Stupid Secretary WTF



  • This morning, I had to deal with one of our HR secretaries, and it was.... deja vu...

    When I first started to work for this place, I was in HR. I had passed my interviews and was doing paperwork as part of the on-boarding process. The HR secretary and I had the following conversation:

    Her: can I have the phone number of the consulting company where you worked for the past 6 years
    Me: I was self employed, I am the owner and sole employee of the consulting company and I would be happy to answer any questions you have
    Her: no, I need to call to verify
    Me: but you'll just be calling ME
    Her: I have to call - what's the number
    Me: the number of the office is [my cell number]
    note: I'm standing 2 feet directly in front of her
    Her: dial dial dial - ring ring - Hello - this is xxx from yyy Inc, calling in reference to Snoofle's employment
    Me: both into the cell phone and at her: I know, I'm standing right in front of you
    Her: into phone: can you please verify the dates of Snoofle's employment at x, y and z?
    Me: reading from my resume that is laying on her desk in front of her: x: a to b, y: a' to b', z: a" to b"
    Her: ok, thank you *click*
    Me: directly to her: did you not notice that you were talking to ME right here in front of you?
    Her: I know, but I have to call to check these things
    Me: Walks away, wondering if the rest of the company might be just as wtf (as you might suspect from some of my recent posts, I should have just jumped out the window)



  • How it should have gone:

    Her: can I have the phone number of the consulting company where you worked for the past 6 years

    Me: I was self employed, I am the owner and sole employee of the consulting company and I would be happy to answer any questions you have

    Her: no, I need to call to verify

    Me: but you'll just be calling ME

    Her: I have to call - what's the number

    Me: the number of the office is [my cell number]

    note: I'm standing 2 feet directly in front of her

    Her: dial dial dial - ring ring - Hello - this is xxx from yyy Inc, calling in reference to Snoofle's employment

    Me: both into the cell phone and at her: I know, I'm standing right in front of you

    Her: into phone: can you please verify the dates of Snoofle's employment at x, y and z?

    Me: I'm sorry, but company policy states that we cannot give out employee information.  Have a nice day. CLICK



  • Was the secretary's attitude closer to

     

    a) "There's a sensible reason for me to do this"

    b) "I understand that company policy should have an exception for periods of self-employment, but it doesn't, and I'll get in trouble with my PHB if I don't follow the stupid thing to the letter"

     



  • @emurphy said:

    Was the secretary's attitude closer to

    a) "There's a sensible reason for me to do this"

    b) "I understand that company policy should have an exception for periods of self-employment, but it doesn't, and I'll get in trouble with my PHB if I don't follow the stupid thing to the letter"

    Neither! I don't mind verifying the info - that's fine. But when someone tells you it's a sole proprietorship, and the sole proprietor is standing right in front of you, you can just ask the person to verify (and perhaps sign something attesting to it's validity). She was just a drone going through the motions without really understanding *anything*.  It was the calling-me-while-I-was-right-in-front-of-her that I just don't get.

     

     



  • @bstorer said:

    How it should have gone:

    ...

    Me: I'm sorry, but company policy states that we cannot give out employee information.  Have a nice day. *CLICK*

    Niiiiice!!!!!

     



  • @snoofle said:

    Neither! I don't mind verifying the info - that's fine. But when someone tells you it's a sole proprietorship, and the sole proprietor is standing right in front of you, you can just ask the person to verify (and perhaps sign something attesting to it's validity). She was just a drone going through the motions without really understanding anything.  It was the calling-me-while-I-was-right-in-front-of-her that I just don't get.

     

     

     

    Is it possible that she had to have it on record (i.e. record the call)? That would be the only reason that this would make sense.

    Even if she just needed the phone record would be good enough reason I suppose.

     

    Still a WTF but then it is a WTF with reason. 



  • She was just following orders no doubt. Before your conversation with her I'm sure she had another conversation that went like this:

    Secretary: You wanted to see me?
    S Boss: Yes  it seems there have been some gaps in following up on references for new hires
    Secretary: Well I always call to verify
    S Boss: Well we need to make doubly sure of it
    Secretary: The only time I don't check is if the hire is self empl...
    S Boss: There are to be no exceptions!
    Secretary: But if the person was working for thems...
    S Boss: No exceptions! Is that clear?
    Secretary: Yes ma'am.

