Legal question: Bag checks when the T&C sign is obscured

Namkcalb on 11/02/2014 - 22:27

I have no issue with stores which clearly display the terms and conditions of entry and happily comply with bag check in that case. (or as I am a very private person, I leave it outside)

However I assume they have no legal right to demand a bag check if the sign at the entrance is obscured.

Which particular case or law requires that they have a clear and noticeable sign for conditions of entry? Is it even required? I'm familiar with the guidelines but not the actual law.

I want to complain to the Office of Fair Trading about Aldi banning me for pointing this out to them and not letting them see inside my bag. (Yes, I'm a jerk, but Australia is almost a perfect country and I see the encouraging of respecting people's rights as a way to make it even better)

General Discussion

Comments

  • watty on 11/02/2014 - 22:43
    +3

    Aldi actually hires enough people to do that? Last time I went to aldi there was 2 people at the counter and that was it. This might help: http://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/ftw/Consumers/Buying_goods…

  • Namkcalb on 11/02/2014 - 23:29
    -1

    I actually showed them that but they ignored it.

    I need actual laws or case precidents

    • Cheeper on 13/02/2014 - 22:59
      +28

      How about the law of common sense and common decency.
      Not a major problem letting them just look in your bag…
      They must do something to stop the shop lifters.
      You think they should just let people walk out with their bags full of whatever they like to put in them?

      OMG…………. Life needed….

      • MarkB4 on 14/02/2014 - 19:10
        +1

        This is the only country I have been to that does this, checking bags of customers because they 'may' be stealing something.

        I never offer it and I don't allow it if asked, unless they are willing to state a case for suspicion, and then I will let them open it and take responsibility for doing so.

        • [Deactivated] on 17/02/2014 - 07:42
          -1

          We also don't tip. We make laws that make sense for everyone, not people with a sense of "I'm betterness".

        • peter000 on 17/02/2014 - 09:44
          +4

          Not so. Clearly you have never been to most countries in SE Asia or many parts of the South Pacific for that matter, including PNG. In the Philippines, for instance a heavily-armed guard checks your bags as you leave almost all department stores….. try refusing to allow the check when you have a double barreled shottie pointed in your vague direction!

    • riley94 on 14/02/2014 - 10:14
      +35

      "If you refuse to allow shop staff to check your bags you can be asked to leave the shop and not return." http://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/ftw/Consumers/Buying_goods…

      Looks pretty clear to me. You exercised your right to refuse a bag check, they exercised their right to refuse you entry in the future.

      Wanting to complain to the Fair Trading office because "I didn't see the sign!!!!" makes you sound like a whining child with too much time on their hands. (And kind of makes me want to work at the Fair Trading Office so I can laugh at complaints like yours). Come on, it's a shop. Of course they might sometimes check people's bags.

  • whalesnails on 11/02/2014 - 23:35
    +2

    Were they actually stopping you from leaving the store?

  • ilostnemo on 12/02/2014 - 00:06
    +42

    Australia would be more perfect, if there were less smart asses.
    You know the rules/laws abide by them if you have nothing to hide.

    Why do people try and make a difficult situation out of everything.

    When I beep, when going through those dumb gates that always seem to beep, I ask them is it ok if I leave.

    • _Bruce_ on 12/02/2014 - 09:29
      +15

      Australia would be more perfect, if there were less smart asses.

      Agree.

      You know the rules/laws abide by them if you have nothing to hide.

      Don't agree. In this case the OP may be an ass, but the 'if you ahve nothing to hide' argument is VERY, VERY, bad and destructive.

      In this case the OP knew the sign was there, and knew the terms, so be reasonable and follow it. Doesn't mean you should show you bag just because, and doesn't mean you shouldn't try to get the situation fixed.

    • [Deactivated] on 17/02/2014 - 07:44
      +1

      I just keep walking, I didn't steal anything and no one has asked me stop, even if they did you wouldn't have to (unless it's a cop in which case it's probably a good idea).

    • casey2 on 18/02/2014 - 16:38
      +2

      Australia would be more perfect, if there were less smart asses.

      That would be "fewer" smart asses…

  • KBZ on 12/02/2014 - 01:02
    +40

    I can't believe you made a big deal out of nothing (like you said you have nothing to hide) and got yourself banned from Aldi.

    Maybe if you apologize to the manager for being a smartass they'd let you back in.

    • derpdeder on 12/02/2014 - 06:35
      +54

      Unfortunately this seems to be an increasing theme in these forums: "I did something ridiculous and now I am here looking for validation."

