5 ms·

This concern > opposed to turning private companies into arms of federal law enforcement agencies. does not explain this policy > “If you suspect fraud, comp

This concern > opposed to turning private companies into arms of federal law enforcement agencies. does not explain this policy > “If you suspect fraud, complete the transaction.” If there is suspicion of fraud and yet still direct your employees complete the transaction, sure, maybe you're not literally in favor of fraud. But it does mean that you don't care if there's fraud. There's little daylight between not caring about fraud and being in favor of it at Walmart's scale.

erikpukinskis 4y ago
I think you're off a bit here. Not everyone is a fraud detection specialist. If Wal-mart had implemented the "trust your gut" policy you're advocating for, you're just going to get Ethiopian grandmas trying to cash out money from their grandkids and some random-ass Walmart employee deciding it's fraud because "she looks suspicious" or some nonsense and then she can't pay her rent. People should be trained to detect fraud if that's necessary. But saying "don't try to detect fraud" to random-ass employees whose job is not fraud detection seems eminently reasonable to me.
- vkou 4y ago
  > People should be trained to detect fraud if that's necessary. But saying "don't try to detect fraud" to random-ass employees whose job is not fraud detection seems eminently reasonable to me. It's not reasonable because of the first sentence. If you're dealing with other people's money, your employees should be trained to detect fraud. If you can't be bothered to ensure that, you shouldn't be dealing with other people's money.
thfuran 4y ago
This concern > opposed to turning private companies into arms of federal law enforcement agencies. does not explain this policy > “If you suspect fraud, complete the transaction.” Sure it does. It's not Walmart's job to investigate fraud or any other crime. Their cashier's aren't trained in jurisprudence. And, frankly, a corporate policy of "deny service to customers who you suspect might be up to no good" is just a few racist employees away from another shit show entirely.
- cornstalks 4y ago
  There are many ways to handle suspected fraud. One completely reasonable approach would be to talk to customers about scams if fraud is suspected. You can still leave it up to the customer to decide to go through with the transaction. Other approaches exist too. But doing absolutely nothing and quietly proceeding with the transaction is just hostile to your most vulnerable customers.
- Spooky23 4y ago
  Funny, when Walmart’s money is involved, they have no problem having untrained staff harass, profile and intimidate customers suspected of not following store policy.
  - bpodgursky 4y ago
    I feel like you are speaking without knowledge, because it usually take an extraordinary amount of blatant repeat theft for the loss protection team to act against an individual. Solo one-time shoplifters have close to a 100% chance of success without being apprehended.
    - Spooky23 4y ago
      There’s a well established, well documented pattern of conduct by Walmart that suggests otherwise. In a town near me, the store generates ~3000 arrests a year, to the point that the town has a police substation on the premises.
      - noptd 4y ago
        Comparing blatant theft of physical property to a possible financial scam, the latter of which the company has nowhere near the context required to make a determination on, seems a bit disingenuous, no?
        ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        comparing theft of a $5 tshirt or whatever to scams worth thousands of dollars is what seems disingenuous. most of crime in the world is not petty shoplifting, its financial fraud amd much of it is done under corporate veil
CivBase 4y ago
Most retailers also tell their employees to let theifs get away rather than physically confront them. Doesn't mean they "don't care if there's" theft. Of course they care! They just want the relevant authorities to deal with it instead of putting their employees in potentially dangerous situations. The article doesn't say whether the policy instructed employees to report the suspected fraud afterwards.
efrbwrh 4y ago

erikpukinskis 4y ago

I think you're off a bit here. Not everyone is a fraud detection specialist. If Wal-mart had implemented the "trust your gut" policy you're advocating for, you're just going to get Ethiopian grandmas trying to cash out money from their grandkids and some random-ass Walmart employee deciding it's fraud because "she looks suspicious" or some nonsense and then she can't pay her rent. People should be trained to detect fraud if that's necessary. But saying "don't try to detect fraud" to random-ass employees whose job is not fraud detection seems eminently reasonable to me.

vkou 4y ago
> People should be trained to detect fraud if that's necessary. But saying "don't try to detect fraud" to random-ass employees whose job is not fraud detection seems eminently reasonable to me. It's not reasonable because of the first sentence. If you're dealing with other people's money, your employees should be trained to detect fraud. If you can't be bothered to ensure that, you shouldn't be dealing with other people's money.

thfuran 4y ago

This concern > opposed to turning private companies into arms of federal law enforcement agencies. does not explain this policy > “If you suspect fraud, complete the transaction.” Sure it does. It's not Walmart's job to investigate fraud or any other crime. Their cashier's aren't trained in jurisprudence. And, frankly, a corporate policy of "deny service to customers who you suspect might be up to no good" is just a few racist employees away from another shit show entirely.

cornstalks 4y ago
There are many ways to handle suspected fraud. One completely reasonable approach would be to talk to customers about scams if fraud is suspected. You can still leave it up to the customer to decide to go through with the transaction. Other approaches exist too. But doing absolutely nothing and quietly proceeding with the transaction is just hostile to your most vulnerable customers.
Spooky23 4y ago
Funny, when Walmart’s money is involved, they have no problem having untrained staff harass, profile and intimidate customers suspected of not following store policy.
- bpodgursky 4y ago
  I feel like you are speaking without knowledge, because it usually take an extraordinary amount of blatant repeat theft for the loss protection team to act against an individual. Solo one-time shoplifters have close to a 100% chance of success without being apprehended.
  - Spooky23 4y ago
    There’s a well established, well documented pattern of conduct by Walmart that suggests otherwise. In a town near me, the store generates ~3000 arrests a year, to the point that the town has a police substation on the premises.
    - noptd 4y ago
      Comparing blatant theft of physical property to a possible financial scam, the latter of which the company has nowhere near the context required to make a determination on, seems a bit disingenuous, no?
      - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        comparing theft of a $5 tshirt or whatever to scams worth thousands of dollars is what seems disingenuous. most of crime in the world is not petty shoplifting, its financial fraud amd much of it is done under corporate veil

CivBase 4y ago

Most retailers also tell their employees to let theifs get away rather than physically confront them. Doesn't mean they "don't care if there's" theft. Of course they care! They just want the relevant authorities to deal with it instead of putting their employees in potentially dangerous situations. The article doesn't say whether the policy instructed employees to report the suspected fraud afterwards.

efrbwrh 4y ago