My parents, long term Staples clients who would often take me personally to purchase items (thousands per year for themselves and their business) had a bit of an issue recently. They went in and bought a number of printer cartridges and a label printer. 36 hours later, they saw a flyer advising them of a Black Friday sale stating what they just bought was now less than half price. They called Staples, asking if there was anything they could do. They were referred by a Team Lead stating that there was nothing they could do, but they could return the item and repurchase on Black Friday. So they did. My mother (I am 40), got up at 530 AM respecting the crowds and went into Staples as it opened. She was greeted by Crystal. I was not there, and cannot comment specifically. I can state that my mother was upset afterwards , and felt accused of Fraud. She spoke with my father, who attempted to call and resolve the situation. This failed. I thereafter went to the store, and asked to speak with Crystal to get her point of view. I recorded the conversation. I think I left more frustrated than my parents. I was given a diatribe of Staples policy around this. I really did not see the point. Of course a company does not want to honour Black Friday sales post facto. Yet they have a return policy. The honourable thing to do is simply tell the person in advance that the item they are buying is going on sale a day and a half later. This did not occur. My mother was referred to as 'firm' a number of times. Somehow to 'Crystal' this was not shocking, given that they had called and been told to do exactly what it is they were doing. Yet were forced to return the item, leave it there, and go to the East store to hopefully get another item. Ostensibly, this was to 'ensure privacy'. The device that my mother had returned needed to be held for 24 hours for the internal drive to be wiped of memory. This may be reasonable and in keeping with Staples policy... yet where is the privacy interest that requires the wipe if the chain of custody is uninterrupted? They are punishing the customer and themselves here. That seemed unreasonable. This was compounded by the statement that any returns and repurchase on the 'system' is 'automatically flagged as return fraud'. Yeesh. What 'Crystal' had to say was very consistent. Kudos to her attention to policy. I ask why Staples does not empower managers to determine what is reasonable rather than in keeping with policy? I get someone needs to manage. But if you are not empowered to make reasonable decisions you are not a 'manager', you are a sheep herder. Alternatively a zoo keeper of monkeys. Any reasonable individual can look at a situation and say: 'There is no risk here. The alternative is conflict.'. In this case, 'Crystal' felt that making my mother into a fraud artist publicly was a reasonable alternative to compromise. In a situation they created. I say: 'Crystal, that was my mother. You argued with my father. Bad form.'. As I stated to her personally: 'I don't agree. I think that could have been handled better. I just wanted to get your point of view before I did what I need to do.'. read more