     



  • As far as people going through processes with no clue as to what the process is for... I tried to pay for something with a newly issued credit card which I had forgot to sign. The clerk noticed this (good on her), and asked me to sign it (bad on her). I suppose she figured I might sign differently on the back of the card, and then immediately on the receipt?

    Utter cluelessness.

     



  • @snoofle said:

    Neither! I don't mind verifying the info - that's fine. But when someone tells you it's a sole proprietorship, and the sole proprietor is standing right in front of you, you can just ask the person to verify (and perhaps sign something attesting to it's validity). She was just a drone going through the motions without really understanding anything.  It was the calling-me-while-I-was-right-in-front-of-her that I just don't get.

    People like this should not be surprised when they are simply replace by a machine.  Machines follow instructions without thinking, people think about the instructions and can see when an instruction can be modified.  i.e. A machine has to ask what your gender is, a person can look at you and tell without having to ask the question in most cases.



  • @smxlong said:

    As far as people going through processes with no clue as to what the process is for... I tried to pay for something with a newly issued credit card which I had forgot to sign. The clerk noticed this (good on her), and asked me to sign it (bad on her). I suppose she figured I might sign differently on the back of the card, and then immediately on the receipt?

    Utter cluelessness.

     

     

    I usually have "Please see ID" written on the backs of my cards.  Regretfully very few people even check it.  I personally won't sign a card that doesn't also have my photo on it.

    I did have one place look and say it wasn't good enough and I had to sign the card.  I produced my ID with both my Photo and signature together and it still wasn't good enough.  I left without buying what I wanted and did my shopping a mile done the road instead.  I was sadistically amused knowing he had to put all that stuff to the side himself in order to handle the next customer.



  • @KattMan said:

    @snoofle said:

    Neither! I don't mind verifying the info - that's fine. But when someone tells you it's a sole proprietorship, and the sole proprietor is standing right in front of you, you can just ask the person to verify (and perhaps sign something attesting to it's validity). She was just a drone going through the motions without really understanding anything.  It was the calling-me-while-I-was-right-in-front-of-her that I just don't get.

    People like this should not be surprised when they are simply replace by a machine.  Machines follow instructions without thinking, people think about the instructions and can see when an instruction can be modified.  i.e. A machine has to ask what your gender is, a person can look at you and tell without having to ask the question in most cases.

    Great way to cause trouble when you mis-guess their gender though.



  • @DeLos said:

    Is it possible that she had to have it on record (i.e. record the call)? That would be the only reason that this would make sense.

     @medialint said:

    She was just following orders no doubt. Before your conversation with her I'm sure she had another conversation that went like this:

    Secretary: You wanted to see me?
    S Boss: Yes  it seems there have been some gaps in following up on references for new hires...

    After starting, I was discussing what happened with a few new coworkers, and found out that the reference checks are not recorded. They're only required to check what you put on the resume. There's no procedure requiring an actual phone call (e-mail is sufficient).

     Sorry guys, I've tried to rationalize it for 6 years and it still makes blood ooze out my ears...

     



  • In the "blindly following policy" column, I've had a clerk ask for my photo ID when I was using a card with my photo on the front of it.  They did realize what they had done about the time I pulled my wallet out, at least.



  • @smxlong said:

    As far as people going through processes with no clue as to what the process is for... I tried to pay for something with a newly issued credit card which I had forgot to sign. The clerk noticed this (good on her), and asked me to sign it (bad on her). I suppose she figured I might sign differently on the back of the card, and then immediately on the receipt?

    Utter cluelessness.

     

     

    Card-signing isn't primarily an ID check. The card company tells vendors to insist on the signature because signing the card indicates acceptance of the cardholder contract. Without a signature attesting to the contract, you could theoretically make a legal claim that you never agreed to the interest rate/penalty structure/etc. of the card.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @lolwtf said:

    Great way to cause trouble when you mis-guess their gender though.

    You're assuming your initial guess was right.



  • I would have been tempted to say this:

     

    Her:  Hello - this is xxx from yyy Inc, calling in reference to Spacecadet's employment

    Me: Who? I think you have the wrong number. 



