AIBU to think this Supermarket is judging my parenting?

[Doingmybestmum]

AIBU? Standing in a queue in Tesco with (home from uni) DD chatting to me. I was clutching a much anticipated bottle of Pimms, with accompanying lemonade, strawberries, mint etc... goodies going through when charmless checkoutee asks for age of said 21 year old DD and ID for her or she would not be able to sell me the Pimms. I calmly explained that I (substantially over 21) am buying said alcoholic beverage with my money and a) DD is only standing next to me b) its my money c) DD is over 21 and d) what on earth... the manager was called and I was allowed to purchase. AIBU to think that this is ridiculous - I understand that adults must not buy alcohol for underage children, but if you were - would it be Pimms, and would you have the "child" standing next to you?

They both could get prosecuted

I do agree with OP's point, though. It does strike me that some supermarkets have an over zealous policy. Maybe underage purchases are more prevalent in some supermarkets than others and it depends on the demographic that shops there. Most of ours are retired people so it's not as much of a problem.

Actually I have experienced this policy in Tesco maybe 2 years ago with a 10yo. I was buying one meal including a bottle of JD bbq sauce at the self service checkout.
It told me to wait for assistance which you get to expect for no reason whatsoever. This time though a very nice apologetic young man came and said sorry about the silly policy and put it through for me. ofc I smiled and laughed with him. I had genuinely forgotten all about it, as everything went as it should.

If he had required us both to produce ID or leave the bbq sauce I would naturally have left the shopping as I would have to go elsewhere anyway. I would not however have abused him for it. I would have made it clear that I thought the policy was ridiculous though, because it would have been.

gandalf I am not sure if you are intentionally misunderstanding almost everything I write, but I keep writing completely reasonable true stuff, and you keep saying that I have written completely different, untrue stuff which you can write all sorts of emotive things about. Are you Daily Mail?

So I said that I don't want to abuse anyone and suggested a peaceful protest as an alternative.
I said that moving goods from tills to shelves happens several times a day in every supermarket.

Both those things are true. I mentioned the latter because you said it was nobody's job to put people's shopping away, when clearly it is and happens every time an item is broken, open, unwanted, more expensive than expected, snuck in by a child and noticed, and myriad other reasons, including realising at the till that your method of payment isn't where you thought it was.

When you respond that "this" is not true, and then emote 3 paragraphs about abusive behaviour leaving staff in tears, gossip behind the scenes and people being banned from the shop because "They can't just behave as they please." and it not being a daily occurrence despite me saying it is, well..... perhaps you would like to address something I actually said?

Yes emailing head office or using social media are other valid ways to proceed, but so is refusing to reward the company with your money when they have just wasted your time and energy on a false promise.

The problem here is that people (including those training the supermarket staff) don't understand the difference between the law and the supermarket policy.

The ID25 policies are just policy not law.

This ridiculous situation of people not being served because they have a teenager with them is nothing to do with the law.

It is not illegal to buy alcohol when you have a teenager with you. The cashier is not breaking the law even if you declare loudly that when you get home you are splitting the bottle with your 14 year old. It is only against the law if the adult is buying the alcohol on behalf of the child, so the person who is given cash outside to buy a bottle for the teenagers waiting round the corner. Even then the cashier will only be found guilty if they sold the alcohol knowing that it was being bought on behalf of a minor, so if they ask who it is for and it is for the adult then they are fine.

I suggest anyone who has a bad experience writes to head office or posts on the supermarket Facebook or Twitter. They will probably send you a gift voucher!

As for the lady refused service in a pub because she was pregnant the pub was definitely acting illegally by discriminating against her due to her pregnancy.

I haven't misunderstood at all but you are doubting my personal experience. I've worked in a supermarket for 11 years (and various customer facing roles prior to that) and say on good authority that, no, it doesn't happen every day. It is very rare in our shop (so we must do something right). But, when it does, it is invariably done rudely. I've yet to hear of someone politely leaving an entire belt of shopping. The two don't collocate, do they? How would you do it politely???

Also, you weren't referring to split packets or forgotten/unwanted items in your post and neither has anyone else but, yes, indeed, that happens every day and takes seconds to put back. It is completely different scenario to leaving a whole belt of shopping.

And I think abandoning a weekly shop for one or two declined items is far more 'Daily Mail' and emotive than what I have written.

