Terrible experience at Pier 1 Imports

just because it is your child.... if you saw other kids slobbering on
merchandise that is to be sold you would probably think why isn't that
mother watching her child. sorry, but I think even though the manager
was a little rough around the edges kids don't have the right to ruin
store merchandise...anywhere.

I am glad the management is looking out for the health of their
customers. Did you know how many pathogens children carry on their
hands, not to mention in their saliva? I bet you'd be singing a
different tune if that bear your kid put her hands all over was just
"slobbered on" by some other kid who's parent wasn't acting
responsibly and that kid just happened to have H1N1 or C-DIF. You'd
probably be wanting to sue Pier One as well.

I have about had it with people who have children and think it is
everyone else responsibility but the parents to protect the welfare of
their kids, then when someone does take proactive measures like Pier
One did, they get chastised publicly. Absurd, truly absurd. KIDS ARE
DIRTY. That's a fact. I know, I deal with them everyday in my
profession. I don't care whether it's a kid from the whitebread
suburbs or the hood, they all have some of the worst germs and
pathogens on earth. Surely you must take note the majority of C-DIF
and H1N1 cases are in patients under 18.

CONTROL YOUR KID. You would not want them to sell you something
someone else has put their body fluids all over, so why would you get
offended when they ask you to pay for something your kid drooled all
over?

Do you want to prevent this from happening again in the future? It's
very easy. Either control your child or leave her with somone else
while you shop. And yes, young children do "slobber". I don't think
there is anything out of line in saying that. It would not have been
acceptable for them to leave the slobbered-on bear out for somene else
to buy, so what did you expect them to do? Throw it away and eat the
cost?

I agree with the manager, I'm just glad he was there and able to see
that the child had "slobbered" all over it. Yuck!

I would not want to purchase anything that a child had drooled or
slobbered on. Good for the manager! :)

Anyway, it is a $2.50 bear; you should have just purchased the bear in
the first place. If you had no intention to purchase the bear, you
shouldn't have let your child hold on to it.

it's still gross.

Would you want to pick up a cloth toy saturated in saliva?

Neither would they!

No offense, but slobber, drool, spit, whatever you want to call it, IS
dirty. There are all kinds of germs in there. I have two kids, I
would imagine that strangers would think that my kids' "slobber" is
dirty, too. It doesn't bother me because I wouldn't want some strange
child's saliva all over my things either. Slobber is a legitimate
word and is a far cry from offensive language. Certainly, the
associate could have been more delicate, but come on.

I have a two-year-old boy who is difficult to take shopping now
because he's insatiably curious about EVERYTHING. He's constantly
grabbing things and yes,I have had to purchase things I didn't need
because my son grabbed it and either shoved it in his mouth or
otherwise ruined it before I could take it away.

Frankly, I think both sides were in the wrong here. The OP was wrong
for letting her child play with a toy that she had no initial
intention of purchasing. As someone below said, retail stores are not
a child's personal playground. I realize the bear was within a child's
reach, but there are lots of things that are within a child's reach at
a store, and it's our job as parents to make sure our kids understand
that not everything is up for grabs.

On the other hand, besides his lack of tact, the manager lost a $75
sale (and a future customer) over a $2.50 bear. Let's face it;
customers damage merchandise all the time. Ever pick out a shirt at a
store that has deoderant marks all over the armpits? I can't remember
a time I as a manager, assistant manager, or employee made a customer
buy something that they damaged. In every case, I just inwardly sighed
and damaged the item out.

Either way you look at it, it's terrible customer service to ask her
to pay for the bear. I don't know how the associate brought it up or
whatever, but it seems ludicrious.

I can understand in a mom & pop shop, or a place that sells
collectibles, wouldn't want children touching things or whatever.
There was no mention of a policy or a sign posted stating "you break
it, you buy it" or whatever.

I worked for 7 years in retail in a major deparment store, and never
were we told to have this attitude towards customers holding products.
It's a given that things will be ruined and broken.

So many times had I had to deal with things in fitting rooms with
LIQUIDS on them. I walked a fitting room in while a customer was out
in clothes in the store and saw her underwear on the floor. Did I tell
her she had to buy everything that she tried on? NO! Yes, I was
disgusted, but I damaged everything out. In some cases, the vendor
will reimburse the store with damaged goods in new stock.