  • @smxlong said:

    As far as people going through processes with no clue as to what the process is for... I tried to pay for something with a newly issued credit card which I had forgot to sign. The clerk noticed this (good on her), and asked me to sign it (bad on her).
     

    Someone I knew worked in a ticket office in a UK tourist attraction. They once refused a credit card because it wasn't signed. The US tourist said it belonged to their uncle who was waiting nearby and they knew it wasn't signed, so that they were able to use it - and thought not signing was normal.



  • @Noser said:

    Card-signing isn't primarily an ID check. The card company tells vendors to insist on the signature because signing the card indicates acceptance of the cardholder contract. Without a signature attesting to the contract, you could theoretically make a legal claim that you never agreed to the interest rate/penalty structure/etc. of the card.

    If you are in the U.S., you are wrong wrong wrong.  Card-signing is an ID check.  In fact, the signature on the back is the only ID check required by law.  They can't even require you to produce a driver's license if you don't want to, so long as the card is signed.  Signing up for the card in the first place is acceptance of the card-holder contract and signing the receipt is acceptance of the charges.  The only reason the signature is required on the card is because it is the only form of ID required to use a credit card.  And, no, you cannot make a legal claim that you didn't "accept the contract" if you signed up for the card in the first fucking place.  That is just idiotic.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    If you are in the U.S., you are [b]wrong wrong wrong[/b].
    Oh dear, the swamp gas is affecting you.



  • [url=http://www.zug.com/pranks/credit_card/]If anyone actually checks your signature, count yourself lucky.[/url]



  •  How is this for 'stupid secretary WTF':

     Our secretary let a client in who was coming for a meeting with one of the senior partners at our firm yesterday ... and she forgot to mention to the senior partner his clients had arrived.

     WHY? you may ask.

    Well, she thought he would have heard the doorbell ring and would know that his clients had arrived.  She just let them in because she was told to do so.  Apparently we hadn't been clear enough in also telling her that she should than tell the person the client has a meeting with, that the client had arrived. 

    The clients waited for an hour and then left.  And the senior partner was left wondering where his clients were and why they hadn't called to say they would be late.  The mystery was solved this morning. 

    And she's just the temp.  Hopefully the new secretary will be a bit smarter...

    Oh yes, I forgot to mention this.  We fired the previous secretary because she was an inefficient, hoarding,  slightly stupid woman.  We've apparently downgraded with the temp.

    My poor nerves.  They've suffered so much the previous five years... 



  •  Damn, where do you work, in a Monty Python sketch?



  • @Motherduck99 said:

    My poor nerves.
    In all fairness, why didn't the client say anything to the secretary?  Presumably, they were waiting in the same room where she was during that hour.  Or the senior partner could have waited only 15 minutes before walking to the front desk.  

    The secretary is stupid, but they shouldn't have lost the sale.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Noser said:

    Card-signing isn't primarily an ID check. The card company tells vendors to insist on the signature because signing the card indicates acceptance of the cardholder contract. Without a signature attesting to the contract, you could theoretically make a legal claim that you never agreed to the interest rate/penalty structure/etc. of the card.

    If you are in the U.S., you are wrong wrong wrong.  Card-signing is an ID check.  In fact, the signature on the back is the only ID check required by law.  They can't even require you to produce a driver's license if you don't want to, so long as the card is signed.  Signing up for the card in the first place is acceptance of the card-holder contract and signing the receipt is acceptance of the charges.  The only reason the signature is required on the card is because it is the only form of ID required to use a credit card.  And, no, you cannot make a legal claim that you didn't "accept the contract" if you signed up for the card in the first fucking place.  That is just idiotic.

     I don't know what you are talking about. Look on the back of most credit cards in your wallet. Mine all state that the card is not valid unless signed, and most also state that by signing you agree to all rules and regulations issued by the card issuer.

     

     



  • @SomebodyElse said:

     I don't know what you are talking about. Look on the back of most credit cards in your wallet. Mine all state that the card is not valid unless signed, and most also state that by signing you agree to all rules and regulations issued by the card issuer.
     

    Why don't you try not signing, maxing the card out, and then saying you didn't sign so you are not responsible for the charges? Let us know how that works out for you.



  • Every now an then, I'll sign a charge receipt (or even my personal checks) "Donald Duck", or something similar, just to see if it gets noticed/bounced/whatever. To date, nobody has ever questioned me on it.

