Dick's Poor Experience

[Duke of Doubt]

I still haven't seen a definitive answer here from the state AG, or even a legal citation, proving Dick's was in violation of any law. But let's assume for discussion that they were.

The guy who wastes his time, Dick's time, the AG's time, and now our time over a rain check is the same guy who forces us all to wait in line at the store while he counts his pennies, gets the clerk to recheck a price, and buys a dozen lottery tickets. It's the same guy who makes a fuss at the restaurant over MSG and asks for substitutions. It's the same guy who charges a pack of cigarettes on his credit card while ten people wait at the news stand behind him. It's the same guy who calls police every time the neighbor's kid climbs the fence to get his frisbee back. Whether Dick's violated some obscure consumer regulation or not, what "Poor Richard" did is called "tourist behavior" around here. And around here, those are strong words.

 

[poor_richard]

22-rimfire,

I understand your concern, but know that this is not some obscure law here in Michigan. Most (if not all) retailers around here are familiar with the retail laws placed upon the retailers regarding consumer rights. When I worked in retail, the management made sure that we knew about these things, so it's no big secret.

Fact is, most places immediately offer a rain check as soon as you ask for an out of stock ad item (and yes, that includes ammo). It wasn't uncommon where I worked to offer upgrades to keep the customer happy.

If stores like Wal Mart and Dick's get out of the firearms/ammo business, it won't be because of something like this.

 

[rbernie]

Denunciation and complaining to authority ("Momma! Dick won't sell me ammo for cheap!") is fun for people with nothing better to do with their time.

Excepting that you're deliberately mischaracterizing the issue. The issue wasn't over not being able to buy the ammo - it was over the policy of no rain checks specifically for ammo.

Rain check laws are in place to preclude the routine of "loss leader" advertising designed to get someone into a store so you can then steer them over to a higher-priced item. Legitimate "limited offer" sales will state that there are limited quantities on hand - and at that point, the law is complied with and there is nothing further to be said.

Exactly so.

The only thing worse than living in a nanny state, where the state dictates how you buy and sell things, is when you live in a nanny state and the rules are arbitrarily ignored and/or capriciously enforced.

 

[TexasRedneck]

Hey Duke - you forgot one other example:

"It's the same guy that actually expects CUSTOMER SERVICE when he spends his money."

I've dealt with B2B business for the past 30+ years, and managed Service Techs over 20. If one of my guys gives the kind of responses that Dicks' folks did, he'd be looking for a new job.

The customer is the reason ANY of us has a job - and it behooves us to remember that. Can they be overdemanding? Sure - but when they are, it can usually be resolved diplomatically. To take someone to task over expecting what they are legally entitled to is just.....(ya'll fill in the blank here - ah'm sure you can come up with an appropriate one!)<G>

 

[db_tanker]

dunno where your from there, Duke. I have heard of this "tourist behavior" though. Never seen it in my neck of the woods here however.

I do know that most folks around here wouldn't stand much for that kind of customer service...or should I say lack of.

You seem to only be concentrated on one little part here...the lack of a rain-check or that particular issue. I think what abhors me is the rather uncouth mannerisms of the managers at Dicks.

Even if they opened one down here in this area of Texas...I think it wouldn't do so well. They can keep them if that is the caliber of their employees.

Also..

IBTL

D

 

[22-rimfire]

Poor Richard: I actually agree with you. I may have slanted my responses earlier to hint that I didn't. I just think that it is a mountain out of a mole hill kind of thing. And I certainly don't hope that Dicks or any other store drops selling ammunition due to the hassle factor. The hassle factor could well come with the BHO administration. I'm keeping my fingers crossed and paying attention to legislation as best I can.

Could be their the sale ad copy was incorrectly done or done for many states when they should have modified it for Michigan and perhaps some other states??

The only thing worse than living in a nanny state, where the state dictates how you buy and sell things, is when you live in a nanny state and the rules are arbitrarily ignored and/or capriciously enforced.

I agree although the reality is that rules and laws are always arbitrarily enforced. How many celebrities, or public officials or their children get off with a hand slap for a DUI and then some person who seldom drinks gets pulled over and they test slightly above the limit and have to spend time in jail, loose their license, pay attorney fees, pay a higher cost for car insurance for years, and face the full force of the letter of the law applied to them.

 

[poor_richard]

...The customer is the reason ANY of us has a job - and it behooves us to remember that. Can they be overdemanding? Sure - but when they are, it can usually be resolved diplomatically. To take someone to task over expecting what they are legally entitled to is just.....(ya'll fill in the blank here - ah'm sure you can come up with an appropriate one!)<G>

It could have easily been solved by them stating if the policy was in the ad. It was their fault they didn't know their own ad (any sales clerk should).

 

[Duke of Doubt]

TexasRedneck: "The customer is the reason ANY of us has a job - and it behooves us to remember that."

And the retailer is the reason any of them have the opportunity to purchase their stuff point of sale in person -- and it behooves them to remember that.

TexasRedneck: "Can they be overdemanding? Sure - but when they are, it can usually be resolved diplomatically. To take someone to task over expecting what they are legally entitled to is just.....(ya'll fill in the blank here - ah'm sure you can come up with an appropriate one!)<G>"

... is just "tired of having his time wasted by over-demanding people with too much time on their hands."

 

[poor_richard]

22-rimfire,

I worked in retail for a big box store for over four years. Our ads had exceptions in the fine print limiting certain things to certain states.

As retailer employees, we were very well informed about these things.

Maybe in your neck of the woods it is, " a mountain out of a mole hill", but around here its a pretty big deal. At least, it was when I was in the business.

