Michigan Votes Forum

My, Senator Anderson has been busy working on the People Republic of Michigan.  More time consuming, expensive regulations on Michigan businesses driving up prices to Michigan consumers who are having a hard time of it already because 11% of them are unemployed because of stupid intervention in the market by people like Anderson.  The wheel just keeps on turning.

 Sen. Glenn Anderson (D) wants to add another expense to retailers.  As if they don't have a problem with already being taxed out of business in Michigan.  All anyone has to do is "ask" what the return policy is.  How about the concerns of the eco-fanatics with using more paper who want to save the trees?

This is a good bill.

Return policy is part of the purchase contract.  Printing it on the purchase receipt -- which often includes all kinds of other stuff added by the seller and not related to the purchase -- clarifies this important matter.  Purchasers are entitled to know the terms of the transaction. This will help buyers know the terms of their purchases.  That might actually help retailers avoid costly misunderstandings.

 and it will add to the length of the reciept. something most folks throw away. how about the store posting it on the wall in the customer service area. it would cost less, only effect those who WANT to return something, and could be read at the customer's leasure, and would not be thrown away.

most shoppers can quote the return policy chapter and verse of the stores they shop at. those that can't, find out about it when they go to make a return.

i think that this is one more step toward government being involved in every step of our lives.

this bill is a waste of legislative time and effort.

the legislature can start working on saving the state now that this hunk of detrius is out of the way.

 I'm sorry, but, this is not "a good bill". 

Clearly you do not operate a business in Michigan because if you did you would understand the difficulties of compliance.  Sure, it's not that difficult to put the policy on the receipt but this is not the only rule retailers need to follow and the aggregate of all the rules becomes so difficult to comply with that honest businesses become criminals because they simply do not have the resources to keep track of and enforce all of the regulations.  The additional effect is to drive smaller businesses with fewer resources out of business thus reducing competition in the marketplace and reducing the number of choices open to consumer.  With less competition prices go up and the consumer not only pays for the actual price of compliance but also pays higher prices due to less competition.  Billions of dollars are wasted on well intended regulations that have the net effect of harming those they are intended to help.  Furthermore, this type of legislation is arrogant and condescending since it implies that consumers are not smart enough to be able to make choices for themselves so they need laws from much smarter people like Senators and yourself to make choices for them.

By the way, as a retailer, I'm happy to handle the cost of any misunderstandings.

 this bill underscores the necessity of getting government out of the business of impeding business.

changeagent:

Clearly you do not operate a business in Michigan because if you did you would understand the difficulties of compliance.  Sure, it's not that difficult to put the policy on the receipt but this is not the only rule retailers need to follow and the aggregate of all the rules becomes so difficult to comply with that honest businesses become criminals because they simply do not have the resources to keep track of and enforce all of the regulations.  

First, you have no honest basis for making assumptions about my business experience.

You acknowledge it is not difficult to print the return policy on the customer's receipt.  Nor is it difficult to post a notice of the policy in the store (as also is called for by this bill).  So, other than a general aversion to being regulated, why the resistance to doing it?    

 This is a lousy bill.  More and more government intervention and interference in free enterprise.  SaneMichigander does not seem to place one foot in front of the other.  O.K. add this extra, unnecessary expense on the business owner and then you'll start questioning why the items you purchase cost more. They cost more because you supported and the government added another cost of doing business.  The business owner has to make up the cost somewhere.  Duh? 

 okay sane...

i'm going to ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.

because it is an ADDED EXPENSE TO MY BUSINESS that is UNNEEDED, UNNECESSARY, AND UNWANTED.

how much paper will be wasted by this bill? i have to raise the costs of my products to buy every inch of register tape this bill forces me to waste.

how much time is wasted by this bill? i have to raise the cost of my products to cover every lost labor hour this bill forces me to waste.

i'd like to know what, exactly YOUR business experience is that you don't realize these simple facts.

my return policy is stated explicitly in the contract that each and every customer must sign before i begin work.

walmart's policy is already posted on the wall.

so is kroeger's, and walgreen's, and even the 'mom and pop party stores' around the state.

you also assume a level of ignorance of customers with this bill, but keep on thinking that if a customer CANNOT read the big sign on the wall, that he WILL amazingly be able to read the tiny little typing on the reciept.

once again, no one thought this thing through. it's just a 'feel good' measure.

crazycajun:

how much time is wasted by this bill? i have to raise the cost of my products to cover every lost labor hour this bill forces me to waste.

my return policy is stated explicitly in the contract that each and every customer must sign before i begin work.