    • MarkB4 on 14/02/2014 - 19:13
      -8

      You have nothing to hide? Then you won't mind if I come round your place and have a look?

      I didn't think so …

      • KBZ on 14/02/2014 - 19:29
        +7

        I like how you took that phrase out of context and decided to apply it somewhere irrelevant to the situation.

        • MarkB4 on 14/02/2014 - 19:39
          -6

          It's the same principal. You say 'If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.' Based on that you should have no problem showing all on demand, because that is the logical conclusion of your thinking.

        • [Deactivated] on 17/02/2014 - 07:46

          It's called relativity, haven't you heard about how the US trawls through personal data and is even selling it now to marketers for money?

          I read somewhere google makes ~$85 a year off info from our searches.

        • CYMA on 17/02/2014 - 22:46
          +3

          Woah $85!

        • heatseeker424 on 18/02/2014 - 01:02

          If they're making money from something that doesn't directly generate revenue then that's just smart business, it doesn't hurt you in any way.

  • c64 on 12/02/2014 - 06:47
    +11

    pretty much most major stores have a bag check policy. most checkers don't even check it properly - it is more a token gesture, a quick glance. get over it.

  • [Deactivated] on 12/02/2014 - 06:54

    No store has any legal right to hold you for the purpose of a bag check. Sign or no sign it doesn't matter. If you are held against your will and have stolen nothing then you can use appropriate self defense to free yourself of that situation then call the police immediately.

    • Ughhh on 12/02/2014 - 10:32
      +4

      Lol is half a day wasted worth it for something that would've only taken like 5 seconds.

      • diddy50 on 15/02/2014 - 13:26
        +1

        I just politely refuse and keep walking when I leave Big W. Takes the old lady by surprise when I tell her no thanks

        • [Deactivated] on 15/02/2014 - 17:43
          +3

          This. No fuss, no wasting anyone's time, be polite. They have the right to ask, you have the right to refuse.

          If you're keen to show inside your bag, by all means do - but you're under no obligation to do so (keeping in mind that your actions may affect your ability to shop there again).

  • AmericanDad on 12/02/2014 - 11:17
    -3

    Lol @ warier that is not true.

    There are two situations:
    Upon entry - you are entering someone else's store and if part of the condition of entering the store is to do a bag check then they have a right to refuse entry if you refuse to do a bag check.

    After entry - if you are acting suspiciously or the staff members reaosnably suspect that you are stealing something, they can and have the right to request to check your bag and retain you until law enforcement agents come. The crimes act gives private citizens power to use 'reasonable force' to assist in enforcing the law where it is appropriate to do so. For eg a woman screamed 'he stole my bag', thief started running, good samaritans jumped on the guy and detained him. Thats not against the law. Similarly, if the shop keeper suspects someone is stealing from the store, they can check the bag and detain the person.

    There is something called 'assault' if you use force against them.

    • Tihocan on 12/02/2014 - 14:48
      +6

      Reasonably suspect is not good enough. You need to witness someone taking something and leaving the store before you can detain them.

      If you "reasonably suspect", and you are wrong, you will have Deprivation of Liberty charges brought against you. Also, if anyone is injured, anything damaged or any other "crimes" occur in the situation, you will be liable for those.

      • AmericanDad on 15/02/2014 - 17:31

        For those who negged me and questioned ' reasonable basis' , read this.

        http://www.police.act.gov.au/crime-and-safety/for-act-busine…

        I studied the crimes act as a law student.

        • surm on 15/02/2014 - 18:33
          +6

          Factors to consider before making a citizen's arrest
          .
          You should never make a citizen's arrest merely on suspicion a customer is committing or has just committed an offence
          .
          Suspicion means you have indirect evidence the customer has committed an offence. Examples of suspicion include: The theft protection buzzer sounds as someone exits the store; a person has spent an inordinate amount of time browsing and is consciously avoiding assistance.

          AmericanDad, from the link you've posted, it appears that AFP advise not to detain someone on "Suspicion".

        • diddy50 on 18/02/2014 - 21:36

          You studied, but did you pass because you can't detain someone on a suspicion you have described.

          Sorry re read your text book.

        • humdingaling on 19/02/2014 - 13:51

          i also like the bit on the link

          Points to remember
          if in doubt, do nothing

  • brentsbits on 12/02/2014 - 11:44
    +25

    Well, when 'studying' to get my security license a number of years ago, the law was like this and I don't believe it has changed.