 

[MAKster]

Asking for a raincheck on Remington ammo at Dicks is not worth the effort. The Remington UMC ammo is on sale almost every week. In fact the "sale" price is basically the regular price.

 

[22-rimfire]

I think I need to get a rain check on the Federal 714 22 ammo at Dicks.

As far as hills go, I guess it depends on how you feel about the hill. Clearly the person who spilled coffee on themselves at McDonalds and got millions made a big mountain out of the issue. But I like my coffee very hot and if I am dumb enough to spill it on myself, I deserve to get burnt.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

22-rimfire: "Clearly the person who spilled coffee on themselves at McDonalds and got millions made a big mountain out of the issue. But I like my coffee very hot and if I am dumb enough to spill it on myself, I deserve to get burnt."

Here, I'm going to take the other side. I have to discuss that case in casual conversation a lot, because of what I do. I've never failed to change the mind of the other person, once I explain exactly what happened and what McDonald's did.

The woman suffered second and third degree burns to her genitalia. This wasn't some minor scalding. All she originally sought was reimbursal of her medical expenses. McDonald's told her to pound sand, and engaged in abusive and intrusive discovery and litigation tactics against her, including demanding psychological evaluations, medical examinations, repeated gynocological examinations, et cetera. The jury was disgusted with McDonald's tactics, and awarded a huge sum to the plaintiff in order to send a message to large corporations about such obnoxious behavior. That amount was greatly reduced by the reviewing judge.

 

[22-rimfire]

Yep, see what happens when lawyers get involved and everyone gets pushy. Common sense and all civility goes out the window and it is all about $.

Unfortunately, I sometimes cradle my coffee in the secret spot between my legs in a car and sometimes it hurts.

In the Dicks case, Dicks was actually encouraging buying in case lots by pricing it lower per box by the case. They must have had a lot in stock. Dicks saw that they were technically in the wrong and shipped ammo to satisfy this customer. Of course, it was beyond satisfaction at that point, but the corporate folks saw the light and tried to make amends.

 

[NMBLACKGOLD]

Makster

Asking for a raincheck on Remington ammo at Dicks is not worth the effort. The Remington UMC ammo is on sale almost every week. In fact the "sale" price is basically the regular price.

Well said, maybe this well end this whole deal...

 

[heron]

The guy who wastes his time, Dick's time, the AG's time, and now our time over a rain check is the same guy who forces us all to wait in line at the store while he counts his pennies, gets the clerk to recheck a price, and buys a dozen lottery tickets. It's the same guy who makes a fuss at the restaurant over MSG and asks for substitutions. It's the same guy who charges a pack of cigarettes on his credit card while ten people wait at the news stand behind him. It's the same guy who calls police every time the neighbor's kid climbs the fence to get his frisbee back.

Duke, last I knew, all this "tourist behavior" was perfectly legal. Maybe a bit aggravating, but I'd guess almost never intentionally so, and that's why we should all practice patience. I try to be considerate of other customers and not to hold up checkout lines, but not everyone is like that.

I'm with the OP all the way on this. He was especially careful to recheck everything, and didn't go ballistic. He was right, and made sure he was right at every step of the process. Dick's was wrong, and made it plain that they didn't care and didn't want to be bothered.

Personally, I'll take "tourist behavior" any day over being treated like a pest by the store's employees.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

heron: "Duke, last I knew, all this "tourist behavior" was perfectly legal. Maybe a bit aggravating, but I'd guess almost never intentionally so, and that's why we should all practice patience."

Quite right. My point is that what is legal is not necessarily what is appropriate. "Standing on your rights" is what gets lawyers blamed for their clients' outrages. After years of being an agreeable guy, I've taken lately to refusing to do a lot of things my clients want me to do, and throwing them out of my office if they complain. My professional standing has been enhanced, and business is brisk. The customer is NOT always right. In fact, he is usually wrong. If he knew so much, he wouldn't have to hire you in the first place.

 

[jerkface11]

Duke refuses to believe that it's the law that that rainchecks be provided. As usual he's obtuse for no known reason. Does THR have an ignore feature? I sure can't seem to find one.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

jerkface11: "Duke refuses to believe that it's the law that that rainchecks be provided. As usual he's obtuse for no known reason."

I don't "refuse to believe"; I say I'm unconvinced as I've seen no AG statement, statute or regulation posted here, and am skeptical by nature. But as I stated above, I'm willing to assume for discussion that Dick's violated an obscure consumer regulation. My point is that life is too short to spend several days chasing down a "rain check" and trying to make life difficult for people over it. That's my known reason.

 

[poor_richard]

Duke,

I really don't care to debate you on this since it really doesn't matter to me what you think about the topic. I just want to add a little food for thought.

Do you think there might be some parallel between some of what you accuse me of having done, and what you are doing?

 

[rbernie]

Does THR have an ignore feature? I sure can't seem to find one.

Yes, it does. PM sent with instructions.

 

[jerkface11]

Duke you have google at your fingertips. Look it up or quit whining about it.

E.T.A. thanks rbernie you're now my favorite mod

 

[Duke of Doubt]

poor richard: "I really don't care to debate you on this since it really doesn't matter to me what you think about the topic. I just want to add a little food for thought."

And yet you clearly do care, because you continue to debate:

poor richard: "Do you think there might be some parallel between some of what you accuse me of having done, and what you are doing?"

No.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

jerkface11: "Duke you have google at your fingertips. Look it up or quit whining about it."

I'm not going to do your legal research for you, for free. Besides, as I've stated twice I'm willing to assume for discussion that Dick's IS in violation of some obscure consumer regulation.

 

[rbernie]

Closed due to useless bickering.