     



  • @SomebodyElse said:

     I don't know what you are talking about. Look on the back of most credit cards in your wallet. Mine all state that the card is not valid unless signed, and most also state that by signing you agree to all rules and regulations issued by the card issuer.
    One of mine says nothing other than "Cardholder signature" and the other says "Not valid unless signed."  Neither one says anything about agreeing to all the rules and regulations.  That's because I had to sign an agreement on the terms on the application before they even gave me the cards.  The plastic card isn't the contract.



  • @belgariontheking said:

    In all fairness, why didn't the client say anything to the secretary?  Presumably, they were waiting in the same room where she was during that hour.  Or the senior partner could have waited only 15 minutes before walking to the front desk.  

    The secretary is stupid, but they shouldn't have lost the sale.

    Actually,  the clients wait in the meeting room on the ground floor, and the secretary was
    at her desk on the first floor.  The problem at our office is that it is
    an old house converted to an office.  There is no front desk.  And even
    if clients said they were meeting the senior partner, the secretary believed she didn't have to tell him because he heard the doorbell ring.

    Fortunately we have clients who don't leave us for such a thing.  But it doesn't do our image any good. 



  • @DOA said:

     Damn, where do you work, in a Monty Python sketch?

    Yes! And if I told you what company it was, you would suddenly have a much deeper understanding of many news headlines.

     



  • @snoofle said:

    @DOA said:

     Damn, where do you work, in a Monty Python sketch?

    Yes! And if I told you what company it was, you would suddenly have a much deeper understanding of many news headlines.
    Hmmm... crazy employer... often in the news... wait, do you work for Britney Spears?



  • @Eternal Density said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    If you are in the U.S., you are wrong wrong wrong.
    Oh dear, the swamp gas is affecting you.

     And I thought the deadly swamp gas was in Canada..



  • So back to the original post.. I'm totally nominating it for best-of-the-sidebar hour. I love this situation!



  • @NSCoder said:

    If anyone actually checks your signature, count yourself lucky.

     That post inpsired me a couple years ago.  I went to walmart and swiped my card.  There you sign the touch pad.  I signed it in greek.  So it looked like: <FONT size=3></FONT><FONT size=3>

    Τηλορ instead of taylor.

    Next trip, signed in Hebrew, which was fun, because it looked like chicken scratch and was backwards (sadly, couldn't find hebrew characters on charmap).

    Neither time did they look at my receipt.

    </FONT>


  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @SomebodyElse said:

     I don't know what you are talking about. Look on the back of most credit cards in your wallet. Mine all state that the card is not valid unless signed, and most also state that by signing you agree to all rules and regulations issued by the card issuer.
     

    Why don't you try not signing, maxing the card out, and then saying you didn't sign so you are not responsible for the charges? Let us know how that works out for you.

     

    My point wasn't so much the agreement of the terms, rather that in fact the store is actually correct to refuse to accept a credit card that is not signed by the person it was issued to. writing "Check ID" or some variant on the back of the card is not enough. Don't forget, the retailer has also signed an agreement with the major credit card issuer's (Visa, MasterCard, et al) and those agreement's cover this kind of issue. And yes, if you challenge the charge, the retailer will be forced to provde proof that you actually made the purchse, and if they can't they will be charged back the amount.

    Of course, try this too often and you will find yourself without a credit card, and probably some poor credit to boot.

     

     



  • @SomebodyElse said:

    writing "Check ID" or some variant on the back of the card is not enough.
     

    Simply not true. Since it is used as a form of ID, writing 'See ID' on the card is way of asking them to look at a photo ID. I have been known to point this out to a clerk who doesn't actually check the ID.

    My standpoint on this is if I sign the card, the crook now has my CC AND my signature. If I write 'See ID' on the back there is a slightly increased chance the clerk will ask for a photo ID (like they should all have to do anyway) to verify the person.

    I worked at a retail store in my high school days, and I was always vigilant to check people's IDs when using a card. Most people had no problem with this. Maybe 1% would be annoyed. The rest wouldn't care, or would actually compliment me on checking. And once in a while (I would say maybe half a dozen times in the 3 or 4 years) I would actually have people who panicked and left the store without their purchase. They were quickly reported to security. I want people to look at the ID of whoever is looking at my card. The signature is otherwise useless.

