Food Stamp Slam

[Lewis]

Slammed for Using Food Stamps: Ga. Woman Seeks Apology

<cite class="byline vcard"><abbr title="2012-09-26T12:10:05Z">
</abbr></cite>
<cite class="byline vcard"> ABC News – <abbr title="2012-09-26T12:10:05Z">10 hours ago</abbr></cite>

Is a $15 gift card enough to compensate for public humiliation at your local grocery store? According to one Georgia woman, the answer is absolutely not.
Cindy Nerger, 28, who relies on food stamps to feed her family, said she was brought to tears after being embarrassed by a manager at a Kroger store in Warner Robbins, Ga.


"He said, 'Excuse me for working for a living and not relying on food stamps like you,'" Nerger said the manager told her.
The man's comment came after Nerger and two other store employees disagreed over whether her total purchase was eligible for food stamps - the employees had insisted that roughly $10 of her bill was not covered. She said the manager ultimately told the employees to "just give it to her."


After Nerger then stressed that she had been right all along, the man made his "working for a living" remark, she said.
"I turned around and realized how many people heard him and how many saw that happened and I was so embarrassed… I started crying," she said.
In a statement to ABCNews.com, a Kroger spokesman said, "We deeply regret our customer's experience. The comments made were not reflective of our company's policy. We value all of our customers. Please know that we have taken immediate steps to make sure something like this never happens again."


WATCH: Customers React When They See a Woman Heckled for Running Out of Food Stamps in a "What Would You Do?" Scenario
The spokesman did not reply to a follow-up message asking for more information, but a local Georgia television station reported that Kroger had transferred the manager at the center of the controversy to another store.
Nerger said the reason she and her family - she is married with a daughter - must rely on food stamps is because her husband's carpentry business isn't profitable enough to support the family.


Meanwhile, Nerger must devote 12 hours every night to a dialysis treatment to combat her kidney disease, which she's struggled with since the age of 11. She's been on a kidney transplant list for five years and hopes that someday, after a successful transplant, she can become a working member of society. She would like to attend college to major in child psychology.
"There's just so much stigmatism put on people on food stamps. They're just some losers who don't want to work. That isn't the case in every situation," she said.


Nerger's account of her run-in with a Kroger manager went viral after she posted it to her Facebook page, prompting friends to encourage her to post a message to a local television station. The station ended up contacting her and doing a story.
Kroger, meanwhile, responded to a complaint Nerger passed on through the store's national customer service line by apologizing and offering her a $15 gift card. Nerger said she rejected the offer because she doesn't plan on shopping at Kroger again.


What she wants, she said, is an apology directly from the manager, whom she also believes should be demoted from his job and trained how to treat customers properly.
She stopped short of saying the man should lose his job.
"I didn't want anybody to be in the food stamp line with me," she said.

 

[Hammer]

This woman is guilty of her own humiliation.

The article doesn't identify what it is that the store thought the food stamps didn't cover. Maybe candy? Beer? All the woman had to do was either pay out of pocket or have the store put back the $10 in disputed items. But, she wanted to be a self-righteous jerk.

It's completely irrelevant that she has "dialysis treatment to combat her kidney disease, which she's struggled with since the age of 11." But, if she lost some weight and laid off the disputable groceries, her kidney disease might improve.

 

[Milk-Drops]

This woman is guilty of her own humiliation.

The women didn't make the store owner over react. No one deserves public humiliation for something like this. The manager couldhavejust simply refused purchase instead of the quip.

The article doesn't identify what it is that the store thought the food stamps didn't cover. Maybe candy? Beer?

So why even bring it up? You also don't know, so the what ifs are pointless.

All the woman had to do was either pay out of pocket or have the store put back the $10 in disputed items.

How do you know that it wasn't food that was being disputed?

But, she wanted to be a self-righteous jerk.

How do you know this?

Its completely irrelevant that she has "dialysis treatment to combat her kidney disease, which she's struggled with since the age of 11."

Except its clarification of why the women is on food stamps.

But, if she lost some weight and laid off the disputable groceries, her kidney disease might improve.

One you are not her doctor, so I highly doubt you are qualified to tell us all how to fix her chronic condition. Second You don't know what the groceries are. Why are you white knighting and inventing reasons for us to victim blame this person and shame her for something no one should have to endure in polite society?

 

[Hammer]

The women didn't make the store owner over react. No one deserves public humiliation for something like this. The manager couldhavejust simply refused purchase instead of the quip.

[I don't normally respond to you, but at the moment I'm a bit bored.]

I don't trust the woman's claim of what the manager said any further than I can throw her. Regardless, this whole thing would have been avoided if the woman hadn't been a jerk.

So why even bring it up? You also don't know, so the what ifs are pointless.

