So a salesperson is not authorized to ask for ID in case he/she feels the signature doesn't match? The only thing to do is to refuse the transaction?
Showing ID inconvenient? Not for me, I have it in my wallet next to my CC. I show it automatically when making a large purchase so the cashier doesn't have to ask for it. The only issue I can see is security but then one has to ask why to get CC in the first place?
You are trying to protect the consumer by asking them to give out more personal information? If you live in a state where your SSN is part of your DL# you will now have a persons full legal name, their address, their SSN, their DL#, a CC #...this is protection? Sounds like an easy recipe for identity theft. Judging some of the winners that work registers at some places I'd really rather them not knowing where I live and all the other information on my ID cards (even without my SSN).
Stop trying to second guess what major companies (such as the CC companies) are tyring to do, they have put exponentially more thought and brainpower into their policies than you can ever hope to (they probably have tens of thousands of legal man hours going over these things). By second guessing them you put your job at risk, the consumer at risk, the CC company at risk, the retailer at risk, etc.
There's nothing wrong with going that extra mile while at work, it's a trait that will lead to better things. However you can easily cross the line, there's a difference between showing up/leaving on time, going the extra mile to help answer a customers questions, always have a smile when greeting a customer and side-stepping what your bosses want you to do.
i personally have not, but one of my co-workers did. we had this guy try to pass off a fake dl along with a check. my co-worker noticed that something didn't look right and called the mgr in. after some more questioning, the guy just said forget it and left.
what's funny is he came back and tried again a couple of days later.
Oh, come on. Who has the muscle to take on Visa or Mastercard? As a small businessman, all I can do is refuse to take Amex (their rates for small business are hideous to begin with, and when they added a monthly fee for businesses that did less than a certain dollar amount every month, I told them to get lost) because virtually all Amex cardholders have a Visa or Mastercard as well.
If I refused to take Visa or Mastercard, I'd be out of business. As a result, I've had to raise prices to cover chargebacks. I get about one a year, but always on larger dollar amount orders. I religiously check signatures because chargebacks affect me personally, and I'm the only person who runs the counter. If I could request I.D. and take information on large purchases, I would.
For those of you who do check ID, have you ever caught anyone?"
Yes, but only after the fact.
I thought I would pull out my Merchant Agreements for the cards I accept and take a peek at the actual wording.
AMEX: No reference whatsoever to obtaining ID or additional information, none anywhere.
MASTERCARD: 2.1 The Merchant agrees to accept any Valid Card properly offered to the Merchant by a Cardholder for the purchase of goods or services without discriminating against the Cardholder in respect to such use, and without requiring additional identification or information from the Cardholder except as is necessary to complete the transaction.
In my opinion, if one wants to go by the letter of the law (which is what some here are wanting), there is room for interpretation in the areas I emphasized.
VISA: I looked but couldn't find my Visa Merchant Agreement so I called for one to be faxed, 7 -10 business days. I'll let you know
If I suspect fraud, I don't see why I shouldn't be able to ask for additional ID. Am I supposed to blindly trust every single soul who enters my store that their slightly different signature proves that they are the actual cardholder? If they aren't I'm the one that loses, not the cardholder and not the issueing institution... don't I have the right to not be defrauded and have some form of little teeny weeny confirmation?
That's capitalism. You can choose to accept their terms or not. Just because you're a small business doesn't mean you're exempt from them.
Yes, Visa and Mastercard are powerful companies and really have a strong hold on the retail industry but evenso, that gives you no right whatsoever to completely disregard their policies.
You do realize, of course, that if many businesses refuse to accept Visa and Mastercard, you could inspire change. So instead of moaning about the choice you made, why not band together with other businesses for a boycott? It certainly would be more effective than whining on a home theater web site that your poor business would go under without them. Because in the end, THAT is what keeps them in business.
Whining? What on earth are you talking about? I took you to task on a simple point, and you responded by insulting me and sidestepping the issue. Do you not agree that your statement "It obviously doesn't bother the merchants either, otherwise they'd have stopped doing business with Visa and Mastercard" is wrong, in light of my explanation?
Aaron, I suppose I should have rephrased my comment.
It obviously does not bother the merchants ENOUGH. Everyone has a breaking point, so if you're still using Visa and Mastercard, then it does not bother you enough to stop. As I see it, it doesn't really matter to the CC companies if you're bothered, so long as you keep using their services. So the difference between not bothered at all and not bothered enough are moot.
Aaron, I apologize for making it seem that I thought you were disregarding the policies. I did read your post and understood you were not, as much as you'd like to. My phrasing was more a holdover from the other post I quoted, not yours. I got worked up and said things too strongly. In that, as much as a hardass it seems that I'm being, I do want to thank you for following the policies. Truthfully you have my respect for trying to invoke change the 'right' way. I wish you and the other businesses the best of luck.
Well, I received the fax but it is totally illegible so I'll wait for the snailmail.
By the way, I have yet to have a customer who hasn't appreciated my request for additional ID... seven years and counting.
I think I'm going to be exiting this thread as it is beginning to frustrate me and I don't desire to take it any further and risk being seen as the idiot with a chip on his shoulder
(it may be too late)
Some of the attitudes boggle my mind (as I'm sure for some here my attitude in turn boggles theirs). If the shoe was on the other foot (which it often is for the merchant, merchants are also consumers so they have a unique understanding) I am 100% sure that the tune would change.
Anyone ever drove 56mph in a 55 zone? Hands? Anyone? Pot, kettle, black.
Sami, your link to that Indiana page was ok - until it got to the part where it said that they would 'make good' the sale.
Yes, they used to do that, but it got so bad that now they are making the seller pay for it. That is the difference - and the problem.
The rules for "Visa" were posted in a link earlier, but they don't help much either. But I have to say again that if a card is NOT signed, it is NOT a valid card, and if it is NOT valid, then it has to be illegal. If you don't sign it, you are violating the terms of the agreement, so there is NO agreement. Using scissors is a valid option. They can whine to their bank, and the bank WILL tell them the same thing - the card MUST be signed.
You may get further by not approaching this from the attitude you are the only business owner on HTF, or even somebody that has some perspective of both sides of the issue. Increasing the cost of an item to cover losses (wether through shoplifting or various bank charges, etc) is business 101 stuff.
Believe what you will, but that is how you are coming across. The funny thing is that you are arguing the same exact point as everybody else, and that is about protection. You want information from a customer to protect yourself, customers don't want to give out information to protect themselves.
That may be, but the way some are coming across here is that a smaller merchant asking to see some ID is the same as selling cocaine to babies and forcing them to snort it. That was my point with the 56/55.
As to the 'protection' comment, the difference is that the consumer is already protected from a myraid of angles when it comes to their Visa transaction, the merchant is protected by none and hence, in my opinion, should be able to set his mind at ease a bit by taking a quick peak at a DL.