     

    Does either way cover everything? No. Just my personal method.

     

    But the fact doesn't change. You are wrong. The signature doesn't mean a single thing. 



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    The signature doesn't mean a single thing. 
    Someone at Radio Shack explained it to me this way:

    If you don't sign, all the cops can bust the thief for is "accepting stolen property," whereas if you sign it, they can get the thief for much more.

    I know it doesn't affect the actual security of using a card, but it's nice to know that signing it makes it riskier to steal and use.



  • @belgariontheking said:

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    The signature doesn't mean a single thing. 
    Someone at Radio Shack explained it to me this way:

    If you don't sign, all the cops can bust the thief for is "accepting stolen property," whereas if you sign it, they can get the thief for much more.

    I know it doesn't affect the actual security of using a card, but it's nice to know that signing it makes it riskier to steal and use.

     

    Yes, but if they have a lower risk of getting caught, does that outweigh the (potential) higher punishment?



  • @NSCoder said:

    If anyone actually checks your signature, count yourself lucky.

    The reverse is actually a real fucking pain in the ass. People asked me (when I worked as Safeway) "I don't get asked for ID anywhere else" which gets old fast when it happens twenty times a day, which wouldn't happen if they signed the back of their card. There's also the retards who think it's OK for me to accept a signature that they just wrote on the back of the card in front of me. There's also a rampant case of not having photo ID, which last time I checked is illegal as all of our customers drive to the kiosk (I was in the "gas bar"). Also the "check ID is not a valid signature" rule that I get quoted when I'm the customer irritates me to no end, the fucking fuck, how can a signature be deemed enough information to ID a person, have they not heard of forging? A photo ID is significantly harder to forge than a fucking scribble! The wrold is fuckingh run be retards.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Yes, but if they have a lower risk of getting caught, does that outweigh the (potential) higher punishment?
    The guy at Radio Shack also pointed out that you can sign your card AND write "check ID" on it.  That's what I do now.  

    I just checked, and I have one card that I forgot to do it with.  It is extremely resilient to being signed.  I've tried five different pens now.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Simply not true. Since it is used as a form of ID, writing 'See ID' on the card is way of asking them to look at a photo ID. I have been known to point this out to a clerk who doesn't actually check the ID.

    My standpoint on this is if I sign the card, the crook now has my CC AND my signature. If I write 'See ID' on the back there is a slightly increased chance the clerk will ask for a photo ID (like they should all have to do anyway) to verify the person.

    Actually, writing "See ID" is invalid and the merchant should not accept the credit card.  This is according to the rules put in place by the credit card companies themselves.

     

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    I worked at a retail store in my high school days, and I was always vigilant to check people's IDs when using a card. Most people had no problem with this. Maybe 1% would be annoyed. The rest wouldn't care, or would actually compliment me on checking. And once in a while (I would say maybe half a dozen times in the 3 or 4 years) I would actually have people who panicked and left the store without their purchase. They were quickly reported to security. I want people to look at the ID of whoever is looking at my card. The signature is otherwise useless.

    In many states, merchants are forbidden by law from asking for any form of ID other than the card itself and the signature on it.  I was under the imperssion that this was U.S. federal law, but I can't find any verification on that at the moment. 



  • Replying to myself here, but I forgot to mention that it's also forbidden by the merchant contracts with the credit card companies for a merchant to request ID (unless you are signing an unsigned card in front of the merchant).  MasterCard and Visa are happy to accept complaints against any merchant who asks for ID.  There may be a few states where a photo ID is required by law, I'm not sure about that, but like I said above it appears the opposite is more likely the case: the merchants are forbidden by law from asking for any photo ID at all (even if you are signing an unsigned card in front of the merchant).



  • @belgariontheking said:

    It is extremely resilient to being signed.  I've tried five different pens now.

    Everytime I get a new debit card, I swear they make it out of more resilient material. Even a "permanent" marker won't adhere to it. So, the back of my debit card is always an ink blur from the card reader swiping. No one questions it.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Actually, writing "See ID" is invalid and the merchant should not accept the credit card.  This is according to the rules put in place by the credit card companies themselves.
     

    And yet, I have never met one that wouldn't want to take my money.

