Wal-Mart ever not let you print your own pictures?

[Garbz]

Lol I like that analogy. But it's very true. This is not something that is store policy or an oh I'll remember for next time. This is blatantly against the law. And I agree with your sarcastic comment Socrates everyone who does this SHOULD be fired on the spot. I find this no different than assault in the workplace which is (in Australia anyway) instant dismissal in nearly every workplace. It's something people should just know.

 

[Socrates]

Lol I like that analogy. But it's very true. This is not something that is store policy or an oh I'll remember for next time. This is blatantly against the law. And I agree with your sarcastic comment Socrates everyone who does this SHOULD be fired on the spot. I find this no different than assault in the workplace which is (in Australia anyway) instant dismissal in nearly every workplace. It's something people should just know.

Yes, fire everybody that ever makes a mistake! No second chances for anybody! Fire the world!

 

[JerryPH]

Yes, fire everybody that ever makes a mistake! No second chances for anybody! Fire the world!

To use Einstaine's theory of relativity (lol)... its all realtive. If they had put away the CD behind the counter and given the PAYING CUSTOMER the chance to prove it was OK to print, all would have been good. I am sure it is not store policy to destroy CDs that they "believe" are some other photographer's property. It was not the clerk's place to blatantly destroy private property.

What if those were pics that existed ONLY on that CD and were irreplaceable? What if those were pics were of family members long passed away?

The irresponsible actions of that "well meaning" cleark could have gone from protection of the copyright laws to destruction of irreplaceable private property and I think in this case, it warranted more thana slap on the wrist. I am kinda on the fence about if it is severe enough to cost that persontheir job... but I am sure as heck leaning that way in my feelings.

If I was store manager, I would at the VERY least have a STRONG talk to that clerk, make them sign a writting warning to learn the law before becoming judge and jury... and I would take them out from behind the counter and give them mop duty for a month... as well as making them pay for TRIPLICATES and blow-ups of all the client's pics.

 

[Socrates]

What if those were pics that existed ONLY on that CD and were irreplaceable? What if those were pics were of family members long passed away?

Let's see. "Long passed away." That would mean that the originals were film-based prints and that the pics on the CD were from scans. Gee, what happened to the originals?

If I was store manager, I would at the VERY least have a STRONG talk to that clerk, make them sign a writting warning to learn the law before becoming judge and jury... and I would take them out from behind the counter and give them mop duty for a month... as well as making them pay for TRIPLICATES and blow-ups of all the client's pics.

I agree except for paying for triplicates. Put this in perspective and bear in mind that we're discussing a minimum-wage (probably uneducated) individual. Let's face it. To save some pennies, you take your shots to an establishment that's famous for paying their employees garbage yet you expect that those employees have law degrees. You, as the customer, have some responsibility here.

 

[Battou]

Let's see. "Long passed away." That would mean that the originals were film-based prints and that the pics on the CD were from scans. Gee, what happened to the originals?

Digital Photography is not all that new, The individual shown in the image could easily have been gone for the better part of ten years or twenty years (yes the first Digital camera came out in 1988) So that is not totaly out of the relm of possibility.

I agree except for paying for triplicates. Put this in perspective and bear in mind that we're discussing a minimum-wage (probably uneducated) individual. Let's face it. To save some pennies, you take your shots to an establishment that's famous for paying their employees garbage yet you expect that those employees have law degrees. You, as the customer, have some responsibility here.

No, but I would expect their superiors to one)Know better and Two) take the stiffist possible action against reoccurance to cover their own buts. I would expect thirty some odd dollars out of pocket would be a lesson that even the stupidest individual would not soon forget.

 

[Socrates]

Digital Photography is not all that new, The individual shown in the image could easily have been gone for the better part of ten years or twenty years (yes the first Digital camera came out in 1988) So that is not totaly out of the relm of possibility.

You're telling me that the customer had only one copy of such extremely valuable and non-replaceable files! Wow. That moron deserves whatever he gets and I have no sympathy for him.

No, but I would expect their superiors to one)Know better and Two) take the stiffist possible action against reoccurance to cover their own buts. I would expect thirty some odd dollars out of pocket would be a lesson that even the stupidest individual would not soon forget.