First, it's good to know that you state your return policy on contracts for your rubber glove sales.  I'm impressed.

But then I wonder ...

You say you would have to raise the price of your rubber gloves to cover the new cost this bill would cause you to incur in doing what you say you already do in selling them.

How could that be?

Methinks you are either very confused or confessing to outright dishonesty here.

 SaneMichiganer -- You know what is bringing business and this country down?  People like you who think that Big Brother government needs to interfere and involve itself in every aspect of our lives!  Government intervention and dictates by those who have made a career in politics have cost the American taxpayer dearly.  We are now reaping the "benefits" of their social engineering. Anyone for more GATT, NAFTA'S and so-called free trade?  Government mandates, ignoring State Rights, creation of more bureaucrats and bureaucracies who are not answerable to the private sector is turning our liberties up on their ear.  You are enought to have our Founding Fathers turning in their grave. 

You call crazycajun dishonest when he does the right think without being told and dictated to some socialist/fascist bureaucrat who probably could not garner a position in the private sector?  Me-thinks you have a problem with the ideal of individual choice!

CRAZYCAJUN -- You might as well throw in the towel in trying to get through to SaneMichigander because he or she is very much indoctrinated into believing that we are working for the State!  When the anvil falls on all of of freedoms, and individual rights "SaneMichigander" will be calling out "Comrade" to the bureaucrats.

 SaneMichiganer -- You know what is bringing business and this country down?  People like you who think that Big Brother government needs to interfere and involve itself in every aspect of our lives!  Government intervention and dictates by those who have made a career in politics have cost the American taxpayer dearly.  We are now reaping the "benefits" of their social engineering. Anyone for more GATT, NAFTA'S and so-called free trade?  Government mandates, ignoring State Rights, creation of more bureaucrats and bureaucracies who are not answerable to the private sector is turning our liberties up on their ear.  You are enought to have our Founding Fathers turning in their grave. 

You call crazycajun dishonest when he does the right THING  without being told and dictated to some socialist/fascist bureaucrat who probably could not garner a position in the private sector?  Me-thinks you have a problem with the ideal of individual choice!

CRAZYCAJUN -- You might as well throw in the towel in trying to get through to SaneMichigander because he or she is very much indoctrinated into believing that we are working for the State!  When the anvil falls on all of of freedoms, and individual rights "SaneMichigander" will be calling out "Comrade" to the bureaucrats.

The real cost of return policies is the returns themselves, which push consumer prices upward far more than printing terms of a retailer’s return policy on a receipt will.  Unless, of course, the retailer intends to violate his own stated policy …

Assembling my own cash register slip receipts for tax preparation purposes, I see space to print a brief statement of return policy on virtually every one.  That leads me to think the retailer’s incremental cost of implementing this bill would be little or nothing in the way of paper or ink.  And since the process is automated in almost every case today, the cost of inserting such a statement in the receipt script would be nominal, at most.

The real costs still would lie in actually carrying out the return policy.  A clear statement of the policy on printed receipts might actually reduce the cost of carrying out the return policy by discouraging frivolous or specious return attempts, or reducing the amount of employee time in processing and settling return transations. 

