To want to know why Tesco won't sell me alcohol when I'm with my teenage daughter

[MrsSchadenfreude]

Given that it is perfectly legal for me to give her a glass of wine to drink at home (and has been since she was 5)? Was told in Tesco today that I couldn't buy wine as DD1 was with me. DD1 is 19 but had no ID on her, as we had just nipped out for a few bits. Cashier finally called a manager, who gave me the Spanish Inquisition, and finally said "OK, I trust that you aren't going to give any to your daughter."

It's not like I was buying WKD - I had a bottle of Champagne and one of an expensive Bordeaux!

But apparently it's "Even if you know for certain that someone is legally old enough to purchase alcohol, ask them to produce ID for no purpose whatsoever

Not far off. Where we are located a very large number of our customers are very regular locals. Same people served day in, day out. We have to ID them every. Single. Time. Even though we know they are over 18 (but under 25).

Depends on the person serving and how old they think you look.

Well, that can't be true, else how could any cashier ever be accused of not following the policy? All they'd have to say is "They looked over 25 to me." Boom.

I’m with golden it makes no fucking sense.

Think 25 was brought in cause its harder to look 25 at 15,than it is to look 18.

I never asked for i.d if i knew the person was over 18.

What some people don't get is although the 'think 25' is a company policy - it's a condition of the license. You must have one of these initiatives in place, it's noted as bad practice to not follow it. (Ledgers are kept showing all times employees ID someone to prove it's being used, these are reviewed)
So yes, although technically it's a policy, not a law, to not follow it can lead to problems with the licensing authority. Hence why retailers are shit hot on implementation of the policy they use. And someone not following the policy can (and I know someone who has been) be sacked for not following company policy - same as if they broke any other company policy. This is usually seen as gross misconduct, instant dismissal.

That makes sense beerwench

What doesn't make sense is for the policy itself to require staff to check ID of customers whose age they already, definitely know to be over 18. That makes no sense. At all.

This thread started not because someone over 25 was asked for ID to buy alcohol but because some stores seem to be INCORRECTLY thinking that the law states they have to ask for proof that ALL people in the shopping party are over 18.

The 'think 25' policy is fine as it would be illegal to sell alcohol to someone under 18 and the cashier could indeed get a personal fine BUT the cashier has not broken the law if he/she sells alcohol to me (at my level of grey haired wrinkliness think 25 doesn't apply) because I am accompanied by my 14 year old son. Refusing to sell alcohol to a fifty year old woman because she has a teenaged child is ridiculous and if it is a genuine company policy then it is a policy that will lose them customers.
Personally I don't think it is a genuine policy in Sainsburys, Tesco, Co op, or Waitrose as I have happily purchased alcohol in all those stores whilst accompanied by my 14 year old DS and/or 19 year old DD without being challenged.

Has any shop assistant ever been successfully prosecuted for selling alcohol to someone doing the family shop who happened to have their teenage offspring with them? Why on earth would you think that someone earning not far off minimum wage would be willing to risk being the first, along with a £5000 fine and loss of employment, just because you want a glass of wine with your dinner? Would you risk it in your employment? I certainly couldn't afford to. And any reasonable person shouldn't expect someone else to either.

Judging someone's age, or whether they're likely to give the alcohol to a minor is subjective. It might be obvious to you that you're clearly over 25 and won't be enjoying tequila shots with your 12 year old on a school night but there is obviously something that has made the cashier question that. Instead of being a massive arsehole, or accusing the cashier of being a jobsworth, or flouncing off in a tantrum leaving a trolley full of shopping for some poor sod who's just trying to earn enough to pay their bills to put back on the shelf or waste it all by having to chuck it in the bin because there's no way of telling how long it's been out of the freezer, why not take the ten seconds it should take to realise that the cashiers don't make company policy and that if you want to complain, it should be to the head office and not Sarah on checkouts.

@TheGoldenBowl

What doesn't make sense is for the policy itself to require staff to check ID of customers whose age they already, definitely know to be over 18. That makes no sense. At all.

Absolutely agree! It's a PITA to do, not to mention all the hassle you get for doing it. My personal opinion is that it's the powers that be paying lip service to the (real) worries about drinking and the impact it has. Shove the responsibilities onto someone else, who then faces the consequences if they don't comply. But sadly my personal views wouldn't get me far if I flouted the company policy or law. I could still find myself sacked. That's why I comply with this and other bonkers company policies. Including the ones about selling to someone on behalf of an underage child. Yes the rules there are over zealous, but I'd still choose to follow them rather than lose my job for not doing so - even if it's ridiculous.
I personally would shop somewhere that wasn't so over zealous with that particular policy, were I to be affected by it one day. Therefore they'd lose my custom.
not that my piss poor spend a week would even be noticed

I think we all know the cashiers don't make company policy. I myself am questioning the policy itself. Because it seems to make no sense.

