I work in a grocery store in Indiana. Because we have such amazing deals on wines and beers we sell a LOT of them. In July of 2010 a law was passed stating that ALL persons purchasing alcohol for carryout must present a valid ID (not the only state to do so, by the way). That was almost a year ago. With that being said, let's talk about my day (This actually happened a few days ago, but that's kind of irrelevant).
I'd rather not use this blog to rant about the mundane things that happen in my life, but this is different. What happened today has simply motivated me to express my opinions about a deeper subject. Allow me to explain. Today a woman took me to task for telling her that our store follows the law. Crazy, huh? We actually abide by those silly things? But I should explain. Here is the story and here is what I think about the deeper issue. But to preface, knowing that most people's knee-jerk reaction to this law coalesces with hers, I hope a different perspective might change that a bit. Perhaps not, but it's always good to at least check out the other side before dismissing it entirely. I'm willing to bet I've got some ideas that may not have occurred to many on the other side of the counter. Let's find out, shall we? First, a bit of exposition. . .
At my unnamed place of employment I oftentimes am located in what we refer to as the "demo station" where we hand out samples and demonstrate the products for people. When you are doing this particular task you are prominently displayed and not engaged in stocking shelves or some other task many people are loathe to tear you away from simply to ask you where the peanut butter is. Consequently, you get asked a lot of questions. "Where are the nuts?" "The shelf is empty, do you have more in the back?" etc. You are also somewhat of a captive audience. as straying too far from the demo station is generally frowned upon. Things can get dicey sometimes.
I've been lectured by well-meaning (and sometimes perhaps not) people on most subjects that can come to mind. I've been pestered by people who create a scene by drawing random customers into conversations they would not have otherwise thought they would be engaging in whilst shopping for the basic necessities of life (use your imagination). I've been embarrassed by people spouting their personal views on religion, politics, conspiracy theories, etc. that are oftentimes on the fringe of what the general public would consider rational. I've also been forced to endure conversations so laced with loud profanity that they belonged in a strip club more so than a grocery store, causing me to send apologetic glances toward mothers with children and anyone else who might have overheard. None of this happened today, though. Today I got a different sort of "pleasure." Today I was asked to break the law.
A customer walked up to me today to ask me if her 71-year-old father would have to show his ID to buy wine. I replied in the affirmative. It is, of course, the law. She told me she thought that if that were the case he would put back all of his potential purchases and leave. I informed her that this was the law and there is nothing I can do about it. I explained that if we were caught not following the law it would be a possibility for us to lose our liquor license and that could, in all likelihood, shut us down. We do a LARGE volume of liquor sales. She followed with the quintessential argument: he is clearly of age and therefore should not be forced to show an ID. As I thought we were just in a simple conversation I told her that I was in favor of the law as it did not discriminate and therefore leveled the playing field (simply one of my arguments as we shall see). She said the law was already discriminating as far as making the drinking age 21.
Now I could start to see that this was a different kind of conversation. No, let me rephrase, this was swiftly becoming an argument. But I didn't know when to quit (my fault, I was a philosophy major. . .). I replied that the aspect of the law requiring someone to be a certain age to participate in a certain practice was not the same thing. That was simply requiring someone to reach an age of reason and accountability and a very different situation. She was not satisfied with this. After elevating her tone and repeatedly referring to her 71-year-old father I recognized when things had gone too far and simply said, "Ma'am, I'm not going to debate this with you. It is the law and our store's policy. I'm sorry." Fortunately at this point she walked away and did not argue any further, nor did she run to one of my managers to complain about the insensitivity of the jerk handing out samples. For that I am grateful. But why was I subjected to this onslaught in the first place, and what did it gain? And what about that silly law? Is it really so silly? Is it as pointless as many suggest?
No, it's not silly and it's not pointless, but let's discuss my first question first. Why was I subjected to this? Notwithstanding is the fact that I wasn't even at a register. I've been privy to more than one irate customer who did not want to show their ID or forgot to bring it on their 2 hour trip simply to buy wine, but this was at a register. What I experienced today was not. But I digress. I have come to recognize that certain people have very strong feelings about this law and most are euphemistically referred to as "of a certain age." They are generally the older set. They are clearly legal and if the law weren't in place, truth be told, I wouldn't card them. But it is and I have to. So why do they get so angry? Honestly I don't know. My guess is they are unaccustomed to much change in their lives, and going back to showing an ID to purchase something they want is just that, change. They are also set in their ways (and I would argue) believe they are due a certain deference that young whipper-snappers like myself (ahem) should not necessarily get. I'll admit readily that with age comes wisdom and perspective (to some extent and to some people) and that we should respect our elders, but reaching the age of 70 does not allow you to shoot kids who don't stay off your lawn. Why should you be able to skirt any other law? Shake your fist or cane at the law the way you do the kids, would be my advice. Or even contact your local legislator, as I had nothing to do with the law in the first place. Now this lady arguing with me was not elderly (and let me say that the vast majority if any age simply show their ID and move on), but she was representing someone who was and I have no doubt he would have taken me to task more harshly than she did.
