4 ms·

This kind of Walgreens closure in urban areas is not limited to SF. I wonder if maybe the business itself is struggling for other reasons, and they're using thi

This kind of Walgreens closure in urban areas is not limited to SF. I wonder if maybe the business itself is struggling for other reasons, and they're using this as a cover for closing down the more toxic locations.

phil21 6y ago
It's certainly both. But absolutely no retail store can operate in a political climate where they are unable to enact reasonable loss prevention policies. Walgreens and stores like it are especially hard hit because they are generally well stocked/capitalized, and ubiquitous even in rougher areas of town. They also are corporate owned (not franchised) and thus have exceedingly "hands off" loss prevention policies. Word gets around. If I were CEO of Walgreens I'd likely be making the same decision. A single instance of an overzealous security guard getting into a fight or killing a shoplifter will erase any profits you'd make in years of keeping 100's of marginally profitable stores open. I've worked in such retail environments and it's pretty discouraging to the workers trying to do the right thing and live the correct way. When I was in such roles it was quite some time ago, and the current climate was only starting to shift - it was still completely acceptable back then to tackle a shoplifter in the parking lot and forcefully detain them until the cops came. The morale hit employees took when they simply have to sit back and watch is hard to measure, and I'm certain damages these communities in ways we have not even begun to understand. Simply saying it's "not worth your personal liability to protect corporate profits" rings really hollow on a societal level as society stops working when all that binds us are rarely enforced laws.
- 8f2ab37a-ed6c 6y ago
  What is the govt's plan here? Is this just a way to win more progressive votes regardless of actual collateral damage to communities? Are they showing that they will not prosecute crime because it was morally justified by an oppressed, impoverished population that only wants to feed itself? And is stealing from corporations is a valid form of restitution?

phil21 6y ago

It's certainly both. But absolutely no retail store can operate in a political climate where they are unable to enact reasonable loss prevention policies. Walgreens and stores like it are especially hard hit because they are generally well stocked/capitalized, and ubiquitous even in rougher areas of town. They also are corporate owned (not franchised) and thus have exceedingly "hands off" loss prevention policies. Word gets around. If I were CEO of Walgreens I'd likely be making the same decision. A single instance of an overzealous security guard getting into a fight or killing a shoplifter will erase any profits you'd make in years of keeping 100's of marginally profitable stores open. I've worked in such retail environments and it's pretty discouraging to the workers trying to do the right thing and live the correct way. When I was in such roles it was quite some time ago, and the current climate was only starting to shift - it was still completely acceptable back then to tackle a shoplifter in the parking lot and forcefully detain them until the cops came. The morale hit employees took when they simply have to sit back and watch is hard to measure, and I'm certain damages these communities in ways we have not even begun to understand. Simply saying it's "not worth your personal liability to protect corporate profits" rings really hollow on a societal level as society stops working when all that binds us are rarely enforced laws.

8f2ab37a-ed6c 6y ago
What is the govt's plan here? Is this just a way to win more progressive votes regardless of actual collateral damage to communities? Are they showing that they will not prosecute crime because it was morally justified by an oppressed, impoverished population that only wants to feed itself? And is stealing from corporations is a valid form of restitution?