4 ms·
My accounting professor used to say the mirrors and security cameras in stores were to monitor the employees more than the customers.
by PopeDotNinja 6y ago
My accounting professor used to say the mirrors and security cameras in stores were to monitor the employees more than the customers.
- mc32 6y agoThat only would make sense if they don’t have cameras in the stock room and loading docks, etc.
- csharptwdec19 6y agoI've worked at more than one location where the Cameras in customer areas were conspicuous but the cameras in the employee area were hidden.
- mc32 6y agoSure but stock room knows the security people and if the manager is causing shrinkage then the staff might also follow “the lead”.
- dspillett 6y agoMost thefts by customers are more opportunistic, the visible cameras have much more effect on that. Staff theft tends to be more pre-planned when it happens, so they'll work around the cameras if they easily know what they can see. Same for break-ins to employee-only areas (warehouse etc.). The threat model in the two areas is a bit different, so different tactics are used. It doesn't mean that some people are trusted more than others, just that as groups they behave differently.
- 77pt77 6y ago> but the cameras in the employee area were hidden. Is this legal? Sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen.
- thomasjudge 6y agoWhat law would you think is being broken here? I don't think they are talking about bathrooms, where one might argue there is a "reasonable expectation of privacy." If you are working for an employer on their premises I think they have a right to do monitoring including clandestine. Just like they can monitor anything you do on their computer
- tialaramex 6y agoIn the UK at least, if you believe that crimes are occurring (e.g. stock discrepancies suggest employees are stealing) you can get permission from your local police to use hidden cameras. With that prior police authorisation it's legal to record more or less anywhere without those recorded knowing. The police knowing you were authorised means when Sandra finds a camera in the employee locker room and freaks out, the cops who attend can verify that yes, Sandra's manager's boss got that OK'd two weeks ago when six £700 graphics cards "vanished" versus no this is some camera planted by an unknown creep and if the cops figure out who it was they'll be arrested. If the "unknown creep" turns out to be the boss, the existence of this authorisation mechanism means they have no excuse - if they'd asked "Hey, can I secretly film my employees to get evidence of theft?" the answer would be "First, go to a police station to get guidance" not "Sure, act exactly like a pervert and just hide a camera".
- minikites 6y agoEmployers steal far more than employees: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/Wage_theft_versus_other_property_crimes.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/Wage_the... https://www.gq.com/story/wage-theft https://www.gq.com/story/wage-theft https://www.epi.org/publication/employers-steal-billions-from-workers-paychecks-each-year/ https://www.epi.org/publication/employers-steal-billions-fro... https://www.epi.org/publication/wage-theft-bigger-problem-theft-protect/ https://www.epi.org/publication/wage-theft-bigger-problem-th...