Sure. Let's take it out on the poor slob at the bottom. Let's pay him garbage yet expect him to act like a professional.

 

[JerryPH]

Let's see. "Long passed away." That would mean that the originals were film-based prints and that the pics on the CD were from scans. Gee, what happened to the originals?

Make up a scenario... Lost in a fire... whatever. The point is what would they have done to repay the family if that was the case? There is NOTHING they could do, and the person who cracked that CD over the counter had no way of knowing. They expected prints to be made, not for some ignorant moron to crack their CD in half.

I agree except for paying for triplicates. Put this in perspective and bear in mind that we're discussing a minimum-wage (probably uneducated) individual.

Like an officer once told me. Ignorance is no excuse. It just means you are ignorant... but still responsable for your actions. And then comes a legal standpoint... as an employee of a company, you are legally a representative of that same company. Hence LEGALLY, that person's actions are in the name of the company... and that company WILL have to compensate the client. Now what the company will do to said employee becuase they now became a liability instead of an asset? Not sure, but in my case, yes, I *definately* would be pressured to let that person go. Their judgement and actions cost the company money and credibility... the best thing or them to do in a case where legal action increased costs, lowered sales and made the company lose face... is to cut their losses. That would mean settle out of court and fire the "errant" employee.

You, as the customer, have some responsibility here.

Granted... and the customer made a choice, they wanted prints. That company was able to fulfill expectations in that sense. The client made a GOOD choice. Too bad that some poor misguided ignorant underpaid minimum-wage worker took it upon themselves to do something INCREDIBLY stupid. Again, thats NOT a valid excuse. If you cannot do your job WELL (and let's face it here... being a clerk at these places doesn't require a master degree in brain surgury), what are you doing there??

Your entire reasoning points that you feel that the person behind the counter is not resposible for their actions... but the truth is... they are.

The argument would be that they should have protected themselves. Fine, but imagine if you had to start to "protect" yourself from every single event possible in life? You would be spending more time playing the "what-if" game than LIVING life.

I prefer to still believe in accountability. I prefer to believe that one is responsible for their actions. I believe that people that cannot do a particular job in life have no business being there or need to educate themselves so that they CAN be where they are.

I believe that I am not responsible for the actions of everyone else that I come into contact with in my life and should not need to protect myself against everyone.

 

[Socrates]

Make up a scenario... Lost in a fire... whatever. The point is what would they have done to repay the family if that was the case? There is NOTHING they could do, and the person who cracked that CD over the counter had no way of knowing.

If the moronic customer chose not to duplicate the files, I have no sympathy for him.

Like an officer once told me. Ignorance is no excuse. It just means you are ignorant... but still responsable for your actions.

Yes, and the customer is fully responsible for his absolutely ignorant failure to duplicate the files.

Granted... and the customer made a choice. Too bad that some poor misguided ignorant underpaid minimum-wage worker took it upon themselves to do something INCREDIBLY stupid. Again, thats NOT a valid excuse. If you cannot do your job WELL (and let's face it here... being a clerk at these places doesn't require a master degree in brain surgury), what are you doing there??

You're ignoring the fact that the poor misguided ignorant customer failed to take reasonable protections. It doesn't take a master's degree in brain surgery to know that duplicate files should always be available. Suppose he accidentally dropped the CD into a sewer grate?

Your entire reasoning points that you feel that the person behind the counter is not resposible for their actions... but the truth is... they are.

Your entire reasoning points that you feel that the customer is not responsible for his stupidity... but the truth is... he is.


I previously acknowledged that the clerk should be subject to disciplinary action. My point is simply that I will not assign 100% of the responsibility to the clerk. The moron customer deserves a hell of a portion of the blame yet you wish to portray him as an innocent victim.

 

[JerryPH]

Yes, and the customer is fully responsible for his absolutely ignorant failure to duplicate the files.


You're ignoring the fact that the poor misguided ignorant customer failed to take reasonable protections. It doesn't take a master's degree in brain surgery to know that duplicate files should always be available. Suppose he accidentally dropped the CD into a sewer grate?