When you shared your experience with all your friends...

locally/internet/bulletin boards/word of mouth forums/opinion sites,
did they also ask you why you didn't just buy the stupid $2.50 bear
and if it to yor child?

Sorry, I am on this managers side. Pier I is not at fault here.
There are many items within reach of a child in any store you shop in.
Its your responsibility to keep an eye on your child while you are in
that store.
If she had the bear and drooled/slobbered (they both mean the same
thing) all over it then how can you expect them to re-sell it? A
responsible parent would have bought it and either tossed it out or
given it back to the child.
But to lay blame on Pier I is not fair by any means.

While I think the manager perhaps could have used more tact (even
though I doubt there was any way he could have said it that wouldn't
have pissed you off) I don't think he was wrong to ask you to pay for
the item. I work for a major retail chain here in the midwest and I
remember hearing once that the store's actual profit for a $100 item
(after paying for it to be shipped, stocked, scanned, and everything
associated with getting the item to the customer) was like $8.00 or
something like that. So while $2.50 may not sound like a lot of money
to you, for a retail store that likely has to meet certain shrink
goals with corporate it is a very big deal, especially for an item
they're probably not making any money off of anyway. And I'm sorry
but I don't buy the "it was in reach of children" argument. Parents
need to watch their kids. Accidents happen, but let's say you were
over at a good friend's house and your kid broke something. I'll bet
you'd probably want to pay them for it because they're your good
friend. Show the same courtesy when you're out shopping.

I'm split on this one. On the one hand-I don't want to buy something
that has been drooled on. Stores need to be able to sell their
merchandise and make a profit. I think the manager had his head
partially in the right place by asking the OP to pay for the item.

However-is a ruined item that costs $2.50 really worth losing a
customer? I'd be inclined to say no to that. Maybe the OP should
have got away with a warning on this one.

If someone's child damaged your car, would you expect the parents to
pay to have it fixed? If I was shopping and I saw a child hugging a
toy that her parents didn't pay for, I would NOT want it placed back
on the shelf. What if the child was sick with the flu, measles, mumps
or any disease?

They intentionally put stuff that a child would want within their
reach in hopes of selling it!!!! Just like candy in the aisles of a
grocery store and displays of teddy bears and over priced toys in the
diaper aisle... It's very stressful when you're just trying to do some
shopping and everywhere you turn your child is begging for something
that was merchandised just for your little baby to see!! Whether or
not she should have purchased the bear isn't really the issue, it's
BAD customer service to insist that she purchase it. They would have
been better off smiling politely, ringing up her $75 purchase, and
setting the bear with all the other damaged items in the back room. I
have worked retail allllll my life, customers break and damage things
all the time and bottom line if you want them to come back you smile
politely and move on with your life.

As somebody who's likely been suffering from H1N1 for the past several
days, I applaud the Pier 1 manager.

Just because merchandise is displayed at the child's level doesn't
mean she has to play with it, or that you have to let her play with
it.

Hmmm... I am very protective of my toddler so I can totally see how
you could have been offended by the manager's confrontation. What I
DON'T understand (not that it's any of my business)is why on earth you
would BUY the bear that your baby girl OBVIOUSLY liked and hugged (and
yes, slobbered on) and NOT let her have it, giving it back to the
store instead...

Would you have purchased an item that was drooled on? The proper
thing to have done, was simply to have purchased it once you realized
it was in your child's mouth. Many things are within a child's reach
and it is the job of parents to supervise their children at all times.


I agree, he should have used a little more tact and finesse in
pointing out the fact the store could not resell the item. You
yourself stated that the item should not be resold. The employee was
probably joking because who in their right mind would even want to
touch it after that?

Pier 1 is a great store, I hope after you calm down you return.

i have two small children....none of them are in the "slobbering"
stage anymore. which, btw, i don't see as demeaning personally. my
kids slobbered. i called them slobber boxes all the time. that's what
they were doing...slobbering. all babies do it when they're teething.


i never go into Pier 1 with my children because there are just too
many fragile/breakable items. there is a store in the mall that is
much like pier 1...and i always got so irritated in there because i
couldn't get my stroller through any of the aisles. as a result, i
quit going there when i had my children. i also can't go sit at the
bar in a restaurant when i have my children. some kids are attracted
to shiny objects...should stores not place shiny objects in arm's
reach of kids? wal mart has gift card holders at their check out
aisles. i don't see any wrongdoing on the part of the store as far as
where the merchandise was placed.