Demanding ID from someone when you already know they're 20 makes no sense to me. Either the cashier is allowed to use their judgement or they're not. You seem to be suggesting that they are and that they should. Well then. Their judgement in one of these mad scenarios might have been "I know for fact that my friend is 20, and therefore I judge that she's...umm... 20" The end.

The other scenario, in which parent doing weekly shop with teenage kids is asked to provide ID for the kids could go something like "I can see with my own eyes that this parent is buying wine as part of their normal groceries and I have no evidence whatsover that they plan to ply the children with Chablis, so I judge that it's fine." Admittedly the second scenario is bit more woolly... but if you're going to insist that the cashiers exercise judgement, then you can't prosecute them becausw your judgement was different.

(Was replying to snotnose btw)

I think we all know the cashiers don't make company policy You would think so Golden, but from reading some of the posts on this thread, along with the many other previous threads moaning about retail workers, it would appear not.

Apologies Golden, I pressed too many buttons and posted too quickly.

Actually, I don't think it should be a judgement call, precisely because it is so subjective. If a cashier sells alcohol to someone who doesn't have i.d, but who they know is 20, and trading standards are next in the queue, then they'll be penalised because it's 'Think 25' not 'Think 18'. How is that fair on the cashier? The risk they would be taking is far too high.

And yes, to any sensible person, of course the parent buying Chablis probably isn't going to give it to their child. But why should the cashier risk getting the sack for it?

So the cashier is meant to use their own judgment but isn’t actually allowed to? Think 25 is only there if you can’t be sure of their age so if you feel they are under 25 but not sure if they are above 18 (because the law clearly states you can buy alcohol at 18) then you ask for ID but surely if you know they are over 18 then you do not ask? How can you be penalised for selling alcohol legally? No one views people’s ages in the same way, so because someone may see someone as a different age and that someone may be trading standards then that means it’s completely fair to penalise the cashier? I’m confused now.

In no way do I blame the cashier though and I always understand if they have to ask. It’s the policy that just makes no sense at all.

That's the whole point, Quack. They are supposed to use their judgement, but there are so many instances where they could easily be penalised for it, simply because it is so subjective. Cashiers risk being penalised by the law, or by their company or, as a previous poster wrote, being threatened with disgusting levels of violence.

So the cashier is meant to use their own judgment but isn’t actually allowed to?

Ime, yes! Basically if you get your judgement wrong, don't ask for ID, and get caught then you face the consequences. If you judge it right, or don't get caught then no harm, no foul. It's why people like me are deemed as being jobsworths. Trust me, I've seen colleagues thrown under a bus over this in a place I worked that employed over zealous policies. Add to that that most shop workers etc aren't in unions, are on zero hours contracts and have generally the bare rights, and can't afford to be out of work you get workers who are more scared of losing their job than an annoyed customer.

I'm really confused too! Think 25 is not really a thing if the person who's supposed to be following it isn't allowed a judgement call: it's like saying to them "Challenge them if you're not sure they're 25" at the same time as saying you will disregard their opinion any time they are sure someone is 25. It's basically saying "ID everyone because we will prosecute you if we disagree with your judgement" - the 25 bit becomes irrelevant.

it's like saying to them "Challenge them if you're not sure they're 25" at the same time as saying you will disregard their opinion any time they are sure someone is 25. Exactly! Couple this with the risk of making the wrong choice when deciding whether or not to sell alcohol to adults with minors and cashiers just can't win!

"ID everyone because we will prosecute you if we disagree with your judgement"

No, if you don't follow the think-25 and ID a 24 year old who you know is 24 then you are disciplined/ sacked not prosecuted. Either way as Beer is explaining the cashier has no choice but disciplinary and prosecution are different things.

I agree it can be overkill in some shops, but please everyone, don't be rude to the cashiers.

Managers will put the fear of God into you if you fuck it up - prosecution, fine, disciplinary/dismissal - and not always be entirely clear on where to draw the line, "just use your best judgement" - so of course some cashiers will manage to be even more paranoid than the shop wants them to be while others in the shop might be more lax.

I've had some assistants get really OTT apologetic when refusing me a sale "I'm so sorry, but I really don't think I should I'm so sorry" over and over while I'm stood there saying "it's ok, I know it's your job", I can only assume that like me they've had more than one customer swear at them and call them stupid over fags/alcohol.

Yeah, increasingly - disciplined, not prosecuted (my error) - but, either way, it's no fun for the cashier. I don't blame them at all. I blame the nonsensical system. It's not fair on them and it makes no bloody sense.

Doesn't bother me, I've learned to buy trollies of alcohol on my own & then sell it out of the boot of my car by the playground - got nothing but contempt for these amateurs that take the kids with them.....

Which is exactly what anyone who's going to give it to under age drinkers would do.....

You're not wrong piffle !