Featured Post

The Science of Getting Rich: CHAPTER VII [excerpt] by Wallace D. Wattles #Gratitude

--- Gratitude THE ILLUSTRATIONS GIVEN IN THE LAST CHAPTER will have conveyed to the reader the fact that the first step toward getting ...

Saturday, August 9, 2014

@WalMart Alcohol #policy = #corporate idiocy @briancnick


[For reference Joplin, MO.]

As much as I dislike giving personal information on the blog I admit that we do our weekly shopping, grocery and otherwise, at @WalMart (Actually we like WalMart ;)

This is a post about what we experienced there today.

We go usually every Saturday and our disabled 29 year old son goes with us. Today we also had our 14 year old granddaughter too. We bought a couple boxes of wine with our groceries, as we do every week. I went to get a drink of water and when I got back Mrs Warrior was pissed.. lol Apparently the gal checking us out had refused to sell the wine to Mrs Warrior because the checker carded our 29 year old son who did not have his ID with him.


We asked for a manager & got a CSM (Customer Service Manager) who informed us that, yes indeed it is WalMart #policy to ask for ID from an entire group if the sale includes alcohol?

We asked for a store manager lol

We got an assistant store manager to discuss the situation with. He explained to us that they had some "new policies" yet he didn't attempt at all to defend the policy we were being confronted with.

I asked him, if our 29 year old son had been at home & only our (obviously minor) 14 year old granddaughter had been with us would I have been carded? To which he responded no.

At that point making their policy If Mrs Warrior is, attempting to, buy wine, with proper ID, then her 29 year old son who looks as if he might be under 40 should be carded & if he doesn't have any ID the alcohol sale should be denied. But if our 14 year old granddaughter is with us she is not to be IDed because she is a minor.

I'm sorry but, what?

Anyway the assistant store manager decided he didn't have a problem with us buying wine so we did manage that ;)

This is just so wrong on so many levels.. I understand it's a bleeding heart PR effort on the part of WalMart so as to seem as if they are "protecting our children". I think I even understand how the corporate masterminds intended (good intentions & all that) for it to go down.. I mean face it.. A group of 5 come through the line with a case of beer, a bottle of vodka and some chips. They're acting stupid like they just smoked a blunt and 4 of them look 18 or younger but the one buying is 21 with proper ID.

What do you do if you are a responsible corporate retailer?

Obviously, to me anyway, your responsibility is to follow the letter of the law. Which is no alcohol sales to anyone under legally determined age, period.

What is not WalMart's job is law enforcement, period.

WalMart has NO business trying to "guess" or "predict" what the intentions of a, legal, purchaser of alcohol might be once they leave the store. How the heck could they possibly do that in reality?

I checked and WalMart's official alcohol policy, plus a little store policy, is anyone who looks under 40 is to be carded when buying alcohol, period.

But I also saw this story from Ames Iowa -quoted


In an email to Davis, someone from Wal-Mart's customer service department told him the chain was experimenting with new ways to thwart underage drinking.

"In order to ensure that alcoholic beverages and tobacco are not sold to minors, Walmart is testing point-of-sale age checks in some locations across the country," the statement read. -emphasis mine

--- end quote

Here's a link to the full story Wal-Mart: Worker wrong to refuse alcohol sale

Mrs Warrior called the store & talked to the store manager who told us Walmart alcohol policy is to check ID & not sell to anyone underage.

Which I am PERFECTLY fine with, by the way.

But what is strange to me is that "someone" had to have impressed upon both the (relatively new) checker AND the "Customer Service Manager" that they were to card an entire group of people if alcohol is involved (and I guess if the (minimum wage) checker is "suspicious" (def: having the belief or impression that someone is involved in an illegal or dishonest activity)).

I rather doubt the two employees came up with their own alcohol policy over lunch.

Don't you?


No comments:

Post a Comment