    REGARDLESS of the signage (doesn't matter if it's obvious or obscured), regardless of whether it is a 'condition of entry', NO ONE has a right to search your bag. This actually includes police, unless they have reasonable suspicion and refusal to let them search your bag DOES NOT constitute reasonable suspicion.

    Back to the topic at hand. Under no circumstances whatsoever does any store employee have a right to conduct a search of your personal belongings without your permission. They get around this by asking "May I check your bag?" and then people unthinkingly give their consent. Don't be fooled, they have no right whatsoever to search your bag.

    Having said all this the store CAN do several things. As AmericanDad mentioned, they can detain you until law enforcement officials arrive but only if they have ABSOLUTE belief that you have stolen goods. If you are trying to purchase something they can refuse to sell you the goods. They can ban you from the store.

    AmericanDad, you were partially right. No private citizen has a right to search your bag, regardless of what signs are posted. They have a right to request to search your bag and if you refuse they have options but absolutely none of them involve them getting to search your bag after your refusal. If they try to forcibly do so, or even if you have consented and they touch anything in your bag (i.e. moving things around to have a look) then they could be in extremely hot legal waters.

    So, it's not all the customer's way. A shop is private property and they can refuse you entry as long as it isn't on discriminatory grounds (race etc.). If you have refused a bag check they can ask you to leave and never return.

    Reference: http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/4767/do-stores-have-the-r…

    • SirFlibbled on 12/02/2014 - 14:06
      +14

      Correct there is no right but at the end of the day, I've found it a lot easier to flash the contents of my bag (without breaking my stride) then argue with them.

      The guys are just doing the job they were told to do. Abusing them wont change anything.

      • cwongtech on 12/02/2014 - 21:04
        +1

        Correct there is no right but at the end of the day, I've found it a lot easier to flash the contents of my bag (without breaking my stride) then argue with them.

        I've found that if you even go up to the sec guard and open your bag (without them asking), they don't even look! Seems like you could easily do a Trojan Horse.

        The guys are just doing the job they were told to do. Abusing them wont change anything.

        Yep, it takese like.. 3 seconds of your time, and you'll most likely never see them again in your life.

      • brentsbits on 12/02/2014 - 21:31
        +3

        Agreed. If I have a backpack on my back with both straps over my arms, it's a hassle, so I breeze past and tell them politely that no they can't check my bag.

        If it's convenient then I'm happy to let them but otherwise, no thanks, have a nice day :-) I certainly don't abuse them cause they are doing their jobs.

        • Benicio on 14/02/2014 - 12:48

          exactly what I do, smile and say 'no thanks' if the bag isnt easily opened as I stroll past

      • bich.light on 15/02/2014 - 13:28
        +3

        than**

        Very crucial in your statement here.

      • srr on 18/02/2014 - 23:12

        The worst argument of all is about guys doing their job. People can do very nasty and bad things if they believe that they are just doing their job and have been told to do something. There was a lot of psychological experiments around this particular issue.

  • brentsbits on 12/02/2014 - 11:47
    +11

    With specific reference to the OP:

    • They cannot detain you unless they are CERTAIN of you committing a crime
    • You can refuse to have your bags checked
    • They can ban you from ever coming back. Stores are private property and you enter under license. The license is the conditions displayed on those signs. If you refuse to allow a search, the can revoke that license and you can be asked to leave and never return. If you return, you will be trespassing.
    • You should be careful when talking about our 'rights'. Australia has no bill of rights. We have some legal protections but no rights as such. I take your meaning but the distinction is actually really important to bear in mind.
    • Finally, why be a jerk?
    • elf888 on 12/02/2014 - 13:08
      +1

      Being a jerk because they have a Jerk Employee.
      Once at Woolworth Check out, the girl ask suddenly I need to check your bag! I give her a questionable look. and she said: "WHAT THE FXXX! IT's the condition of entry! SHOW ME YOUR BAG!"
      I paid the money, take the goods and ignore her.

      • samboread on 15/02/2014 - 18:59

        This is something that woolworths limited enforces, A checkout operator will be questioned and possibly fired if they do not ask to see your bag.
        Although in your case the checkout operator does not sound very friendly about it lol

    • grasstown on 17/02/2014 - 18:34

      What does bill of rights have to do with rights? We have a constitution with express and implied rights and an amazing judiciary who protect our rights, arguably the best rights in the world.

  • p1 ama on 13/02/2014 - 12:54
    +2

    I find this stupid, if you have nothing to hide, why are you so scared of undergoing a bag check, just calm down.