You then assume that an ordinary person.. in this case, the daughter who received a CD from her father iis SUPPOSED to know all possible scenarios and also how to create duplicates or know to ask for them? Thats rediculous. Its not her job to know that MAYBE some idiot will destroy her private property and to make copies. All she knows is that her father took pictures, and she could take them to the local "whatever" place and get prints.

The entire fault falls on the clerk, and becuase the manager ALSO agreed that it was entirely their fault, made some attempt at restitution. No one else was at fault... certainly not the "innocent victim".

There is no one "taking it out on the poor slob"... but there is a deep need for people to be responsible for their actions. In this case, the clerk needs to be held responsible for his actions. They were the ones that if they did their job right... no issues would have arisen in the first place.

 

[Socrates]

You then assume that an ordinary person.. in this case, the daughter who received a CD from her father iis SUPPOSED to know all possible scenarios and also how to create duplicates or know to ask for them? Thats rediculous. Its not her job to know that MAYBE some idiot will destroy her private property and to make copies. All she knows is that her father took pictures, and she could take them to the local "whatever" place and get prints.

The entire fault falls on the clerk, and becuase the manager ALSO agreed that it was entirely their fault, made some attempt at restitution. No one else was at fault... certainly not the "innocent victim".

There is no one "taking it out on the poor slob"... but there is a deep need for people to be responsible for their actions. In this case, the clerk needs to be held responsible for his actions. They were the ones that if they did their job right... no issues would have arisen in the first place.

I do agree that the stupid moronic customer should be responsible for her actions.

 

[Rick Waldroup]

Well, the moron in question was my daughter.

And if anyone remembers my post, I instructed her to make sure she called me for a release form, if she wanted to get prints made. And like I said in my original post, kids do not listen to you, it does not matter how old they are. :er:

I have no idea how anyone could expect what happened to her. In a million years, I would not have expected some clerk to just snap the CD in half like that.

When I called the store manager, he kept apologizing over and over and actually talked about letting the clerk go. I told him that was completely unnecessary. I just asked that she be better trained as to how to deal with these types of situations. So, I mailed him another CD, with a release form, and he printed 8x10's of all the photos for free.

It was either a case of poor training or the clerk really is not all that bright to begin with- she was just 19 years old. However, blaming the moron is ludicrous.

 

[Socrates]

When I called the store manager, he kept apologizing over and over and actually talked about letting the clerk go. I told him that was completely unnecessary. I just asked that she be better trained as to how to deal with these types of situations.

That was my only point but I was unfortunately dragged into other discussions with comments such as "suppose the photos were of long-dead relatives and no other copies of the files existed?" I wasn't picking on your daughter but, rather, addressing the moron with non-replaceable valuable photos of long-dead relatives with zero copies of the files.

There's no question that the clerk was wrong and corrective action is certainly appropriate. I just don't believe that a mistake should result in termination.

 

[Rick Waldroup]

That was my only point but I was unfortunately dragged into other discussions with comments such as "suppose the photos were of long-dead relatives and no other copies of the files existed?" I wasn't picking on your daughter but, rather, addressing the moron with non-replaceable valuable photos of long-dead relatives with zero copies of the files.

There's no question that the clerk was wrong and corrective action is certainly appropriate. I just don't believe that a mistake should result in termination.

Oh, no worries. I've called her worse names. Nitwit is one of my favorites.

And I agree, when the manager told me he wanted to fire the clerk, I really had to talk him out of it.

 

[Socrates]

Oh, no worries. I've called her worse names. Nitwit is one of my favorites.

And I agree, when the manager told me he wanted to fire the clerk, I really had to talk him out of it.

I've always maintained that I fully understand the term "artificial intelligence" because I have children!

 

[andrew99]

one reason why i get my pictures done at Coscos. Cheaper and they just mind their own buisness

How do you find the quality of Costco? I took some pics there, but they did some kind of processing to them. They over-exposed the highlights and added posturization. I don't know if they reduced the bit-depth of the colours, or boosted the contrast, or whatever it was, but I took the exact same jpegs to a photography store and they came out perfectly. Too bad, since Costco was half the price!