YAB a bit U. I also work as a cashier and I had one man get all arsey with me when he came in with a young guy who looked under 25. Young lad was buying lemonade, older guy was buying a bottle of vodka (doesn't take a genius to work out the lemonade was going to be used as a mixer), when I said I needed to see his younger friend's ID he got all stroppy and tried to convince me they weren't together despite arriving and walking around the shop together

You have to be quite strict with things like this because you don't know what customers could be test purchasers from the police/Trading Standards. Remember most places have a Challenge 25 policy so your DD being 21 won't make any difference.

gandalf456
I haven't misunderstood at all

Then why are you still asserting that I said that leaving entire trolleys of shopping at the till happens every day?
Not only have I not anywhere said nor meant that, I have just explained it to you longhand with full reasoning and examples.
Probably you are not misunderstanding, but I do like to try to see the best in people

but you are doubting my personal experience.
Nope, I am not doubting your personal experience, nor have I said that I am. I have said that you have written things which are untrue, such as that it is nobody's job to put left shopping away, and that I have said things that I provably have not.

I've worked in a supermarket for 11 years (and various customer facing roles prior to that)
My customer facing time probably equates to yours, give or take, including supermarket cashiering, and I doubt you could surprise me with stories of bad customer behaviour. Not only do I not doubt you, I have seen plenty. I have also seen good customer behaviour, even when making complaints!

I've yet to hear of someone politely leaving an entire belt of shopping. The two don't collocate, do they? How would you do it politely???

I did when I forgot my method of payment (but thankfully not my new baby) and I was certainly a whole lot less rude than several of the staff. I did feel a fool, however sure, if I had felt more righteous indignation I might have responded differently to the sneers, raised eyebrows, tutting and acidic comments about having to put it all back. I am sure your experience must include staff who do not behave as they would like others to, and it does work both ways.
I know several people who could leave an entire trolley load in protest without being offensive. I probably know more that could not even if they wanted to.

I suggested it as a peaceful protest, so yes you would get people who like to be abusive doing it to join in and have an excuse to be abusive, and the full spectrum to the people who felt abused and helpless and let it out as anger before but now had a non-abusive outlet for their frustration. I imagine flouncing would be common.

Also, you weren't ....blah blah blah crap calling me a liar
I said what I said and meant what I said, you chose to interpret it the way that let you respond how you wanted to, and are now trying to cover.

And I think abandoning a weekly shop for one or two declined items is far more 'Daily Mail' and emotive than what I have written.
Not sure about that meaning of Daily Mail as I don't read it, only that it has people on MN trying to stir up stories with lies and hyperbole.

Personally I doubt I could manage to be as emotive leaving a trolley of shopping as you were in stitching me up for things I didn't say. We are clearly very different people.

Surely the checkout person should have used common sense. It's legal for children under the age of 18 to drink at home with parental supervision in fact it is legal from the age of 5. It is illegal for under 18s to purchase alcohol.....not consume so as you were buying it I would say she was just being a jobsworth!

The problem is the checkout staff aren't being trained well enough. The law is there to stop teenage kids hanging about outside supermarkets and getting adults to buy them alcohol. Unfortunately checkout staff end up questioning parents of teen/adult children if they are with them...it has happened to me. The law says that a child can drink in their own home (I think it's over age of 5!) under supervision anyway, so even if you were buying it for your kids you wouldn't be breaking any laws. Checkout staff need to have the ins and outs explained more clearly, they are just following rules after all. Nowadays if I want to buy alcohol and one of my grown up kids is with me but has no ID, I get them to stand away from the checkout to avoid the hassle!

let it out as anger should read anger or eye-rolling acceptance

Ok

I was ID'd in Marks & Spencer's the other week, I wanted a bottle of wine, weird, because I am 46, yet there were plainly much younger people ahead of me in the queue, and she didn't ask them for anything! :)

Yes, you are being VERY unreasonable. It's the law - it was nothing personal at all, nor was it a judgement against you. The cashier had no choice. It does not matter what the beverage is (also you would be amazed how many parents buy alcohol when the child is right there). The rules for ALL supermarkets are if a person looks under 25, they MUST be checked for ID. The reason is that it is very hard to tell the difference between somebody who is say 16 and somebody who is 18 but you can definitely tell who is over 25. They are NOT judging you. They are doing their job. If they don't and they get caught they will lose their job, go to prison and be landed with a large fine. Any customer who comes to the till might also be a 'test' run by the police (yes - they genuinely do these). Just because you were buying the alcohol with your own money makes zero difference - you are still buying alcohol therefore the legal protocol of asking for ID still stands. Make sure your DD carries ID with them - anyone under 25 who is planning to purchase alcohol should. Would you risk YOUR job, getting a huge fine and a prison sentence for a complete stranger ...? I doubt it - especially over something as petty as this.

Middleagedmumoftwo - Yes but the law still states that you are NOT allowed to SELL alcohol to anyone under 18 regardless of where they're going to drink it, and also they're not allowed to sell it to anyone who they suspect is going to give it to underage children. So yes, they can, will and should card even accompanying children with the parent if they suspect they are going to give it to them - that's the law. They've been trained. It is some customers who don't know the law who are the problem a lot of the time.