    • Tal_Shiar on 13/02/2014 - 13:31
      +2

      I assume people assume they are effectively being accused of dishonesty. I worked briefly as a door greeter for Target, I even stood by the entry sign… still the odd person gets their back up, I never delayed anyone , but I always asked.. still you get people like OP

    • _Bruce_ on 13/02/2014 - 14:22
      +11

      Please don't ever use 'if you have nothing to hide' as an argument for anything, ever again.

      • p1 ama on 13/02/2014 - 14:45
        -2

        Why?

        • _Bruce_ on 13/02/2014 - 16:05
          +15

          Because the obvious conclusion to that argument is that everything should be monitored all the time. This creates two big problems (among others):

          1: Even if I'm happy for some organisation to have this information, am I confident that they will secure it to stop others getting it? Or they will sell it? What about a rouge employee?

          2: What you end up with is automated profiling to create a shortlist of potentially troublesome people. The easiest way to make this list is to trawl for anyone reading things with alternate points of view. The end result is people avoid alternative opinion, purely to avoid being on a list (and potential issues associated with this) and this shuts down political freedom (even though 'nothing wrong' is being done). See the US no fly list for a great example.

        • Tal_Shiar on 13/02/2014 - 16:27
          -7

          You have a point but your argument is completely left wing and I just can't take you seriously now…

        • _Bruce_ on 13/02/2014 - 16:45
          +6

          Left wing? In many ways it is considered right wing to limit government powers, perhaps if you are applying it to companies it is left, but the whole left/right argument is silly, particularly here.

          The whole point is that 'if you have nothing to hide X is OK' is always a bad argument. 'We want to take away privacy, but think it is for the best overall' can be a reasonable (even good) argument…. and 'left wing' even.

        • p1 ama on 13/02/2014 - 19:18
          -5

          Okay, but how does this have anything to do with bag checks?

          1. They just want to know if you've taken anything from the store. What "information" are they getting? I'm sure the sales employee standing at the door couldn't care less what stuff you bought from other stores as long as you didn't take anything from their stores.

          2. Again, this is irrelevant, they don't even know who you are.

          I think bag checks is just common sense, it's not like they're recording your details, where you live, what you do for a living…etc.

          It's just a freakin' bag check.

        • brentsbits on 13/02/2014 - 21:24
          +10

          It has to do with personal privacy.

          Would you be happy if the police came up to do a body search because they thought you look like you would take drugs?

          Are you OK with racial profiling? People of colour are more likely to commit a particular type of crime based on statistical data, so should people of colour all be immediately be suspects in similar crimes?

          If you aren't OK with racial profiling, then why should me choosing to carry a bag make me automatically be a suspect? Do they have any evidence? Why should they be able to violate my privacy?

        • [Deactivated] on 14/02/2014 - 13:29

          Do you refuse to pull over for RBTs when the cops wave you down as well?

        • p1 ama on 14/02/2014 - 16:53
          -1

          I've had a think about it and this is what I think it comes down to.

          1. You can be a self-entitled prick and refuse bag checks, cause confrontations, argue with everybody…etc. You're only making your life harder.
          2. Or you can just be compliant and understand that what they are doing is completely reasonable.

          Yes, I would be completely happy if the police searched me for drugs because I don't use drugs, as long as I am not wrongly accused then I'm okay. I am mature and I understand that the police search people to ensure drug laws are not broken. That means that they will have to search people who are innocent, in fact, I would say most of the people they search are innocent. How is that wrong?

          Your argument of "privacy this", "privacy that" is completely rubbish. What privacy? Are they asking for your details? Are they taking photographs of you and interrogating you on who you are and what you have been doing? No, they just want to have a look at what you have in your bag. How is that an invasion of privacy in any way.

          Furthermore, carrying a bag doesn't make you a suspect, if you don't have a bag, you don't have anywhere to hide your items, well not big items anyway. So it's common sense to check people's bags.

          Sometimes I feel as if people here are too self-entitled to the point where they can be real losers about things which are completely understandable and reasonable.

          To say that "you can only check if I am a suspect" is like telling the police "you can only measure my speed if you have reason to think I'm speeding. It's exactly like that, it's just a check.

          Do you go through the security checks at the airport? Do you drive past speed cameras? Do you show your ticket to the ticket inspectors on the train?

          Come on, it's not like this is a rare-occurrence and it's not like it's a process which takes more than ten seconds of your time. Just take a chill pill and calm down, it's not the end of the world.

          Think about it, what do you lose from them checking your bag?

        • _Bruce_ on 14/02/2014 - 20:30
          +2

          Let me try rewording the problem:

          It is reasonable to inspect bags to reduce shop lifting to help businesses and, by extension, the consumer.