    Signing the back of your card is just stupid.The crook has your signature now, and he will likely be unchecked when he uses it. What purpose did it serve?

    @morbiuswilters said:

    In many states, merchants are forbidden by law from asking for any form of ID other than the card itself and the signature on it.

    I have traveled extensively all over the US, and I have never seen this in practice. If it is a law no one knows or cares about it. If it is a law, it is also ridiculously stupid.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    In many states, merchants are forbidden by law from asking for any form of ID other than the card itself and the signature on it.  I was under the imperssion that this was U.S. federal law, but I can't find any verification on that at the moment.

    I doubt it's federal. Here in Georgia, many places ask for ID. Almost every shop in Arbor Place Mall does it now. It used to only be the Disney Store and a few others that did. I guess they were encountering too much fraud. The pet store I shop at has always asked to see my ID.



  • @snoofle said:

    After starting, I was discussing what happened with a few new coworkers, and found out that the reference checks are not recorded. They're only required to check what you put on the resume. There's no procedure requiring an actual phone call (e-mail is sufficient).

     Sorry guys, I've tried to rationalize it for 6 years and it still makes blood ooze out my ears...

     

    Did they make any effort to verify that the phone number/email you gave them for your employer was correct? Could you have given your own cell phone number even if you weren't claiming to be self employed?



  • @AbbydonKrafts said:

    I doubt it's federal. Here in Georgia, many places ask for ID. Almost every shop in Arbor Place Mall does it now. It used to only be the Disney Store and a few others that did. I guess they were encountering too much fraud. The pet store I shop at has always asked to see my ID.

    Just because it's law doesn't mean anyone follows it (although you're probably right that it's not federal -- I know several states' Attorneys General say it is against the law so I think I made the leap to assuming it was a federal and not state-by-state law).  Also, it's against the merchant agreements of the credit card companies, so any merchant who requires photo ID can be reported to your credit card company. 



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    And yet, I have never met one that wouldn't want to take my money.

    Signing the back of your card is just stupid.The crook has your signature now, and he will likely be unchecked when he uses it. What purpose did it serve?

    Didn't say I agreed, just that it was the law in many places and is forbidden by the credit card companies themselves.

     

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    I have traveled extensively all over the US, and I have never seen this in practice. If it is a law no one knows or cares about it.

    Just because nobody follows it doesn't mean it's not the law.

     

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    If it is a law, it is also ridiculously stupid.

    A law that makes no sense??  Say it isn't so!! 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    it's also forbidden by the merchant contracts with the credit card companies for a merchant to request ID

    That is patently untrue. 

    @Visa Merchant Agreement said:

    Visa rules do not preclude merchants from asking for cardholder ID

    Also:

    @Visa Merchant Agreement said:

    Note: If the transaction is accepted with a non-matching
    signature and it turns out to be fraudulent, your business may be liable, even if all other
    procedures were followed.

    So it would be in your best interest to check that ID regardless of any recommendations.

     



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    And yet, I have never met one that wouldn't want to take my money.

    Signing the back of your card is just stupid.The crook has your signature now, and he will likely be unchecked when he uses it. What purpose did it serve?

    Didn't say I agreed, just that it was the law in many places and is forbidden by the credit card companies themselves.

     

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    I have traveled extensively all over the US, and I have never seen this in practice. If it is a law no one knows or cares about it.

    Just because nobody follows it doesn't mean it's not the law.

     

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    If it is a law, it is also ridiculously stupid.

    A law that makes no sense??  Say it isn't so!! 

     

    Actually the law you seem to be reffering to makes it illegal (not everywhere) for a merchant to deny a sale to someone solely on that person not providing another form of ID IF the credit card is signed.

    The merchant is certainly allowed to ask for the ID.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    That is patently untrue.

    Yep, I don't know what I was thinking.  I knew it was "require ID" but somehow I ended up writing "request ID" several times and didn't catch it.  I think I need more caffeine.

     

    My original point (as muddled as it was by my mistake) still stands, though.  Writing "See ID" is not valid and requesting photo ID is pretty useless because any crook will just refuse to provide it.  I suppose you can catch the dumber ones that way or possibly scare them enough they slip up, but it's not that useful to make it optional because anyone who provides ID is legit so you're only asking the honest people to do more work.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.