Poll of the Day > Do you think walmart's shoplifting policy is fair?

(+) Yeah! (+)

InfestedAdam posted...

I'd hate for employees to feel obligated to stop someone from leaving especially since they're not legally allowed to detain anyone.

Pretty much anybody is legally allowed to make a citizen's arrest, employee or not.

InfestedAdam posted...

A fellow Scout leader is a manager at Party City and said they're not allowed to detain or stop anyone. Best they can do is report it to the police and warn/ban the person. If said person comes back, best they can do is call the police again even if said person repeatedly shoplift.

That's store policy, not law. Corporations tend to have those policies for liability issues. In fact, employees have sometimes ignored those provisions, stopped a thief, handed him over the cops, and the thief either plead out or was convicted for the time, but the employee was *still* fired for violating policy. Policy or not, most male managers I met when I worked retail, food service, etc, did try to stop thieves.

Mead posted...

tbh, having the *option* of an alternate punishment is still a net benefit.

Fuck no, that is downright anti-American

Shame on you

What could be more American than a capitalist solution to crime? >_>
---

Zeus posted...

Pretty much anybody is legally allowed to make a citizen's arrest, employee or not.

Thank you for the insight. That would be even tougher on the employees then if the company allow and expects it.

Zeus posted...

Policy or not, most male managers I met when I worked retail, food service, etc, did try to stop thieves.

The fellow Scout leader said they've been held at gunpoint before. With a wife and three children, I'm sure he just let the shoplifters have their way and let the insurance cover the loss. He also encourage/remind his employees to do the same to avoid any issues. It's just not worth it in my opinion to save whatever money was stolen.

Zeus posted...

In fact, employees have sometimes ignored those provisions, stopped a thief, handed him over the cops, and the thief either plead out or was convicted for the time, but the employee was *still* fired for violating policy.

I do feel that sucks for the employee but with the potential fallout from an employee getting injured or dying, I can understand why companies prefer losing the products/money.
---

John Oliver made a good point about sexual harrassment this week. He said HR in corporations isn't there for the workers it there to minimize lawsuit. So i get why store's have this policy, because if anything goes wrong someone can sue the store which makes will make a law suit.
---

Oh look, it's the Theft Alt
---

Zeus posted...

They can't, which is why they weren't. They were giving shoplifters the option of paying the money in lieu of going to the cops. However, now they can't do that either.

Paying extra money you mean instead of going to the cops.

Zeus posted...

Policy or not, most male managers I met when I worked retail, food service, etc, did try to stop thieves.

That's because other than loss and prevention only managers are allowed to confront them.
---

On this topic....how is it more people don't shoplift or dine and dash?

I mean, seriously, security in most places is absolutely pointless, and heck in most grocery stores you could walk around and eat food from the store, and leave without any evidence of shop lifting.

As far as I know this doesn't happen much (certainly have never noticed it myself), but take safeway for
example where I shop all the time. I have, many times, drank some or most of a drink before paying for it and it's considered totally normal. I see people eating on the tables by starbucks all the time as well, and god knows it's hard to get ANYONE from the deli section to pay attention to you even if you jump up and down, wave a flag, have a loudspeaker stating you have been waiting 15 minutes already and have actual tentacles coming out of your head.

So I highly doubt they are paying attention to if people pay for the food from the bars (Fried chicken etc), and just go sit down by starbucks and eat it.

And that is grocery stores...which at least have some security measures.....most places you eat? What stops someone from getting up and heading to the bathroom, then just leaving afterwards etc? Park a block away, and then run to your car (around a corner so the license can't be seen) and take off.

Seriously, how does this not happen way more often then it does?
---

InfestedAdam posted...

The fellow Scout leader said they've been held at gunpoint before. With a wife and three children, I'm sure he just let the shoplifters have their way and let the insurance cover the loss. He also encourage/remind his employees to do the same to avoid any issues. It's just not worth it in my opinion to save whatever money was stolen.

...it's not shoplifting when you're being held at gunpoint, that's armed robbery.

InfestedAdam posted...

I do feel that sucks for the employee but with the potential fallout from an employee getting injured or dying, I can understand why companies prefer losing the products/money.

That or if they wind up injuring somebody else in pursuit or injure the suspect without being able to prove something was stolen.

Revelation34 posted...

Zeus posted...

They can't, which is why they weren't. They were giving shoplifters the option of paying the money in lieu of going to the cops. However, now they can't do that either.

Paying extra money you mean instead of going to the cops.

No, you wouldn't get the product from what I understand. It would just be like a fine.

Revelation34 posted...

Zeus posted...

Policy or not, most male managers I met when I worked retail, food service, etc, did try to stop thieves.

That's because other than loss and prevention only managers are allowed to confront them.

Typically managers are the only ones who care enough and, like I said, policy specifically forbid managers from chasing thieves.
---

Zeus posted...

No, you wouldn't get the product from what I understand. It would just be like a fine.

Then they should have allowed them to do that but keep the product instead as long as it was 1-1 pay.

Zeus posted...

Typically managers are the only ones who care enough and, like I said, policy specifically forbid managers from chasing thieves.

I don't know what policy would do that. Safeway owned companies never had a policy like that. I'm sure others do too.
---

wolfy42 posted...

god knows it's hard to get ANYONE from the deli section to pay attention to you

the cashier/butcher don't care if you steal but there's someone in the back watching you on camera who does
---

wolfy42 posted...

Seriously, how does this not happen way more often then it does?

I'm sure it does, but a lot of it is deterred by the fact that most people don't want to risk getting a theft charge on your record. It can bar you from a lot of good jobs.

That being said, having worked in a grocery store for years, I'd say your odds of getting away with shoplifting are 90% or more if you dress normally and don't get suspicious amounts of stuff. Even faking a list would likely get you off the radar of Loss Prevention.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Zeus posted...

No, you wouldn't get the product from what I understand. It would just be like a fine.

Then they should have allowed them to do that but keep the product instead as long as it was 1-1 pay.

If it was 1-1 then you're literally encouraging criminals. That's the fucking stupidest policy ever.

Revelation34 posted...

Zeus posted...

Typically managers are the only ones who care enough and, like I said, policy specifically forbid managers from chasing thieves.

I don't know what policy would do that. Safeway owned companies never had a policy like that. I'm sure others do too.

Literally not true, as a story *today* demonstrates.

https://www.westsideseattle.com/ballard-news-tribune/2016/08/30/woman-works-ballard-safeway-12-years-fired-trying-stop-vandal-0

It seems to be a very common practice among corporate retailers and even some of the M&Ps I worked for in hs and college somewhat discouraged it for fear of lawsuit.
---

i worked at wal-mart and i never heard that as a policy but i never worked in loss prevention.

Yes, it is fair imo

Zeus posted...

If it was 1-1 then you're literally encouraging criminals. That's the fucking stupidest policy ever.

Any other way is literally blackmail. Also prove it encourages criminals.

Zeus posted...

Literally not true, as a story *today* demonstrates.

https://www.westsideseattle.com/ballard-news-tribune/2016/08/30/woman-works-ballard-safeway-12-years-fired-trying-stop-vandal-0

It seems to be a very common practice among corporate retailers and even some of the M&Ps I worked for in hs and college somewhat discouraged it for fear of lawsuit.

You clearly never even read that article. She wasn't a manager.

argonautweakend posted...

Yes, it is fair imo

Blackmail is never fair.
---