          Fine.

          Bag inspections are not a problem for the innocent.

          Not Fine.

          For example, what if a teenager with her mum had condoms in her bag? You could think of many other examples where it may be an issue, even if the customer has not shop lifted.

        • p1 ama on 15/02/2014 - 15:28

          That's completely okay, refuse a bag check and get banned from the store then.

          The way I see it is that shops are a business, they are entitled to making sure that they don't lose stock.

          If you're not happy with that, then stay at home and shop online or go to a store that doesn't check bags.

          Seriously, some people need to grow up and stop thinking about "MY rights" and being so self-centered all the time.

        • ur2dads on 15/02/2014 - 17:08
          +2

          Not to take sides or anything (as I see both sides to the argument at hand) but I bet governments all around the world would love to have a nation of paulsterios. They could trample all over his civil rights and he'd just prob shrug it off thinking it's "no big deal".

          Seriously, some people need to grow up and stop thinking about "MY rights" and being so self-centered all the time.

          Civil rights is not a joke, son and nor is it something you should 'grow' out of.

          Now back at the issue at hand. I have no problems with bag checks as I'm a guy and I don't have anything embarrassing to hide. But I know of an ex or two who have had problems with bag checks - they have their female hygiene products and the last thing they want is a guy to do digging into their bags to have a sneak peak. So it is a sensitive issue here and whilst the OP may have gone overboard here, I don't think he/she is out of line for asking people for advice in this situation.

        • samboread on 15/02/2014 - 18:52

          who cares if she had condoms in her bag??
          that's called being safe…

        • p1 ama on 15/02/2014 - 19:59
          -5

          No, I disagree.

          If a store wanted to collect my personal details, I would ask what for. To me, I am happy to comply when I understand the motive behind what is being asked. With bag checks, I completely understand why it is being asked of me and I believe that as a society, we have a responsibility to make it a better place. For example, if undergoing a ten second bag check helps eliminate theft, then I'm completely okay with it. There is a clear motive behind why the store wants to check my bag and I am more than happy to make it easier for stores to stamp out theft.

          To everybody who says that bag checks don't catch out thieves…etc. Exactly, the point is that it is a deterrent. Think about it. If you were a thief, would you be more tempted to walk out of a store with something in your bag if you knew that it wouldn't be checked…etc.? Of course.

          I completely agree that civil rights is not a joke, I never said it was. What I said was that people need to stop making a big deal out of nothing. The problem with today is that there are too many people who sit around and yell out "MY RIGHTS, MY RIGHTS" like sheep.

          To me, that is utterly selfish. You, as a shopper, as a citizen, have a responsibility to make sure that society is as free from crime as possible. When you board a plane, do you empty your pockets and walk through a metal detector, or do you stand there and argue about how that is a breach of your "rights". I assume that you, as would most people in society, would go through the security procedures because you know that it is making flying safer.

          It's exactly the same with random breath testing. If you pass a booze bus, do you sit there and argue with the cop about your "rights"? I wouldn't assume so. Again, it's a minor inconvenience to have to get a breath test, but it's 10 seconds of your time and it helps curb drink driving and it makes our roads (supposedly) safer.

          Now, back to the issue at hand. If the store wanted to collect your personal information, if they wanted to take a photo of you, if they wanted sensitive information, then okay, I agree that that is too far and is indeed a breach of your civil rights. This is for two reasons, one, I can't see a reason as to why the store would want to collect that information and two, if that information fell into the wrong hands, that could potentially lead to a disaster.

          Checking bags…that information isn't even recorded, they hardly even stand there and "go through" your bag. All they ask you to do is open it up, let them have a quick glance, sometimes ask you to move a thing or two and that's all. Hardly a breach of any civil rights or liberties. It's not like anybody even cares what you have, unless you have something to hide, e.g. a gun or drugs or you've stolen something.

          I think it comes down to this, the problem is that people often learn about what their rights are before what their responsibilities are. Before people have begun to think about their responsibilities to society, to other shoppers, to the places where they shop, they think, first and foremost, about their rights. That is selfish.

          If you don't like bag checks, leave your bag in your car. Geez, is it that hard?

        • [Deactivated] on 15/02/2014 - 20:18
          +4

          @waterlogged turnip
          You are confusing police officers who are granted specific powers by law with shop employees who do not have such powers.

          Would you pull over for an Aldi shop employee who wanted to breath-test you?

        • p1 ama on 15/02/2014 - 20:20
          +1

          The point is, stop focusing on the law. Use your common sense.