If we knew what food the $10 dispute was over, that would tell us who was right, the woman or the store. The fact that the article doesn't say suggests that it wasn't anything that would help the woman's case.

How do you know that it wasn't food that was being disputed?

Let me give you some advice. Think! Think in complete thoughts. And, show that you're thinking in complete thoughts in your statements. Every time I read some of your nonsense, I always have to refer to what you're replying to know what you're talking about. But, in this case, even referring to what you replied to doesn't tell me what you're talking about.

How do you know this?

How do I know that she's a jerk? Well, duh! I already explained it.

Except its clarification of why the women is on food stamps.

No, the sob story about kidney disease is not a clarification of why she's on food stamps. If it is, then it means that she chose to have children when she had no ability to care for them. People who can't care for children shouldn't have children.

The sob story is so we'll feel sorry for her and ignore the details of her dispute with the store.

One you are not her doctor, so I highly doubt you are qualified to tell us all how to fix her chronic condition.

I'm not her doctor. But, I'm also not an idiot. Obesity triples the odds of kidney failure.

Second You don't know what the groceries are. Why are you white knighting and inventing reasons for us to victim blame this person and shame her for something no one should have to endure in polite society?

No one should have to endure in polite society what that women did to the store manager, trying to force him to do something he didn't think was legal when she could simply have gone to another store for her purchase, if it was legal - which is something not in evidence.

Just because someone's actually working for a living doesn't mean someone else has the right to railroad them.

 

[Milk-Drops]

[I don't normally respond to you, but at the moment I'm a bit bored.]

This right here is against the forum rules.

I don't trust the woman's claim of what the manager said any further than I can throw her.

From what I have read of your response, your entire reason is actually based purely on speculation on not anything to do with the women herself. That is why I have a problem with what you said originally. You are using your speculation as if it was fact instead of making sure that your thoughts coincide with reality.

Regardless, this whole thing would have been avoided if the woman hadn't been a jerk.

There is nothing in the article that says the women was acting out of line. Please highlight the part of the article if it is in there.

If we knew what food the $10 dispute was over, that would tell us who was right, the woman or the store.

Exactly, we don't know what the groceries were. Yet, you are making empiricle statements about the women's character and groceries based purely on speculation. Yet you don't seem to understand, or unable to recognize this.

The fact that the article doesn't say suggests that it wasn't anything that would help the woman's case.

This is the speculation that I was referring to. You are assuming negatively instead of just being skeptical of the story. Immediately assuming the negative is the same as assuming that the women had zero fault. Its faulty logic based on what we do know.

Let me give you some advice.

No, you aren't going to present any advice. You are going to present thinly veiled insults and try to distract from your own weak argument. You so called advice is just more assumption and speculation without an attempt to even ask me of where I'm coming from. You have already assumed my position and are on the offensive to tear me down. This is why I challenged your post in the first place. Its you lack of respect for others that called me to action.

Think! Think in complete thoughts. And, show that you're thinking in complete thoughts in your statements. Every time I read some of your nonsense, I always have to refer to what you're replying to know what you're talking about. But, in this case, even referring to what you replied to doesn't tell me what you're talking about.

You avoided my statements and went into insults. You never asked me for clarification, but instead went immediately into tearing down my person and credibility. this is called an Ad hominem argument. Its a nonsensical logical fallacy meant to distract from your lack of argument.

How do I know that she's a jerk? Well, duh! I already explained it.

Nope, all you did was attack my character and present your own speculation as evidence. You have done far from present any kind of evidence.

No, the sob story about kidney disease is not a clarification of why she's on food stamps.

No, the article refers to how she has a disability and her husband is having problems finding work due to the economy with him being a carpenter. I'm guessing these facts are inconvenient to your point.

If it is, then it means that she chose to have children when she had no ability to care for them. People who can't care for children shouldn't have children.

Once again you are reverting back to insults instead of any kind of supporting evidence or argument. This is pathetic.

The sob story is so we'll feel sorry for her and ignore the details of her dispute with the store.

Then you should have the complete ability to explain why the store manager is ethically in the right for chastising a customer for being on food-stamps with public humiliation. So far you have failed to meet this very basic requirement.

I'm not her doctor

Therefore I don't care about your assumptions of her medical history.

No one should have to endure in polite society what that women did to the store manager,

What? Using food stamps? So far that is all the article states.

trying to force him to do something he didn't think was legal when she could simply have gone to another store for her purchase, if it was legal - which is something not in evidence.

Your speculation is not evidence. You could frame it as a possibility, but its not fact or evident without a source.

Just because someone's actually working for a living doesn't mean someone else has the right to railroad them.

Yet you haven't presented evidence outside your speculation that the women is even doing this.

