4 ms·

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 sta

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.

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.