        • omniX32 on 16/02/2014 - 16:11

          They're not going to tell the Mother to check the teenagers bag (or vice versa1)… so not a very good example.

          And if they found stolen condoms in the bag? then it's still called THEFT.

        • ur2dads on 16/02/2014 - 16:40

          @ onmnix32 And who carries around a receipt for a packet of condoms in their bags? Seriously, there's no need to treat everyone like criminals. Common sense is a two way street here.

        • [Deactivated] on 17/02/2014 - 07:58

          Idiot, but funny idiot.

        • wukachuka on 17/02/2014 - 10:16
          +1

          I hate it when someone uses the phrase “I have nothing to hide.”

          That is a fantastically stupid thing to say. It is one of those seemingly clever, snarky little quips that almost sounds like it means something. It is what someone says when they have lost the argument but are not honest enough to admit it.

          The statement is a strawman. It is only vaguely related to the debate at hand and is used in order to change the subject. Rather than an honest debate over privacy, now there is a veiled accusation that perhaps you have done something embarrassing and don’t want anyone to know about it.

          From this blog post - http://drunkenachura.wordpress.com/2009/08/16/you-have-nothi…

          Straw man explanation on wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

          It is the same thing when someone uses "If you have nothing to hide…"

          That covers it i think…

        • p1 ama on 17/02/2014 - 12:07

          I'm not even discussing.

          You have the right to be a douchebag and refuse a bag check. Don't complain when you get kicked out of the store and asked not to return.

          Plain and simple really, if you want to be uncooperative, don't complain when things don't go your way.

    • ProdigyShin on 13/02/2014 - 14:52
      +6

      My thinking is that "If I have not done anything, why should I let you check my bag?"

  • grasstown on 13/02/2014 - 20:06
    +1

    Lol Love this

  • Cheeper on 13/02/2014 - 22:56
    +6

    Shoplifting is rampant… the customer pays for it in the end.
    Why object to having your bag checked????????????????????
    Nothing to hide, so why worry.

    I offer any bag I carry for inspection at every shop I enter… even if there is NO sign, out of COURTESY AND COMMON DECENCY.

    Wake up and get a life… Some people just live to whinge…

    • ilostnemo on 13/02/2014 - 23:20
      +2

      Well said.
      I do the same.
      If people are worried about it, the solution is quite easy, don't go into the shops with another bag.
      I've learnt some facts about inspecting bags that I didn't know. Is that going to stop me showing the staff the contents of my bags when I leave, No

    • brentsbits on 13/02/2014 - 23:39
      +2

      It's nothing of the sort. Courtesy is not harassing the shop staff trying to do their job. Common Decency has nothing to do with it and it's overblown rhetoric to suggest that it is.

      You don't object to giving up your privacy and that's fine. It's your choice.

      Why would you expect others to do the same if they are not comfortable with it? What if they had been shopping for some personal items, why should they suffer the embarassment of having them viewed by some random person?

      What other rights are you willing to give up? Can you name them for me?

      • kwijybo on 14/02/2014 - 00:14
        +1

        You mean another random person that didn't:
        - walk past you while you were retrieving the item off the shelf in the store
        - see it in your trolley walking to the counter
        - see it while you were scanning the item in self-service / serve you in the original store

        What makes you think someone earning minimum wage at the front door is going to invade your privacy more than any other random person you encounter on a shopping trip?

        • brentsbits on 14/02/2014 - 03:56

          because the random person isn't asking to look in my bag. If things are out in public view, all bets are off and they can look to their hearts content.

          If they want to see in my bag or my pockets, it's my privacy that's being invaded.

          There is a very clear and definite line between the two. That line being can you see it without asking me to show it to you?

        • bich.light on 15/02/2014 - 13:44
          +1

          You're perspective is limited to one store.
          What if you purchased an embarrassing item from one store and then went to another.

          Extreme scenario:
          1. Buy something from an 'adult' shop.
          1.5. It's fine if the salesperson sees because of the context and location.
          2. You forget you have item and walk into, e.g. electronics good store.
          3. You walk out and stopped for bag check.

          Now if you had something like that, would you really want to oblige to a bag check?

        • _Bruce_ on 15/02/2014 - 21:32

          There are heaps more examples:

          • You have fertilizer and the inspector thinks you are making a bomb and reports you
          • You have a holocaust denial book for study, but it is taken the wrong way and you get bashed in the car park

          Point is not that bag checks are unreasonable, but that there are some valid reasons why you might not want it.