You can rest easy, OP. She wasn't actually judging your parenting, she was judging your choice of alcoholic beverage...

I was with my little brother and his girlfriend (both 21) buying some wine. We got asked for ID (I'm 35). They both had ID. I did not, so was not allowed to buy the wine. Drove me mad that one.

andadietcoke - Yeah it can be irritating but it has been the law for some time - at least 9 years. If you're under 25 and looking to buy alcohol or going with somebody who is, always take ID. It is the law.

I've been asked for ID twice recently by the Ocado person. I do look young for my age (annoyingly especially if I'm not wearing makeup and my hair is in a ponytail - i.e. when I look like shit) but not THAT young. I asked the last lady for an explanation, and she said that they have been coming down REALLY heavily on supermarkets and there are plants. If you are caught out, as the delivery driver, you will lose your job instantly and Ocado faces a huge fine.

If you're under 25 and looking to buy alcohol or going with somebody who is, always take ID. It is the law.

No it isn't, as has been explained clearly and comprehensively very many times on this thread. Requesting evidence of age if you look under 25 or for companions who might be under age is merely the policy of some companies.

At what age does this policy kick in? I have bought alcohol in the company of my daughter, and no-one has ever asked what age she is.

In all supermarkets, the policy is the same. Challenge 25 is to protect checkout/kiosk assistants from un/knowingly selling to people under age to legally purchase alcohol. However, it is the individual, not those accompanying them - at Morrisons' stores - who is paying for the product who is subject to an ID/proof of age check. If there's a suspicion that it's being bought for someone under age, then normally they are not with the purchaser... and in those circumstances, Security and the Store Management are made aware and yes, can be called.
Yes checkout ops are doing their jobs to challenge - there's no discretion - getting it wrong can result in loss of job, arrest and prosecution. The store can also lose its licence to sell alcohol and be fined. The checkout operator, if sacked, will also probably end up with a criminal record...
The one in this case could have been more tactful, but I certainly wouldn't have challenged you. It can be very difficult indeed, to judge someone's age. And we are regularly checked and tested, especially when changes in the law come into effect.

We now have to challenge people who buy paracetamol, or products containing it. Yet people of any age can legally buy lighters and matches without being challenged...

Happened to us in a supermarket - DH had just turned 30 - and does not look young - facial hair, balding. I was pregnant. Refused to serve us both because we didn't have any ID with us (purely because we had just moved house and had sent our driving licences off to have the addresses changed on them) - we were both in 'work' clothes (ie covered in paint etc) , one us us had car keys in our hand, I had wedding & engagement rings on, paid by credit card etc - we really did look like a 30 something couple .

Left all our shopping, went to the next supermarket and didn't even get asked for any id (good job as we didn't have any!)

Although the most laughable occasion was in our branch of sainsburys..... I, at the time a 26 year old, got ID'd buying a copy of Notting bloody hill! Oh and I also go asked for ID when buying some sparking WATER!

pippistrelle - Even if it is a policy rather than the law it might as well be a law - if you break store policy, you get fired. I doubt you'd risk getting fired, fined and slung in prison and blacklisted from working certain jobs for the rest of your life for a complete stranger - at least for something as silly as buying booze.

There is no 'age ' the policy 'kicks in' at. What it states is that if you have any reason to believe that person is going to give the alcohol to whoever is accompanying them, and hey don't look over 25, you need to ask their age and to see ID. If it were a group of 18 years olds and the cashier suspected they were all going to drink the alcohol, they would ask them all too. This is why your daughter doesn't get carded every time.

I should mention that even if a parent is buying alcohol for their child (or a friend for some friends) ir doesn't matter if they plan to drink it at home where it's legal - the law says that cannot knowingly sell alcohol to anyone under 18 or anyone they believe is going to give it to somebody under 18 (and the only way to be sure is to card anyone you have reasonable suspicion is going to drink it is to ask for ID if they look under 25). The reason? I have mentioned in another comment that the reason it is 25 is because it can be hard to tell the difference between say a 16 or 17 year old and an 18 year old but you can generally tell if somebody is over 25.

The reason stores are this overcautious is because

a) They get fined. Heavily.
b) The staff member gets fined and possibly faces a prison sentence
c) There are frequent and regular sting operations - any person who you think may be under 25 or who you have reason to suspect may be buying alcohol for somebody with them who looks under 25 could be sent by the police. If you serve them without checking their ID ... game over.

Maybe it is store policy, but store policy is as good as law to employees. They're not doing it to make your life difficult. And as I said before, it's not like this a new thing either - it's been around a while. It's really not hard to carry ID around and if you do forget it, it's a pain, but it's not the cashiers fault.

You are NOT being unreasonable. Charmless Checkout girl was being a prat. End of.