So now to the deeper question this not-so-subtle tête-à-tête raised: is this law really silly? I'll give you some reasons now why I don't think it is. Before I do that, however, it's confession time. When the law first was proposed and then took effect I kinda thought it was silly as well. Why should I card the old lady with the walker? Ludicrous, right? Well, only sort of. My first point is what I said to the lady at the demo counter today. The law removes any sort of discrimination. If you want to buy alcohol, you show an ID. If you are of age you get to buy it and that's that. It applies across the board. There is no age issue anywhere other than the difference between 20 years, eleven months and 31 days and 21years. And if you are sufficiently libertarian you may want to take up the issue of drinking age, but once again, I digress. Seriously, though, if you are of age and have an ID (which everyone should) there should not be a problem. This leads me to my next point.
Thirty seconds folks. Really. If you are 22 years old I will scrutinize your license quite a bit more than I will someone who is 72. But if you are this woman's 71 year old father, I'm going to look at your license long enough to get the year punched in correctly and that's about it. I am not looking for a fake. I am not even really checking the expiration date much or the picture or anything else like that. I just have to type in a date and I make it reasonably convincing. Let's face it, the elderly get their licenses renewed on time. They don't carry fakes. And they generally don't change hair color or hair styles as often as the young hipsters that float through my lines each day. So I'm sorry to inconvenience you for 30 seconds, but in the grand scheme, folks, it ain't so bad. And just for the record, I don't care how old you are. Your age issues are not my concern. People get older and that is what they do every day. I can't believe I'm 25. Just kidding. I'm 33 as of this writing. It is what it is and there you go. False modesty concerning age went out with bodices and meeting suitors in parlors with your mother present to keep you from showing your ankle. Heaven forbid you have the vapors. . . I find it comforting that a large percentage in between these two sets actually find it flattering to be carded. It's annoying at the same time, though, because I have to explain that it's the law. They know that already, though. But they don't care. It's nostalgia. And I am down with that.
Forty? Really? So you want to change the law to card anyone who looks over forty? What does that mean? When I was 20 and in college I worked with a guy at a movie theater that was 17. He bought me beer on a regular basis. He could have passed for forty. I kid you not. If John Lennon and Jerry Garcia had a baby it would look just like Chris. These people are rare, but they do exist. And looking at a total stranger and judging their age is impossible. I happen to be the other way around. Most people who don't know me think I'm in my early twenties. (Uh, add a decade, please. But I'm cool with it.) But the other way is true as well as exemplified in my buddy Chris. Having bar-tended and sold wine and beer retail for many years the one thing I know is that judging a stranger's age simply by looking at them doesn't work. So is forty really enough to cover any freaks of nature? (Sorry Chris.) No. So where do we start to discriminate? How about nowhere?
"What, I look like I'm forty?" I simply can't wait until I don't card someone and they say that to me. I'm going to say, "No, I thought you were sixty." And I will, too. Ask my anonymous coworkers. But in all seriousness, we, as cashiers on the front lines, will hear this question. "Why didn't you card me?" will be something I will have to answer with a bit of sarcasm and wit and just enough tact and humor to not be fired. And I'll do it, but it will get annoying. Just as when the "new" law took effect almost a year ago people took it out on cashiers around the state, they will do the same for this one, just with slightly altered wordage. This may seem like a petty reason for keeping the current law, but spend some time behind a cash register and come back and talk to me, k?
