Sears retraining employees

[thelowpriceleader]

I wonder how many of their stores will misinterpret this as a directive to begin requiring ID. They had a lot of problems with stores requiring ID as it was.

 

http://www.retail-worker.com/forum/about11860.html

[GEORGE]

LOOK AT THE BACK OF THE CARD...

 

LOOK AT THE SIGNATURE SLIP...

 

COMPARE

 

It is not rocket science

=================

No signature...the card really should be refused

 

(or demand they sign the card and ask for driver's license)

=================

CID IS NOT A LEGAL SIGNATURE...THE CARD IS VOID WITH-OUT A SIGNATURE

[AnonymouslyIndebted]

I believe a person's signature on the back of the card and the person's signature on the slip is not enough proof you're the authorized person on the card and that it's not a fraudulent purchase. Because it is easy to forge one's signature especially if they're so used to doing it.

 

Merchants are doing this to protect them from disputes on fraudulent purchases.

[GEORGE]

I believe a person's signature on the back of the card and the person's signature on the slip is not enough proof you're the authorized person on the card and that it's not a fraudulent purchase. Because it is easy to forge one's signature especially if they're so used to doing it.

 

Merchants are doing this to protect them from disputes on fraudulent purchases.

I am protected by the credit card companies

 

The business is NOT intending to protect me from anything

[Grizzly Bear]

I believe a person's signature on the back of the card and the person's signature on the slip is not enough proof you're the authorized person on the card and that it's not a fraudulent purchase. Because it is easy to forge one's signature especially if they're so used to doing it.

 

Merchants are doing this to protect them from disputes on fraudulent purchases.

 

They have no right to do this, as they are bound by contract.

[AnonymouslyIndebted]

I believe a person's signature on the back of the card and the person's signature on the slip is not enough proof you're the authorized person on the card and that it's not a fraudulent purchase. Because it is easy to forge one's signature especially if they're so used to doing it.

 

Merchants are doing this to protect them from disputes on fraudulent purchases.

 

They have no right to do this, as they are bound by contract.

Yes, I know they are not allowed to do this, but most merchants are doing it. And consumers have the right to refuse in providing ID.

 

However, there are certain situations where an ID is required for purposes other than the credit card transaction, like when purchasing alcohol, tobacco products, or certain drugs. They may also require ID if it is an unusual transaction flagged during the credit card authorization process.

[Grizzly Bear]

I believe a person's signature on the back of the card and the person's signature on the slip is not enough proof you're the authorized person on the card and that it's not a fraudulent purchase. Because it is easy to forge one's signature especially if they're so used to doing it.

 

Merchants are doing this to protect them from disputes on fraudulent purchases.

 

They have no right to do this, as they are bound by contract.

Yes, I know they are not allowed to do this, but most merchants are doing it. And consumers have the right to refuse in providing ID.

 

However, there are certain situations where an ID is required for purposes other than the credit card transaction, like when purchasing alcohol, tobacco products, or certain drugs. They may also require ID if it is an unusual transaction flagged during the credit card authorization process.

 

Most merchants? Everywhere I have been those who do are vastly outnumbered by those who do not.

[GEORGE]

I believe a person's signature on the back of the card and the person's signature on the slip is not enough proof you're the authorized person on the card and that it's not a fraudulent purchase. Because it is easy to forge one's signature especially if they're so used to doing it.

 

Merchants are doing this to protect them from disputes on fraudulent purchases.

 

They have no right to do this, as they are bound by contract.

Yes, I know they are not allowed to do this, but most merchants are doing it. And consumers have the right to refuse in providing ID.

 

However, there are certain situations where an ID is required for purposes other than the credit card transaction, like when purchasing alcohol, tobacco products, or certain drugs. They may also require ID if it is an unusual transaction flagged during the credit card authorization process.

MOST???

 

Most follow the rules

 

CANCER STICKS and BOOZE REQUIRED ID WHEN PAYING CASH

 

The credit card should never be the "TRIGGER" for asking for ID

Edited February 26, 2010 by GEORGE

[Uncle Leo]

I believe a person's signature on the back of the card and the person's signature on the slip is not enough proof you're the authorized person on the card and that it's not a fraudulent purchase. Because it is easy to forge one's signature especially if they're so used to doing it.

 

Merchants are doing this to protect them from disputes on fraudulent purchases.

They have no right to do this, as they are bound by contract.

Yes, I know they are not allowed to do this, but most merchants are doing it. And consumers have the right to refuse in providing ID.

 

However, there are certain situations where an ID is required for purposes other than the credit card transaction, like when purchasing alcohol, tobacco products, or certain drugs. They may also require ID if it is an unusual transaction flagged during the credit card authorization process.

I would dispute "most" merchants, also.

 

As far as age-restricted items, that's a matter of law and applies regardless of form of payment. *IF* a law were passed requiring ID for credit card usage, then the company policies would then become null and void... but such a law does not exist at this time.

[green2408]

I believe a person's signature on the back of the card and the person's signature on the slip is not enough proof you're the authorized person on the card and that it's not a fraudulent purchase. Because it is easy to forge one's signature especially if they're so used to doing it.

 

Merchants are doing this to protect them from disputes on fraudulent purchases.

 

They have no right to do this, as they are bound by contract.

Yes, I know they are not allowed to do this, but most merchants are doing it. And consumers have the right to refuse in providing ID.

 

However, there are certain situations where an ID is required for purposes other than the credit card transaction, like when purchasing alcohol, tobacco products, or certain drugs. They may also require ID if it is an unusual transaction flagged during the credit card authorization process.

 

 

"Most"??? Not where I am. In fact it's been a long while since I ran into it, and after I reported several merchants, some a couple of times, it seemed to cease entirely. It's interesting because it seemd nearly universal about 3 yrs ago when I moved here (central CA) and I maybe made a report about 8 or 9 times at most. Maybe word got around.

 

Age-restricted purchases are an entirely different reason to ask for ID than the futile attempt to prevent credit card fraud by subjecting everyone to loss of privacy and risk.

[GEORGE]

...and to think...some FOOLS are ticked off for weeks if they don't get asked for ID

[lolipop]

...and to think...some FOOLS are ticked off for weeks if they don't get asked for ID

This is an exaggerated statement