5 ms·

Also most chains make it policy that staff can’t intervene. There was a viral story some years back where a woman working loss-prevention at Best Buy prevented

Also most chains make it policy that staff can’t intervene. There was a viral story some years back where a woman working loss-prevention at Best Buy prevented a thief from getting out of the store with stolen goods only to be fired. There was a more recent video where nearly the whole sales floor at a Best Buy banded together to stop snatch-and-grab thieves. The Internet loved it, but it was expected they’d all eventually get fired as well.

fineIllregister 4y ago
This is a good thing. Companies reap the benefit of loss prevention actions, they should also have to face the liability when things go wrong. Best Buy has staff that absolutely can stop shop lifters, just not in all stores at all times. Why? Because those employees require special training to do so safely, and companies know it is cheaper to let people steal than provide that training to all employees. The incentives are properly aligned. If a company could force their employees to intervene with no training and no regard to potential harm to the employee, they would all do so.
- nobodyandproud 4y ago
  This is bean-counter logic, due to insufficient data. How do you quantify the value of a neighborhood that is intolerant of theft vs one that is tolerant?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - fineIllregister 4y ago
    If untrained staff intervene in a theft, they could die. Valuing human life over a tiny amount of corporate profit is not "bean-counter logic". If community impact is a concern, then the company should dip into their profits to properly staff their stores. They shouldn't be able to demand their employees to get shot or stabbed.
    - nobodyandproud 4y ago
      > If untrained staff intervene in a theft, they could die. Valuing human life over a tiny amount of corporate profit is not "bean-counter logic". 1. “Trained” staff can also die. 2. What are the chances they will die? > If community impact is a concern, then the company should dip into their profits to properly staff their stores. They shouldn't be able to demand their employees to get shot or stabbed. This is a strawman. The topic is about employees intervening on their own and getting fired for it, not the company demanding that they intervene. Nobody here is saying a business has the right to tell regular employees to intervene.
      - fineIllregister 4y ago
        > 1. “Trained” staff can also die. So why do companies let any staff intervene? Because with traning, the risk is reduced to the point where it is worth it. Also, there might be fewer liabilities. You might be able to insure against harm to a trained employee. > 2. What are the chances they will die? Obviously high enough that companies don't want to risk it. They could be injured as well. > Nobody here is saying a business has the right to tell regular employees to intervene. If companies do not have to accept liability for loss prevention mishaps, they will compel untrained employees to intervene. There will be an obvious gain (less theft) and no cost (liability gone). These companies run on "bean-counter logic". They're going to make the numbers go up if they can.
Eleison23 4y ago
[dead]
klondike_ 4y ago
This makes sense until an employee gets shot defending a $25 bottle of detergent
- nobodyandproud 4y ago
  Okay, but why do wage-employees intervene? What is their motivation even when company policy states otherwise?
  - notch656c 4y ago
    The wage employee is typically not super well off and it's much more personal to see a lowlife get ahead by cheating when you're poor. I think people get a lot more upset about cheats when they're barely making it by doing things the honest way.
  - runnerup 4y ago
    Their motivation is personal and not rational. Some employees emotionally identify their workplace as their home, and their bosses like parents, so they do what they might do if someone stole from their home. Other workers incorrectly believe they will be rewarded for stopping a theft. Other workers just need an outlet where it’s socially acceptable for them to engage in greater-than-usual controlled violence against another person. Other workers just via personal morals feel that all theft should be stopped regardless of the rules/rewards. Other workers panic and don’t know what they should do in the case of shoplifting and then react chaotically/instinctually. The cost to the company of a single employee injury or death sustained while stopping a shoplifter is probably equivalent to hundreds of single-person personal thefts. Even if there’s never any workers l-comp-esque payouts, the hours of administrative time spent reviewing and investigating the incident probably costs more than a dozen thefts.
    - notch656c 4y ago
      Hypothetically (not saying it's justified): You have one store where employees don't stop thieves. You have another store where thieves are stopped by security and those who are caught have their hand chopped off. A couple questions: 1) Is theft reduced 2) If theft is not reduced, does theft at least decrease at handless-thief store in favor of store that does nothing. It's not hard for me to imagine that having say a hand chopped off even once can lead to hundreds of less thefts at a store. My humble conjecture. Not saying hands should be chopped.
jrochkind1 4y ago
> Shrinkage can also be attributed to product damage and loss of goods, theft by employees and vendor fraud. I'm not sure what Dr. Su was referring to when they said "it all comes down to employees," it might not be stopping theft from the public. Internal theft obviously is about employees, and product damage and to some extent vendor fraud are also things more obviously effected by employees.

