MAY choose to do business elsewhere. That's how it works.......

No, you think it was a different concept that I was stating...Nothing new here.

[guy n. cognito]

Originally Posted by Phil Smith

You also have the right to decline, which you should.

Originally Posted by Phil Smith

No, you think it was a different concept that I was stating...Nothing new here.

Nah, I got it right.......... ;D

[Phil Smith]

Originally Posted by guy n. cognito

A business MAY choose to institute a "no bags" policy, and you MAY choose to do business elsewhere. That's how it works. You can't refuse to abide by their policy and still expect entry.

You think I'm arguing that one should still expect entry, but you are wrong because that's not at all what I'm saying.

You're gonna have to do better than that.

[guy n. cognito]

Originally Posted by Phil Smith

You think I'm arguing that one should still expect entry, but you are wrong because that's not at all what I'm saying.

You're gonna have to do better than that.

It's an issue of semantics. To say you can decline or refuse infers that the process is optional, and you can still enter the establishment. Rather, you can choose to leave the store, but you cannot refuse the policy if you wish to enter.

Lots of people, including several in this thread assume that the rights provided to them from the government also apply in private property situations. Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm always glad when someone realizes this and changes their position......