And while we're on the subject of guessing one's age I pose this query: Is Excise going to conduct a poll and find someone who people generally think looks forty and start sending them out to do stings? Will I be fined or arrested if I don't card this person? What if it is someone who a simple majority thinks looks under forty, but I think they look over? And who's judgment will be the last? Will I have to explain why I thought that laugh line and that particular wrinkle made me think "forty" while 51% screamed "card 'em?" I laugh at this, frankly. I've discussed my age vs. appearance issue above and I can tell you for certain that through many an unofficial poll people have placed me everywhere from high school to very close to my real age. But as I also alluded to, some people are on the other side of this equation and look older. Will I be fined for not carding someone who is 39? If that is the case, I will be carding everyone. And if you object you can be sold to by someone else or my manager can take the heat. Now, I have not read the proposed new law, but if my above situation is not punishable by legal recourse than we are basically back to where we were before any of this hoopla. It's at your own discretion and just don't sell to anyone under 21, forty is just a guideline to consider.
Okay, so I've already talked about discrimination, a negligible amount of time, aging differences and the possibility of fining a cashier for their (at best) guess of someone's age, let's now talk about money. Laws are passed by people whose salaries are paid by our taxes. When they are in session working on new laws or amending current ones they are using up time, and as the old adage goes: time is money. They spent time and money enacting this law to enforce carding everyone. Now they want to and have spent more time and money to amend it so as not to offend the sensitivities of those who feel they shouldn't have to spend 30 seconds to pull out a card they should always have on them. Is this fiscally responsible? No. I will admit that we are doing reasonably well in that area in Indiana, while many other states are rife with austerity measures that make this issue look like a schoolyard spat. But either way, every time my legislators (yes, I pay taxes and vote, they are mine as much as anyone's) spend their time on something like this I feel they are shortchanging other valid issues that could be worked on that get a bit more bang for the buck. Your tax buck. I have no specific examples, but good grief, if they have nothing better to do than this they should take some time off without pay and we'll call 'em when we need 'em. Don't forget that every minute our legislators work on one pet project is a minute (time and therefore money) they can't work on another one. Is this really what we want? legislators spending time enacting laws and then spending more time repealing or amending them? In some cases this may be necessary and good, but is it in this particular one? I don't think so.
So long story short I think we should keep the law. Will we? No. Legislation is already underway to amend it. Do I agree with this path? No. I have clearly stated that. Will I abide by the law? Yes, but with some caveats: I will (when things change) not card people who are clearly of age. But if I card someone and they don't have their license, tough luck. If I card a person who refuses to show their ID? Nope. If I card a person who gives me a hard time about any of this I will refer them to my manager (who are frankly awesome when it comes to dealing with difficult situations). And if I don't card someone who happens to be under 40 years of age and I am fined for it, I will take it to court in a heart beat!
I'd rather not use this blog to rant about the mundane things that happen in my life, but this is different. What happened today has simply motivated me to express my opinions about a deeper subject. Allow me to explain. Today a woman took me to task for telling her that our store follows the law. Crazy, huh? We actually abide by those silly things? But I should explain. Here is the story and here is what I think about the deeper issue. But to preface, knowing that most people's knee-jerk reaction to this law coalesces with hers, I hope a different perspective might change that a bit. Perhaps not, but it's always good to at least check out the other side before dismissing it entirely. I'm willing to bet I've got some ideas that may not have occurred to many on the other side of the counter. Let's find out, shall we? First, a bit of exposition. . .
At my unnamed place of employment I oftentimes am located in what we refer to as the "demo station" where we hand out samples and demonstrate the products for people. When you are doing this particular task you are prominently displayed and not engaged in stocking shelves or some other task many people are loathe to tear you away from simply to ask you where the peanut butter is. Consequently, you get asked a lot of questions. "Where are the nuts?" "The shelf is empty, do you have more in the back?" etc. You are also somewhat of a captive audience. as straying too far from the demo station is generally frowned upon. Things can get dicey sometimes.
I've been lectured by well-meaning (and sometimes perhaps not) people on most subjects that can come to mind. I've been pestered by people who create a scene by drawing random customers into conversations they would not have otherwise thought they would be engaging in whilst shopping for the basic necessities of life (use your imagination). I've been embarrassed by people spouting their personal views on religion, politics, conspiracy theories, etc. that are oftentimes on the fringe of what the general public would consider rational. I've also been forced to endure conversations so laced with loud profanity that they belonged in a strip club more so than a grocery store, causing me to send apologetic glances toward mothers with children and anyone else who might have overheard. None of this happened today, though. Today I got a different sort of "pleasure." Today I was asked to break the law.