I respect a general aversion to regulation.  But nobody yet has made a coherent argument against this bill.   

 so, the more you print on the register receipt, the less people will return things?

is that what you are trying to say?

consumers already know what the return policy is.

it costs the stores nothing to return items. if they are defective, a claim is made to the manufacturer, who warranties their product both through the store and in person. in fact, most would rather get their defective items back directly from the consumer, it gives them a chance to "happy up the customer".

for those items returned because of "other reasons", as long as the product is resellable, it usually IS re-sold.

nothing in this bill will do anything to quell that.

the bill says nothing about an ABBREVIATED return policy. therefore i must take it that the entire return policy must be on the reciept.

as my return policy is ALREADY IN THE CONTRACT SIGNED BY EACH AND EVERY CUSTOMER, it would be an unnecesary redundancy

and yes, each and every business owner that i have spoken with is AGAINST MORE REGULATIONS. aren't YOU?

 i think you are right, inform...

but i'll keep trying.

it's fun to watch him evade answering questions.

inform4:

 SaneMichiganer -- 

You call crazycajun dishonest when he does the right think without being told and dictated to some socialist/fascist bureaucrat who probably could not garner a position in the private sector?  Me-thinks you have a problem with the ideal of individual choice!

No.  I commend crazycajun for stating his return policy in purchase papers for the rubber gloves he peddles.  

No.  You are completely wrong about my attitudes toward personal choice.  I believe in and advocate personal choice as a general rule.  But that "general rule" does not preclude my advocating laws and government regulations that I believe will benefit the majority of people.  

As for crazy, I have to wonder when he turns around and claims that if this bill passes he will have to raise the price on the rubber gloves he sells to cover increased costs because the law then would require him to do what he already is doing.  

That is a classic case of doublethink.  

Crazy either is thoroughly confused (a real possibility, given the record of his behavior here), or he is dishonestly claiming a nonexistent new cost to justify a price increase to his customers (also a real possibility, given the record of his behavior here).

Crazy certainly is entitled to raise the price he charges for his rubber gloves, for any reason he sees fit, as far as I am concerned.  But claiming his price increase is the result of a new expense that he clearly has not incurred is ... well, to be blunt about it, is lying.  

 thank you for that assessment.

you don't believe that retailers will have to spend money to implement this policy?

why isn't the government WILLING TO COVER THE COSTS if it is going to be SO HELPFUL TO SO MANY PEOPLE?

the truth is, it's just another UNFUNDED MANDATE.

perhaps you don't mind those, but i detest them.

by the way... what is YOUR retail experience? cashier at a walmart?

door greeter, perhaps???

 by the way...

how is this bill going to HELP ANYBODY???

it won't increase returns... which would help the consumer.

it won't DECREASE RETURNS... which would decrease costs, helping the consumer.

it will only INCREASE GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE.  THE TRUE GOAL OF THE LEFT.

useless regulations doing nothing productive.

as trueblue is so fond of saying...

nothing of substance...pffft....

 Crazycajun -- At least I know that anyone who holds a dinner party with "Sane" in attendance would not have to worry about people over-staying their welcome.  After getting into a discussion with this individual everyone would more than welcome leaving at a reasonable time -- if not earlier than they expected.   Blah, blah, blah, blah -- let me talk you in circle until you go blind!  At least any bureaucrats would know they have someone on their side!

 i must say... i hadn't given a single thought to a party with "sane" in attendance. i believe i've almost lost my appetite... almost...

you do make a good point, though. but sometimes it's fun to use his very own circular logic to prove our points.

and it drives him, and his fellow travellers nuts.

keep up the good work.

 Well S---Michigander, my basis for making assumptions about your business experience is that you don't think like a business owner, or at least, you don't express yourself here like a business owner.  So, please tell me, are you the owner of a retail business?

You took my comment about it not being difficult to print the return policy on the receipt out of context.  I further stated "...this is not the only rule retailers need to follow and the aggregate of all the rules becomes so difficult to comply with that honest businesses become criminals because they simply do not have the resources to keep track of and enforce all of the regulations."  I think my point was quite clear if one opens their mind enough to acknowledge it.

 wasting your time asking questions. he won't (can't) answer them.

it's part of the disease of being a leftist.

not one question has been answered.

but your assessment of him is quite correct. and NO, he cannot open his mind...  it's welded shut.

changeagent:

 Well S---Michigander, my basis for making assumptions about your business experience is that you don't think like a business owner, or at least, you don't express yourself here like a business owner.  So, please tell me, are you the owner of a retail business?