my kids always want to get the hula hoops down and play with them when
we go to wal mart. i usually let them do it really quick (fully
knowing they aren't supposed to). SOO...could i really get mad if
someone told me they had to put the hula hoops away? nope. if my child
grabbed a teddy bear and walked around with it in their mouth, i
couldn't get mad if i was asked to purchase it. it would be different
i think if a child grabbed a CLOTH (something you can't just wipe off)
item and puked on it. that would obviously be a pure accident where
the child is obviously ill...OR if they grabbed it and you immediately
took it away as soon as you noticed. but if you let them sit there and
chew on something you have no intention of buying....well...that's
just unsanitary.

....I am on the managers side completely. Just because something is
within a child's reach, it doesn't mean a child has a right to touch
it. My daughter will be 2 next month, I know exactly what your
daughter did to that bear because my daughter has done the same thing
and like others have said, it all comes down to personal
responsibility. I do not allow my daughter to touch anything when we
are in a store but it still happens from time to time. She once
grabbed a yogurt parfait in Starbucks and put her mouth on it, and do
you know what my husband did? He went a head and bought it, knowing
full well neither he nor my daughter would eat it. If you saw
someone's child put their mouth on a item and then place it back on
the shelf, would you even consider buying it? I don't think so. Its
disgusting and its a great way to spread germs. You need to woman up
and take responsibility for your actions and the action of your child.
This is exactly why the swine flu has become an epidemic.

This comes down to personal responsibility. You need to take
responsibility for your child's actions, be it intentional or not.
Just because she didn't "purposefully destroy the bear" doesn't mean
that it was ok to drool on it.

As a side note, this reminds me of my cashiering days, when parents
used to HAND me items that their kids had chewed on wiped dirty hands
on, etc, and expect me to handle those items and check them out. At
least those parents were buying them, but gosh it was disgusting. Now
I work in a hospital and we were GLOVES for those things!!! Perhaps
the employee was (inappropriately) trying to make light of the
situation to his co-worker. It was wrong of him to make any kind of
comment like that in front of you, however.

Would you have felt better if the manager had said "Salivated"?

Why on earth would it be the store's responsibility to be "family
friendly" and make sure all merchandise is above the level of small
children? Pier 1 is not Toys-R-Us. It's a parent's responsibility to
watch what their child is grabbing or, even better, decide if a
particular store is an appropriate place for their small child. Not
all are.

I'm also very tired of hearing "in these bad economic" times...as if
this means the stores should just accomodate every customer request no
matter how inappropriate. (Sorry, that was a bit of a rant) These
tough times work on both sides of the retail fence. How are stores
supposed to survive and keep prices down (to help consumers with the
tough times) if they have to eat lost profit every time an unattended
child ruins merchandise?

How about accepting responsibility for your kid's actions? Ruined
merchandise, intentional or not, costs money.

To me it all boils down to common sense and accepting responsibility.

I'm with those on Pier 1's side. Choice of word aside(and it wouldn't
have bothered me), your child did indeed "break" something. Of course
it wasn't intentional on her part, but she did. And that is your
responsibility.

To me, it would be poor customer service to pass the cost of things
like that that can't be sold to other customers.

Otherwise every shelving unit, every display in every store would be
build on concrete stilts.

"My daughter, who was in a stroller must have grabbed one of them"

She DID grab one and you didn't notice because you weren't paying
attention.

You say you would understand if she had broken something. Once she got
slobber all over it it was broken because it was soiled. It was
unsellable.

YOU even aknowledge that.


"I told the sales associate to dispose of my purchase. However, I
observed him giving it to another associate saying, "here, for you". I
do hope that it was disposed of and not placed for sale again"


Why would you care if they resold it since all you say your daughter
did was hug and cuddle it.

You are completely in the wrong and the store manager is completely in
the right.

It is your responsibility to make sure your child doesn't touch or in
any way RUIN the store's merchandise. Don't blame the location of the
item for your own inattentiveness.

And, for the record, LOTS of people refer to babies "slobbering" all
over their shirts. What would YOU call it? Drooling? That sounds
better to you?

Yes, your daughter probably did slobber on it because *ALL*
babies/little kids put everything they touch in thier mouths, so I
don't understand why you just didn't buy the bear for her? It was
$2.50 for pete's sake.