A customer walked up to me today to ask me if her 71-year-old father would have to show his ID to buy wine. I replied in the affirmative. It is, of course, the law. She told me she thought that if that were the case he would put back all of his potential purchases and leave. I informed her that this was the law and there is nothing I can do about it. I explained that if we were caught not following the law it would be a possibility for us to lose our liquor license and that could, in all likelihood, shut us down. We do a LARGE volume of liquor sales. She followed with the quintessential argument: he is clearly of age and therefore should not be forced to show an ID. As I thought we were just in a simple conversation I told her that I was in favor of the law as it did not discriminate and therefore leveled the playing field (simply one of my arguments as we shall see). She said the law was already discriminating as far as making the drinking age 21.
Now I could start to see that this was a different kind of conversation. No, let me rephrase, this was swiftly becoming an argument. But I didn't know when to quit (my fault, I was a philosophy major. . .). I replied that the aspect of the law requiring someone to be a certain age to participate in a certain practice was not the same thing. That was simply requiring someone to reach an age of reason and accountability and a very different situation. She was not satisfied with this. After elevating her tone and repeatedly referring to her 71-year-old father I recognized when things had gone too far and simply said, "Ma'am, I'm not going to debate this with you. It is the law and our store's policy. I'm sorry." Fortunately at this point she walked away and did not argue any further, nor did she run to one of my managers to complain about the insensitivity of the jerk handing out samples. For that I am grateful. But why was I subjected to this onslaught in the first place, and what did it gain? And what about that silly law? Is it really so silly? Is it as pointless as many suggest?
No, it's not silly and it's not pointless, but let's discuss my first question first. Why was I subjected to this? Notwithstanding is the fact that I wasn't even at a register. I've been privy to more than one irate customer who did not want to show their ID or forgot to bring it on their 2 hour trip simply to buy wine, but this was at a register. What I experienced today was not. But I digress. I have come to recognize that certain people have very strong feelings about this law and most are euphemistically referred to as "of a certain age." They are generally the older set. They are clearly legal and if the law weren't in place, truth be told, I wouldn't card them. But it is and I have to. So why do they get so angry? Honestly I don't know. My guess is they are unaccustomed to much change in their lives, and going back to showing an ID to purchase something they want is just that, change. They are also set in their ways (and I would argue) believe they are due a certain deference that young whipper-snappers like myself (ahem) should not necessarily get. I'll admit readily that with age comes wisdom and perspective (to some extent and to some people) and that we should respect our elders, but reaching the age of 70 does not allow you to shoot kids who don't stay off your lawn. Why should you be able to skirt any other law? Shake your fist or cane at the law the way you do the kids, would be my advice. Or even contact your local legislator, as I had nothing to do with the law in the first place. Now this lady arguing with me was not elderly (and let me say that the vast majority if any age simply show their ID and move on), but she was representing someone who was and I have no doubt he would have taken me to task more harshly than she did.
So now to the deeper question this not-so-subtle tête-à-tête raised: is this law really silly? I'll give you some reasons now why I don't think it is. Before I do that, however, it's confession time. When the law first was proposed and then took effect I kinda thought it was silly as well. Why should I card the old lady with the walker? Ludicrous, right? Well, only sort of. My first point is what I said to the lady at the demo counter today. The law removes any sort of discrimination. If you want to buy alcohol, you show an ID. If you are of age you get to buy it and that's that. It applies across the board. There is no age issue anywhere other than the difference between 20 years, eleven months and 31 days and 21years. And if you are sufficiently libertarian you may want to take up the issue of drinking age, but once again, I digress. Seriously, though, if you are of age and have an ID (which everyone should) there should not be a problem. This leads me to my next point.
Thirty seconds folks. Really. If you are 22 years old I will scrutinize your license quite a bit more than I will someone who is 72. But if you are this woman's 71 year old father, I'm going to look at your license long enough to get the year punched in correctly and that's about it. I am not looking for a fake. I am not even really checking the expiration date much or the picture or anything else like that. I just have to type in a date and I make it reasonably convincing. Let's face it, the elderly get their licenses renewed on time. They don't carry fakes. And they generally don't change hair color or hair styles as often as the young hipsters that float through my lines each day. So I'm sorry to inconvenience you for 30 seconds, but in the grand scheme, folks, it ain't so bad. And just for the record, I don't care how old you are. Your age issues are not my concern. People get older and that is what they do every day. I can't believe I'm 25. Just kidding. I'm 33 as of this writing. It is what it is and there you go. False modesty concerning age went out with bodices and meeting suitors in parlors with your mother present to keep you from showing your ankle. Heaven forbid you have the vapors. . . I find it comforting that a large percentage in between these two sets actually find it flattering to be carded. It's annoying at the same time, though, because I have to explain that it's the law. They know that already, though. But they don't care. It's nostalgia. And I am down with that.
