When a supermarket employee volunteered to pay for her goods at the checkout, a customer said she felt ‘grateful’ and’mortified.’
The woman, who was holding her infant while shopping at a Woolworths in Melbourne, had to go to the service desk due to a technical difficulty with the self-checkout. A Woolies employee volunteered to pay for her goods since she was having difficulty transporting her wailing baby and the cart.
Users on social media discussed whether the worker was just being courteous or whether they were up to anything ‘dodgy.’
She recounted the bizarre transaction in a Reddit post last Thursday and asked other customers whether they thought it was a ‘dodgy’ thing to do.
‘I just returned home from Woolworths, where I attempted to pay using my phone at the self-service checkout,’ the mother wrote.
‘Because it wasn’t functioning, they printed me a barcode and sent me to the service counter to pay, but my phone payment was still not working.’
‘After a few attempts and my newborn kicking off, the staff member responded, don’t worry, it’s on me,’ she added.
The mother expressed surprise at the large offer and requested the worker if she could transfer the funds to her.
She stated the employee refused the offer and answered that it was not an issue.
‘I felt both thankful and ashamed,’ the mother said.
She questioned if Woolworths employees could legally pay for customers’ goods or whether it was ‘dodgy.’
‘I want to go back and thank her, but I don’t want to get her in jail if she’s done anything she shouldn’t have done,’ she continued.
Respondents to the Reddit thread mostly agreed that the lady should be grateful for the good act and not draw attention to it at the shop in case the employee gets into problems.
‘Perhaps take the generosity provided and pass it on to someone else in need.’ ‘This way, you don’t risk putting the employee in trouble,’ one user said.
‘Yeah, don’t go back and thank her manager and unintentionally dismiss her,’ commented another. It’s a good intention gone wrong. Instead, thank her the next time you see her.’
‘What’s more likely?’ said a third. They risk getting fired or even jailed for a complete stranger, or they spend a few dollars to assist someone who is clearly doing their hardest but suffering.’ ‘My boyfriend works at a store and has previously paid for individuals. It feels great. ‘Pass it on.’
Others objected to the behavior, claiming that the employee had most likely invalidated the deal.
‘She would never have paid.’ Technically, it’s not the correct thing to do, but Woolies wouldn’t risk the negative publicity of terminating an employee for assisting someone with a crying infant,’ one employee said.
‘Yeah, that transaction was completely invalid. ‘She probably simply wanted the crying infant out of the shop as soon as possible since parents never attempt to calm them,’ wrote a second.
A few users mentioned that they have previously paid for other shoppers’ food, either due to a technical glitch or the customer’s inability to pay it.