 

[Christ_empowered]

The manager's behavior was inexcusable. Bad things happen; sometimes people end up on food stamps. If the manager doesn't like food stamp customers, he should persuade his store not to accept food stamps. Since that store--and probably the whole chain, as well--profit from accepting food stamps, the manager should have kept his mouth shut.

 

[Hammer]

From what I have read of your response, your entire reason is actually based purely on speculation on not anything to do with the women herself.

Wrong Meatballsub. It's no speculation that the woman and the store had a disagreement about what the food stamps cover. A civilized women would have simply accepted the store's position instead of trying to coerce the store to what they thought is against the law.

Exactly, we don't know what the groceries were. Yet, you are making empiricle statements about the women's character and groceries based purely on speculation.

Wrong, meatballsub. She tried to coerce the store to break the law. When that failed, she took to publicly humiliating the store and the manager. That's doubly bad considering that she's not a productive member of society. She's a complete jerk. It would be stupid of me not to think she's a jerk.

Yet you don't seem to understand, or unable to recognize this. This is the speculation that I was referring to. You are assuming negatively instead of just being skeptical of the story. Immediately assuming the negative is the same as assuming that the women had zero fault. Its faulty logic based on what we do know.

Wrong, meatballsub. It's no assumption that she tried to coerce the store to break the law. It's no assumption that she took to publicly humiliating the store and its manager. It's no assumption that she's not a productive member of society.

She's a self-righteous jerk with an overwhelming sense of entitlement. That's not an assumption. It's a reasoned conclusion.

Then you should have the complete ability to explain why the store manager is ethically in the right for chastising a customer for being on food-stamps with public humiliation. So far you have failed to meet this very basic requirement.

Wrong, meatballsub. It's not established that the store manager acted unethically or that he chastised her for being on foodstamps. Her claim is hearsay. Her claim is not credible because she is neither an independent witness nor does her claim go against her interests.

Therefore I don't care about your assumptions of her medical history.

Wrong meatballsub. It's not an assumption that obesity is contributor to kidney disease. And, she's obese.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Wrong Meatballsub. It's no speculation that the woman and the store had a disagreement about what the food stamps cover.

this is true, but every thing else that I can easily site that you stated as to her character and other statements that aren't in the article is speculation. Be the bigger man and move on.

A civilized women would have simply accepted the store's position instead of trying to coerce the store to what they thought is against the law.

Right back to speculation, show us in the article where it says that the women coerced the manager.

Wrong, meatballsub. She tried to coerce the store to break the law. When that failed, she took to publicly humiliating the store and the manager. That's doubly bad considering that she's not a productive member of society. She's a complete jerk. It would be stupid of me not to think she's a jerk.

Once again, show us in the article where she attempted to coerce the store manager. Otherwise this is all speculation.

Wrong, meatballsub. It's no assumption that she tried to coerce the store to break the law. It's no assumption that she took to publicly humiliating the store and its manager. It's no assumption that she's not a productive member of society.

Then you should have no problem highlighting and showing where in the article you got this information. Unless, of course this is just your speculation?

She's a self-righteous jerk with an overwhelming sense of entitlement. That's not an assumption. It's a reasoned conclusion.

So far based purely on your speculation.

Wrong, meatballsub. It's not established that the store manager acted unethically

Exactly, I'm reserving judgement on the parties and accepting that all we have is a single article that is making claims. I'm commenting based purely on the claims of the article. Do you happen to have a differn't article or source?

or that he chastised her for being on foodstamps.

Except where it states in the article that the manager publicly proclaimed that at least he works for a living.

Her claim is hearsay. Her claim is not credible because she is neither an independent witness nor does her claim go against her interests.

Both her and the article have made the claim. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Wrong meatballsub. It's not an assumption that obesity is contributor to kidney disease. And, she's obese.

And you are not her doctor that knows the cause and the factors around her specified disease.

EDITED

 

[Hammer]

Right back to speculation, show us in the article where it says that the women coerced the manager.

Wrong Meatballsub. The article implicitly demands that the reader understand the woman was trying to coerce the store to break the law. At least three store employees were involved and the manager "ultimately told employees..." This was not a five-second exchange, of the woman expressing that she thinks the food stamps should cover the beer (or whatever) and him replying with an insult. This was something she sustained with the coercive intent of getting him to relent and break the law, as he understood it.

Then you should have no problem highlighting and showing where in the article you got this information. Unless, of course this is just your speculation?

What information, specifically do you want to know about? Do I have to read your mind?

EDITED:

 

[reba]

No one here was a witness to the whole exchange. Accept that those posting, are of differing opinions and stop the personal attacks...

 

[Gordon]

I don't really like this topic. Either we judge this manager or judge the lady. The manager had this come back against him 100x what he did already. Maybe the lady did provoke him but we're supposed to let stuff like that go even if it happens to us. Much less insult each other over it.