Forty? Really? So you want to change the law to card anyone who looks over forty? What does that mean? When I was 20 and in college I worked with a guy at a movie theater that was 17. He bought me beer on a regular basis. He could have passed for forty. I kid you not. If John Lennon and Jerry Garcia had a baby it would look just like Chris. These people are rare, but they do exist. And looking at a total stranger and judging their age is impossible. I happen to be the other way around. Most people who don't know me think I'm in my early twenties. (Uh, add a decade, please. But I'm cool with it.) But the other way is true as well as exemplified in my buddy Chris. Having bar-tended and sold wine and beer retail for many years the one thing I know is that judging a stranger's age simply by looking at them doesn't work. So is forty really enough to cover any freaks of nature? (Sorry Chris.) No. So where do we start to discriminate? How about nowhere?
"What, I look like I'm forty?" I simply can't wait until I don't card someone and they say that to me. I'm going to say, "No, I thought you were sixty." And I will, too. Ask my anonymous coworkers. But in all seriousness, we, as cashiers on the front lines, will hear this question. "Why didn't you card me?" will be something I will have to answer with a bit of sarcasm and wit and just enough tact and humor to not be fired. And I'll do it, but it will get annoying. Just as when the "new" law took effect almost a year ago people took it out on cashiers around the state, they will do the same for this one, just with slightly altered wordage. This may seem like a petty reason for keeping the current law, but spend some time behind a cash register and come back and talk to me, k?
And while we're on the subject of guessing one's age I pose this query: Is Excise going to conduct a poll and find someone who people generally think looks forty and start sending them out to do stings? Will I be fined or arrested if I don't card this person? What if it is someone who a simple majority thinks looks under forty, but I think they look over? And who's judgment will be the last? Will I have to explain why I thought that laugh line and that particular wrinkle made me think "forty" while 51% screamed "card 'em?" I laugh at this, frankly. I've discussed my age vs. appearance issue above and I can tell you for certain that through many an unofficial poll people have placed me everywhere from high school to very close to my real age. But as I also alluded to, some people are on the other side of this equation and look older. Will I be fined for not carding someone who is 39? If that is the case, I will be carding everyone. And if you object you can be sold to by someone else or my manager can take the heat. Now, I have not read the proposed new law, but if my above situation is not punishable by legal recourse than we are basically back to where we were before any of this hoopla. It's at your own discretion and just don't sell to anyone under 21, forty is just a guideline to consider.
Okay, so I've already talked about discrimination, a negligible amount of time, aging differences and the possibility of fining a cashier for their (at best) guess of someone's age, let's now talk about money. Laws are passed by people whose salaries are paid by our taxes. When they are in session working on new laws or amending current ones they are using up time, and as the old adage goes: time is money. They spent time and money enacting this law to enforce carding everyone. Now they want to and have spent more time and money to amend it so as not to offend the sensitivities of those who feel they shouldn't have to spend 30 seconds to pull out a card they should always have on them. Is this fiscally responsible? No. I will admit that we are doing reasonably well in that area in Indiana, while many other states are rife with austerity measures that make this issue look like a schoolyard spat. But either way, every time my legislators (yes, I pay taxes and vote, they are mine as much as anyone's) spend their time on something like this I feel they are shortchanging other valid issues that could be worked on that get a bit more bang for the buck. Your tax buck. I have no specific examples, but good grief, if they have nothing better to do than this they should take some time off without pay and we'll call 'em when we need 'em. Don't forget that every minute our legislators work on one pet project is a minute (time and therefore money) they can't work on another one. Is this really what we want? legislators spending time enacting laws and then spending more time repealing or amending them? In some cases this may be necessary and good, but is it in this particular one? I don't think so.
So long story short I think we should keep the law. Will we? No. Legislation is already underway to amend it. Do I agree with this path? No. I have clearly stated that. Will I abide by the law? Yes, but with some caveats: I will (when things change) not card people who are clearly of age. But if I card someone and they don't have their license, tough luck. If I card a person who refuses to show their ID? Nope. If I card a person who gives me a hard time about any of this I will refer them to my manager (who are frankly awesome when it comes to dealing with difficult situations). And if I don't card someone who happens to be under 40 years of age and I am fined for it, I will take it to court in a heart beat!
No comments:
Post a Comment