I'm not so sure what is wrong with the word slobbering... it is
defined as "1. To let saliva or liquid spill out from the mouth;
drool."
If your daughter had released saliva on to the item, then you have
just bought it. I do not see why someone should have to buy something
a little kid slobbered on and the mom put back. Surely you would not
want to purchase such item.

I agree that the manager should not have used the word "slobbering". I
don't think he was trying to offend but then again I'm not sure what
other word he might have used that would have been less offensive to
you. Drooling, maybe?

However, I do think that you were responsible for paying for the bear.
Of course she didn't intentionally damage it. But she did damage it,
so that's on you. Would you have been this upset if the manager had
simply pointed out the damage without using the word slobber, but
still asked you to pay for it?

Children have germs and after your child slobbered on the bear it was
contaminated and therefore unsellable. I would not want my child to
put something in his/her mouth that was slobbered on by another
(possibly sick) child. Children can be contagious long before they
show symptoms.

why would you feel it was appropriate for your child to play with it?

Yes, kids grab things, but a retail environment is not their personal
play space. The best way to teach children not to pick everything
they see up is to keep on them when they do it and redirect them
appropriately.

The manager's lack of tact aside, you, as the parent, dropped the bear
here.

Would you have been less offended by the use of the word drooling?
Maybe the manager could have used a little more tact, but in my mind,
if your child was drooling on the bear the wording shouldn't matter.

Provided that your child was actually drooling while playing with the
bear, I see nothing wrong with what the manager did. That stuffed
animal has now become unsellable, or at least should become
unsellable. Unlike a previous poster, I can totally see a child in a
stroller slobbering all over it. Especially if we are talking a
younger child who might be teething. I've see plenty of 1 - 3 year
olds running around with wet faces. Who wants someone else's germs
and bodily fluids all over their purchase? And yes, I get the whole
"germs are everywhere". But, I should not have to purchase an item
that has been slobbered all over by a child.

Pier 1 is NOT a child friendly store. Not that they don't allow
children in, but it's close quarters and there are plenty of breakable
items. There's no way I would take a stroller in the store with a
toddler. There's so many things they can reach out and grab, not just
stuffed animals.

I'm with Pier 1 here. If I had bought that bear after your kid was
done playing with it and given it to my neice who will inevitably
stick it in her mouth. Sorry thats just icky.

Its not like Pier 1 is going to go wash and dry it afterwards.

All this boils down to control your kids while you are in a store. My
mother did it without issue, theres no excuse about being "kid
friendly" or not. I was in JC Penny with my wife the other day when a
kid who was with his mother pulled down an entire display of boxes
that were stacked like a pyramid. The mother just walked away not
even saying anything to her kid.

have felt the same way? Would you have carried on with your purchase?
The reason I ask is that some people may be offended by the choice of
"drooling" as it has its own negative connotations. Assuming there
was saliva involved, what is a safe, unoffensive word to use?

kids have germs.

Very young children and infants have no concept of germ-control and
don't care what goes in or around their mouths or faces.

That is why they cannot sell the item your daughter was holding.

It doesn't matter if you were offended or not by the "slobbering"
comment.

The fact is, they have other customers - some of which may have weaker
immune systems.

If your daughter was playing with it and putting it by her face, it
cannot be sold to someone else.

Pretty much the "you break it you buy it" rule.


I don't think there's any need for additional "training" by the
associates.

I don't think the word "slobbering" is offensive. I've heard that
word used to describe children (and even some adults!). I think you
overreacted and read too much into the manager's choice of words.

I would avoid taking a child into Pier 1. If I had to bring my
child, I would make sure he or she didn't touch anything. I don't
think they deliberately discourage families with children from
shopping there. The nature of the store prohibits it from being child
friendly.

Unless the bear was visibly soiled or damaged, I don't know why the
manager said it couldn't be sold. If that was true, half the stuff
in a toy store would have to be disposed of.

I'm glad that I'm not a manager of a retail store. I have no idea how
to handle a situation like this, where an item-for-sale is being
"damaged" in a way that it should not be resold. I guess the answer
is that you don't worry about a $2.50 item and throw it away (or give
it away to an associate) once the customer leaves.

"Slobbering," however, does appear to be a bad word choice.