        • p1 ama on 15/02/2014 - 21:45

          1. I highly doubt that they would even care if you had fertilizer in your bag. That's as stupid as saying I have fertilizer in the garage and the neighbour can see it so they might report me. Also, who carries fertilizer unless they had just bought it?

          2. What?

          I can't believe you would think these are actually valid reasons.

        • ilostnemo on 15/02/2014 - 22:15

          The Mods need to move this thread to Comedy.

        • omniX32 on 16/02/2014 - 16:13

          Unless the fertilizer or book are stolen - they DO NOT CARE.

        • _Bruce_ on 16/02/2014 - 20:28

          I never said these are great reasons, or common, or anything of the sort. I am saying there are some reasons why people may not want to reveal there bag. That is all.

        • 51ngh on 24/02/2014 - 03:10

          Everything in your bag would have been bought by you at some stage in full public view of above mentioned random people …
          Why is it a problem now ?

  • KBZ on 14/02/2014 - 00:00
    +6

    Can't we all agree that when you enter a private premise with a bag it is OKAY even maybe right thing to do to show your bag if they ask.

    I value my privacy too and wouldn't give it up even if I did nothing wrong or have nothing to hide. But some things like this I think we are making a big deal of such a small issue and that's what got the OP in trouble.

    I agree the whole 'if you got nothing to hide' argument is dumb if you decide to apply it to everything but cmon… we really gonna make bag checking the equivalent of the NSA surveillance.

  • lord henry on 14/02/2014 - 12:45
    +7

    It is important to remember that 99 times in 100, the person checking your bag is some lowly employee (often casual) who is just doing their job. They have no input in the policy and can't change it.
    Getting sassy at them is just going to make both of your days more stressful.
    If you don't like the policy, then don't shop there.

    I did 'door' shifts at Target (about 5 years ago) and I never understood what people were trying to prove by making a fuss about it - I certainly couldn't do anything about the policy - I was just told to look in all bags A4 size and over.

    • grasstown on 14/02/2014 - 14:49

      yeah I bag checked at the 'doors' heaps working retail for 4 years. thefts were never in the bags. it was always strollers with tags attached, items protruding from under a sleeping baby, a roll of carpet under an arm, the most blatant thefts right in front of my eyes. usually just sitting on top of the pram or hanging over unconcealed. I used to just ask them for it and let them go. I acted as if I assumed it was accidental. when they hassled me, I told them to wait while I got my supervisor. they always waited which I found surprising. but I never paid much attention to bags.

  • kabigon on 14/02/2014 - 14:29

    Last time I was in Aldi I was asked to show my bag and I was tired and just attempted to give the bag over so they could look to their heart's content. They told me they're 'not allowed' to look and that I have to open and show the bag to them myself. What's that about?

    I also gave up leaving heavy multiples (juice/milk etc.) in the trolley and telling the quantities rather than triple handling them because it takes longer, they give your trolley a really good lookover unlike Woolies which doesn't seem to care.

    • xsacha on 14/02/2014 - 15:12

      They aren't allowed to touch anything in your bag. They will have to ask you to open up zips and open the bag up so they can see inside.

      • kabigon on 14/02/2014 - 16:53

        Surely if it's my bag I can give them permission to look inside it themselves?

        • lord henry on 14/02/2014 - 17:32
          +1

          If they are the ones going through your bag and they find something - you might accuse them of putting it in there.
          That is what I was told anyway.

        • ur2dads on 15/02/2014 - 01:07
          +4

          Nearly worked for Schapelle too.

  • Repi on 14/02/2014 - 22:28
    +1

    I agree, you are a jerk

  • Tnetennba on 15/02/2014 - 01:22
    +3

    It's fair enough that they asked you to leave and not return. As someone who works in retail (and has to deal with shoplifters every now and then), the people who refuse bag checks are almost always known shoplifters (we ban them when we get the chance). Unless your bag is full of.. inappropriate things that you're so ashamed of, why not just let them look, who cares?

    I think everyone that goes into a store like that should have the expectation that their bag will be checked anyway. At least they had a sign (albeit obscured, you knew it was there).

    Honestly, without taking into account the shop's rights and laws and such, it is just a common courtesy to show your bag. You 100% made yourself look like a thief by refusing. If you can take that, then very well, it just seems inconvenient that you can't shop there any more in my opinion…

  • aoeueoa on 15/02/2014 - 03:08
    +1

    So many people have been gently shoe-horned into thinking that having their bags checked by a shop owner is completely ok. "But I've got nothing to hide"??? But you didn't steal anything, nor did they see you take anything, so why should you let some total random drone look through your personal shit? Would you let them look through your pockets? Under your hat? Is it ok for a restaurant to search your bag when you leave to check for stolen silverware? NO? Why not? Same shit.