You took my comment about it not being difficult to print the return policy on the receipt out of context.  I further stated "...this is not the only rule retailers need to follow and the aggregate of all the rules becomes so difficult to comply with that honest businesses become criminals because they simply do not have the resources to keep track of and enforce all of the regulations."  I think my point was quite clear if one opens their mind enough to acknowledge it.

Yes.

Your assumptions, like your arguments against this bill so far are all wet.

No, I did not take your comment, that it is not difficult to print the store return policy on receipt, out of context.

Your comment stands on its own two feet as a direct declaration. 

Your claim that I took it out of context  is based on the fact that your statement appeared in the same run-on sentence as the assertion that, "this is not the only rule ...." blah, blah, blah.  

The only "context" those two statements share is that they appear in the same run-on sentence as you happened to type it.  The two statements are quite unrelated otherwise, in that they address two completely different issues:  (a) the difficulty of complying with this requirement, which you acknowledge is inconsequential; and (b) a general beef about regulations and compliance.  Neither one expands upon or bolsters the other.  They stand separately.

As I have stated before, I respect a general aversion to regulation, which you evidently have. But I do not respect arguments against regulation that are illogical, contain obvious falsehoods, or are otherwise incoherent.

 but you DO support legislation that is useless, expensive, and represents another unfunded mandate by government.

why must you see goverment intrude so into private lives and businesses?

do you allow this level of government intrusion into YOUR home? how about YOUR BUSINESS?

by the way... you never do say what your business IS exactly...

crazycajun:

by the way... you never do say what your business IS exactly...

I wasn't asked.

 OK, now I get it.  You're really, really smart and anyone who has a point of view other than the one you have tattooed on your brain is insufferably stupid, just like all those stupid consumers you and your like need to protect from themselves. 

If you choose to think that a reference to this regulation and the hundreds of other regulations we must endure is "unrelated" then that is your problem.  I think most "sane" people could make the connection, run on sentence or not.  If you think that because one item (in this case, a regulation) in itself may not produce an intolerable burden, but that many more similar items added to it does not make a difference, try this.  Go lay down and have one of your close friends place a brick on your chest.  This will probably cause minor discomfort but no big deal.  Now have them place 800 more bricks on your chest one by one and see if total sum of the bricks causes you any problems.

I've suffered fools like you before and I won't waste more of my time trying to have a conversation with you.  You are arrogant and condescending and it is people like you who will help eliminate individual freedom to the point that tyranny will become the way of life in this country.

changeagent:

I've suffered fools like you before and I won't waste more of my time trying to have a conversation with you.  You are arrogant and condescending and it is people like you who will help eliminate individual freedom to the point that tyranny will become the way of life in this country.

Wow, that is a real relief.  Now I won't have to put up with your inane, content-less prattling about this issue, and personal abuse anymore.

Have a nice day.

 if the PEOPLE are the government, and the governmen is OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, AND FOR THE PEOPLE. why is it that everything the left does is SO AGAINST THE PEOPLE?

and now, if you disagree with them, they call you STUPID.

pity they haven't answered any questions that would EDUCATE US as to why they are against the people.

i guess they are afraid that we will figure out their true agenda.

 but you'll still have to put up with mine.

have a nice day.

oh, and by the way... i don't think your witticism will stop him from posting... really...

crazycajun:

oh, and by the way... i don't think your witticism will stop him from posting... really...

Neither do I.

But I still don't have to pay any further attention to "his" inane, no-content prattling, or yours.

I am having a great day!

 but you KNOW you just can't resist....

 cajun, you're right, I won't quit posting, I'm just not going to waste my time with insane.  I was hoping to hear how the brick experiment went.

 you don't REALLY think he's bright enough to STACK BRICKS, do you?