fineIllregister 4y ago

This is a good thing. Companies reap the benefit of loss prevention actions, they should also have to face the liability when things go wrong. Best Buy has staff that absolutely can stop shop lifters, just not in all stores at all times. Why? Because those employees require special training to do so safely, and companies know it is cheaper to let people steal than provide that training to all employees. The incentives are properly aligned. If a company could force their employees to intervene with no training and no regard to potential harm to the employee, they would all do so.

nobodyandproud 4y ago
This is bean-counter logic, due to insufficient data. How do you quantify the value of a neighborhood that is intolerant of theft vs one that is tolerant?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- fineIllregister 4y ago
  If untrained staff intervene in a theft, they could die. Valuing human life over a tiny amount of corporate profit is not "bean-counter logic". If community impact is a concern, then the company should dip into their profits to properly staff their stores. They shouldn't be able to demand their employees to get shot or stabbed.
  - nobodyandproud 4y ago
    > If untrained staff intervene in a theft, they could die. Valuing human life over a tiny amount of corporate profit is not "bean-counter logic". 1. “Trained” staff can also die. 2. What are the chances they will die? > If community impact is a concern, then the company should dip into their profits to properly staff their stores. They shouldn't be able to demand their employees to get shot or stabbed. This is a strawman. The topic is about employees intervening on their own and getting fired for it, not the company demanding that they intervene. Nobody here is saying a business has the right to tell regular employees to intervene.
    - fineIllregister 4y ago
      > 1. “Trained” staff can also die. So why do companies let any staff intervene? Because with traning, the risk is reduced to the point where it is worth it. Also, there might be fewer liabilities. You might be able to insure against harm to a trained employee. > 2. What are the chances they will die? Obviously high enough that companies don't want to risk it. They could be injured as well. > Nobody here is saying a business has the right to tell regular employees to intervene. If companies do not have to accept liability for loss prevention mishaps, they will compel untrained employees to intervene. There will be an obvious gain (less theft) and no cost (liability gone). These companies run on "bean-counter logic". They're going to make the numbers go up if they can.

Eleison23 4y ago

[dead]

klondike_ 4y ago

This makes sense until an employee gets shot defending a $25 bottle of detergent

nobodyandproud 4y ago
Okay, but why do wage-employees intervene? What is their motivation even when company policy states otherwise?
- notch656c 4y ago
  The wage employee is typically not super well off and it's much more personal to see a lowlife get ahead by cheating when you're poor. I think people get a lot more upset about cheats when they're barely making it by doing things the honest way.
- runnerup 4y ago
  Their motivation is personal and not rational. Some employees emotionally identify their workplace as their home, and their bosses like parents, so they do what they might do if someone stole from their home. Other workers incorrectly believe they will be rewarded for stopping a theft. Other workers just need an outlet where it’s socially acceptable for them to engage in greater-than-usual controlled violence against another person. Other workers just via personal morals feel that all theft should be stopped regardless of the rules/rewards. Other workers panic and don’t know what they should do in the case of shoplifting and then react chaotically/instinctually. The cost to the company of a single employee injury or death sustained while stopping a shoplifter is probably equivalent to hundreds of single-person personal thefts. Even if there’s never any workers l-comp-esque payouts, the hours of administrative time spent reviewing and investigating the incident probably costs more than a dozen thefts.
  - notch656c 4y ago
    Hypothetically (not saying it's justified): You have one store where employees don't stop thieves. You have another store where thieves are stopped by security and those who are caught have their hand chopped off. A couple questions: 1) Is theft reduced 2) If theft is not reduced, does theft at least decrease at handless-thief store in favor of store that does nothing. It's not hard for me to imagine that having say a hand chopped off even once can lead to hundreds of less thefts at a store. My humble conjecture. Not saying hands should be chopped.

jrochkind1 4y ago

> Shrinkage can also be attributed to product damage and loss of goods, theft by employees and vendor fraud. I'm not sure what Dr. Su was referring to when they said "it all comes down to employees," it might not be stopping theft from the public. Internal theft obviously is about employees, and product damage and to some extent vendor fraud are also things more obviously effected by employees.