    I'm part of the 99.9% of customers who don't steal, so I'm not ok with someone enforcing a measure to catch .01% of people. Even still, the search is such a pathetic search that they won't even find stuff if I was hiding it anyway. So what reason exactly are all of you submitting to the search for? Think they're gonna ban you? As if. I refuse (ignore) all the time. Nobody gives a shit.

    • Tal_Shiar on 15/02/2014 - 04:09
      +3

      So many people have been gently shoe-horned into thinking that having their bags checked by a shop owner is completely ok. "But I've got nothing to hide"??? But you didn't steal anything, nor did they see you take anything, so why should you let some total random drone look through your personal shit? Would you let them look through your pockets? Under your hat? Is it ok for a restaurant to search your bag when you leave to check for stolen silverware? NO? Why not? Same shit.

      No it is not the same. You walk into a large retail store it is reasonable to assume you may be asked if they can check your bags. Is it reasonable to be asked for a bag check at a restaurant? No it is not. That argument is now void!

      I'm part of the 99.9% of customers who don't steal, so I'm not ok with someone enforcing a measure to catch .01% of people

      I don't know where your getting these estimates from, but I can tell you you'd be amazed at how many people steal something be it petty, lifestyle of organised. Having worked in retail for over 10 years I can tell you a figure for theft is more closer to 10% than 0.01%

      Even still, the search is such a pathetic search that they won't even find stuff if I was hiding it anyway.

      I thought you don't steal?

      So what reason exactly are all of you submitting to the search for? Think they're gonna ban you? As if. I refuse (ignore) all the time. Nobody gives a shit.

      If you do this enough at a large enough business they will notice eventually and see if someone is doing something that shouldn't. This is what separates the professional shoplifters from the amateurs, they rarely give business a chance to catch on

    • p1 ama on 15/02/2014 - 15:30
      +4

      99.9 + 0.01 =/= 100…

  • zooter on 15/02/2014 - 06:51
    +2

    You are all lucky. Back in my country we can't even take bags into stores and have to leave it at the entrance. Nobody checks but they keep it for you

    recently they've added rules that if you say you have valuables or costly items in bag, you can take it in

    • Tnetennba on 15/02/2014 - 23:21

      I've noticed at JB hi-fi when all the kids go there after school, there's a big pile of bags at the entrance. I guess it's the only way to make sure they don't get anything bigger than what fits down their pants.

    • regenade on 16/02/2014 - 23:09
      -1

      Very true and they also put a sign, if the bag is lost then its not their responsibility !
      And ya they open your bags and some security take things away before handing it over back.

      For me, I would reward people showing thir bag, may be handout a 5% Off Coupon for next shop when you show your bag, I just love to get rewarded, I dont care if US taped my internet as long as I get internet for free. WTF is wrong with people getting so shit with privacy, there is no more privacy any more anyway. I get 300$ from flybuys every year using all the dirty tricks and I dont care if they know I buy lot of underwears or whatever shit ! Who cares.

      • Tnetennba on 16/02/2014 - 23:42

        What is someone who is stealing going to do, show you their bag, prove they're stealing and accept a 5% coupon, or just walk out without a 5% coupon? Lol. Doesn't really work.

        Instead you just get all the people who aren't stealing to show you their bag, which doesn't actually stop theft, because they weren't stealing anyway.

  • andyken on 15/02/2014 - 09:23
    +2

    OP, you come to the shop is like you come to stranger house. You walk around, see the stranger bedroom, living room, garage, once you out the owner simply ask may i see your bag? He did not accuse you but asking you politely, so why using an excuse with law and rather waste your time and other by delaying other patron (in case in aldi only 2 staff) because you thing you are lawmaker or lawexpert?

    As others said, dont like to get search in people private property? Dont go there, shop online or do not bring any bag.

    Try to switch side, what do ozbargainer do if you are the staff and you meet this kinda jerk customer??

  • Unorthodox on 15/02/2014 - 09:52

    They only check the main pocket of the bag anyways. Courtesy..

  • Ughhh on 15/02/2014 - 11:30

    Most of the time they just take a quick peak at your bag. I've never been asked to move the stuff in my full bag around, or show any receipts for items which that store would also stock. I guess people who did steal would probably be somewhat nervous.

    I'm pretty sure non of the bag checkers give a crap about you and what you buy. What are they gonna do, remember what's in your bag and sell the info to Google?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join