I’ve been following this thread with some interest and, sadly, a lot of disappointment.  It appears no one here is guilty of appreciating the obvious common sense fairness this recommended addition to the Act allows the typical consumer.  I recently purchased a pair of prescription lenses from an establishment that failed to communicate their refund policy to me in any form prior to purchase.  There were no notices posted that described the policy, nor were there any indications in any of the sale documents as to the specifics of their refund policy.  Initially I had no reason to anticipate the need to request a description of the return policy from this vendor.  All my previous experience with purchasing eyeglass lenses was such that requesting and obtaining a refund if not satisfied was a given.  In fact, I specifically remember such an incident a few years ago involving my wife and a different eyeglass lens vendor that resulted in a more than courteous refund to my wife because the lenses she ordered did not meet her approval when completed.  I mistakenly assumed a right to a refund when not satisfied was a given.  In this case, the lenses I ordered were made incorrectly (I could barely see through them) and took too long to make.  When I requested a refund (I had purchased lenses from another vendor in the interim), the vendor refused, stating that their policy was no refunds on lenses.  I am now out almost $300 and feel I’ve been treated unfairly.  I would wager if the same thing happened to one of you, you would naturally yearn for the fair treatment most of us feel is inherent in a participating democracy.  Of course, there are those who believe any plea for fairness from a consumer’s position is by definition an attack on the “rights” of the business owner.  And yes, I DO own a business!  This Bill, if passed, will be a welcomed benefit to the Michigan tourism industry and to the everyday consumer in this state.

 do the words caveat emptor mean anything to you? do you put your return policy on your reciept? did you give the business a fair opportunity to resolve your problem before you went and purchased another pair of glasses?

as an owner of a business, you would expect your customers to beware, and be aware. you, as a business owner, if putting a return policy on the reciept is fair, should already be putting your return policy on your own reciept. and you would expect a fair opportunity to address the customer's complaint, and be given a fair opportunity to resolve it to the benefit of both the customer and your business. you would feel slighted if one of your customers treated you as you have treated this business owner.

My most valued asset as a small business owner in this area is my reputation with my customers.  I would never refuse one of my customers a refund if he/she was justifiably dissatisfied with my product, no matter what.  The value lies in the return/repeat business and the word-of-mouth approval of my business practices, not in some short term gain realized at the expense of my customer‘s overall satisfaction.  If you owned a business and valued your long term existence, you would understand.

 i do own a business, and i do understand. did you give the owner of the store a fair chance to resolve your issues before you went to another place to get another pair of glasses? or did you exercise the 'nuclear option' and take your business elsewhere before expecting the first store to happily refund your money? taking your business elsewhere is the option we as business owners hope is reserved for after we attempt to help and negotiate with a customer, and fail, not before.

do you have many customers that do that type of thing to you? or do they at least allow you the courtesy of letting you attempt to solve the issue?

I’m sure this effort to clarify my position to you will be futile, but the circumstances in this situation were such that I had no other choice but to order new lenses from my regular optometrist immediately.  My current lenses were cracked and needed replacement.  The lenses ordered from the vendor I mentioned in the original post took a longer than normal time to complete, and I realized that a remake from this vendor would suffer the same time constraints.  I had no such luxury of time and the original vendor knew this all along.  In any case, your suggested understanding of this dilemma seems to indicate your desire to “qualify” any customer’s request for a refund and subject it to a seller-controlled analysis that can, more often than not, result in adding insult to the injury of the customer.  That would not be smart business, in my experience.  However, intelligent people can disagree.

 let me see if i got this straight. you have a 'regular' optometrist that you usually go to, but you didn't give him your business. you went to another optometrist, was unhappy with the service, so you decided to not give the second optometrist an opportunity to resolve the situation and earn your business. when the second optometrist took too long, you added insult to injury by going back to the first optometrist and expected him to 'get you out of a jam' and produce fine results in short order. then you expected a cheerful, happy refund from the second optometrist no matter what his refund and return policy was.

if the second optometrist had printed his 'no returns, replacement only' policy on his reciept, would you still be upset with him? would you even have noticed it? and would you be mad at him when he pointed it out to you?