Maybe the manager will use this humbling experience to change his heart and become more like Christ.

 

[stovebolts]

The man's comment came after Nerger and two other store employees disagreed over whether her total purchase was eligible for food stamps - the employees had insisted that roughly $10 of her bill was not covered. She said the manager ultimately told the employees to "just give it to her."

The cash register is what dictates what is eligible for food stamps and what is not. The Cashier is only enforcing what has been programmed into the register.

We see here that two store employees were trying to tell this gal that roughly $10 of her purchase was NOT covered by food stamps.

So lets ask the question. How did two employees become engaged into this situation. I believe it's a safe bet to assume that the woman was disputing the Cashiers claim and the Cashier asked for assistance.

We see then that the store manager comes onto the scene and ends the situation with, "just give it to her." In other words, the scene was rapidly unraveling and again, I'm sure it's safe to say that this woman just wasn't going to accept that she owed $10.

In this case, I don't believe that a store manager would just say, "just give it to her." if it was indeed owed to her. Again, what is eligible for food stamps is not a subjective decision by the Cashier or Manager. It's programmed into the register. Also, the "Just give it to her" means that the store will write it off because there isn't a way to overwrite the register to accept foods stamps for a non-qualified item... and if they did they would be in violation of some sort of law. So really, the gal got away with about $10 in free merchandise regardless of what it was.

The "just give it to her." comment to me sounds like a frustrated response to a woman who wasn't going to take no for an answer and was going to insist on getting her way regardless of who told her otherwise. Imagine for a moment three store employees trying to explain to this gal that some of the stuff she bought wasn't covered by food stamps. Tell me that doesn't draw a crowd in and of itself. Also, ask yourself this. Would you argue with three people at a register about an ineligible purchase? Why would you argue with three people including the manager?

As far as his comment, " 'Excuse me for working for a living and not relying on food stamps like you," This should be unacceptable from a manager regardless of how frustrated he may have been and I think Kroger needs to rethink their decision of just relocating him.

I also understand that people don't just say things like that unless it's being used as backlash. Again, I can only imagine the personal attacks this woman must have made toward him to cause him to say such a thing in response.

.02

 

[Hammer]

As far as his comment, " 'Excuse me for working for a living and not relying on food stamps like you," This should be unacceptable from a manager regardless of how frustrated he may have been and I think Kroger needs to rethink their decision of just relocating him.

It's not reasonable to accept this woman's claims about what the manager said. And, even if he did say this, it pales in comparison to that woman's behavior.

 

[Christ_empowered]

Why isn't it reasonable to accept this woman's claims? Because she's on food stamps?

 

[Hammer]

Why isn't it reasonable to accept this woman's claims? Because she's on food stamps?

No, silly. Her claim about what he said isn't credible because it's hearsay, hearsay from a jerk. If there were a trial, what she said he said wouldn't be allowed - and that's even without regard to her being a jerk. Jerks lack the capacity to be honest.

 

[Christ_empowered]

I don't understand how food stamps work myself. I do think the manager's behavior seems inappropriate. If nothing else, he should be given some sort of punishment and training in how to handle these situations. With so many people out of work or underemployed, he's going to be dealing with lots of food stamp customers. I think he should be better trained in how to handle these situations with a degree of sensitivity and compassion. Maybe he should give her a hand written apology.

 

[stovebolts]

It's not reasonable to accept this woman's claims about what the manager said. And, even if he did say this, it pales in comparison to that woman's behavior.

I am speaking from a managerial perspective. In business, you train your managers to respond in a manner that does not tarnish the corporations integrity or increase liability. What he said did nothing to resolve the issue, but rather, it afforded national attention in a negative manner. I'd presume that this manager did not follow corporate policy or procedure with this gal.

 

[stovebolts]

Why isn't it reasonable to accept this woman's claims? Because she's on food stamps?

Her claim was that she should have been able to buy whatever she wanted with her food stamps. If that were the case, the register wouldn't have flagged it. As it sits, the register rejected about $10 worth of merchandise that was not qualified to be purchased with food stamps (Bridge card). There isn't an override to allow the sale of non qualifying items as this is regulated at the state and federal level.

Do you think that the cashier, assistant and manager had nothing better to do than harass this gal?

 

[Christ_empowered]

I didn't know these things. I apologize for speaking without knowledge of the subject and for being so harsh.

 

[stovebolts]

I didn't know these things. I apologize for speaking without knowledge of the subject and for being so harsh.

Not a biggie, you didn't know. It's all good Brother :waving

Besides, the article was directed against the manager as well as twisting and manipulating the article in favor of the gal. You just bought into the cool aide. It wasn't your fault.