Corporate suicide?

[IMA SOL MAN]

I was listening to the Mike Gallagher Show on the AM radio this morning. He was relating about how some retailers are simply allowing people to shoplift, and firing employees that call the police or in any way confront the shoplifter. This just strikes me as crazy corporate policy, guaranteed to kill the companies that do this. Are they just deducting the losses as "charitable contributions"? If I was their property insurance company, I would not insure them with corporate policies like that. 🤪 Corporate suicide!

 

[pnwoutdoors]

This just strikes me as crazy corporate policy, guaranteed to kill the companies that do this.

It is.

Failure of architecture and "shop" design, with insufficient constraints upon egress from the shop, combined with failures in procedure and "policy" equates to what we've seen this past several years. Can't keep the product inside if you can't halt forcible removal of such. Which means a shop needs the ability to put a halt to attempted egress whenever that customer cannot prove the products match the receipt. In a high-theft shop, that's about the only way it'll get halted. Using the degree of force actually necessary to get that job done. Precious few shops are prepared to do it properly and effectively. (Today, they'd almost certainly get branded "racist" and whatever other evil moniker gets flung at those bucking the social-reengineering criminality trend.)

Hell, back in 2014 when Ferguson, Missouri, was being torched, I recall the step-father of Michael Brown inciting a mob to "burn this biatch down!" Which they soon did. Not a peep, from "the establishment" or the so-called "authorities" while it happened ... neither during the incitement nor during the burning. Then, tack on the concept of "zero cash bail" and reduction of sentences (to hand slaps) for criminality, tack on the lunacy of policing de-funding ... then you get what we're seeing now.

Sure-fire way to say "sayonara" to one's community, right there.

People have every right to do what they will. They do NOT, however, have every right to inflict that upon others around them.

We should treat the law like that. Like it was expected to function. Irrespective of the cost to miscreants and those seeking to inflict themselves on communities.

Yup. Companies are going down, if they cannot keep products from being thieved en masse. Communities are going down, if they cannot keep the violent from being so. Retaining such people in our communities and shops will result in people handling it themselves as need be. And precious few will be capable or willing of doing that.

Sad, what America is becoming. Pitifully, unspeakably sad.

 

[ampdude]

They are afraid of lawsuits and looking politically incorrect more than losing business. It's the current way of the world.
I understand why they just close and set up shop somewhere else. It's the natural order of things in this country these days.

Most of these clowns wouldn't dare to break into someone's home and try and do the same thing because they know they will get harmed. But you can do it with impunity at a retail shop. Don't forget your balaclava or COVID mask.

 

[knucklegary]

Grand Theft law in CA is more than $950.. So, thieves walk into big box stores fill up baskets and just walk out. Carefully stealing less than said amount, criminals know authorities won't prosecut

The bigger crime is State law makers allowing this bs to happen!

 

[IMA SOL MAN]

You would think that the publicity this kind of behavior gets would cause their stock to plummet, as stockholders and mutual funds dump their stock to avoid the eventual failure of the company. Even if they cut their losses by closing locations in high theft areas, they are still losing revenue. Doubtful they could make up that revenue by opening locations in lower crime areas, as those are usually in lower population areas, and would not generate the volume of business required to replace the revenue from the closed locations. Eventually, they will shrink--possibly death by a thousand cuts. Amazon has the better business model, internet sales and pre-paid product delivery. But now I understand Bezos is opening brick and mortar stores. I guess he has it figured out though, as only members can get in (supposedly) so maybe he can avoid the theft. Time will tell. Location, location, location!

 

[bykfixer]

There used to be a retail store called Best Products where you ordered a product in the store and they'd bring it to you from the warehouse located behind the checkout counters.

Best Products - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Perhaps it's time to try that again.

 

[letschat7]

When my uncle worked in Saudi Arabia he and his coworkers were summoned to the market area one day. A man was caught for stealing twice. They asked his son if he could take care of the family, he said yes. They killed the thief. I understand on first time offense they simply cut off a hand.

Sharia law works. That is a very strong deterrent for stealing. A person is going to think twice before taking something that isn't theirs if they get a real punishment. Jail/prison isn't even a punishment nowadays. It is seriously more fun than church camp.

Where I work at in Ohio I can observe or follow someone around if they are suspicious. I can record on a phone in addition to the cameras in the shop but I'm not allowed to detain. Let alone assaulting them with maybe a hammer until I get bored or disappearing them. This may seem harsh but most theives are stealing to support a drug addiction so I'm really open minded to GBH or better.

Someone I was in prison with from my state caught a thief in the act and drew a handgun. The man ran he calmly aimed at his legs and opened fire hitting him once. He only got 7 years and will only do half the time.

Where I live the people that do the stealing are so-called white people. It is always 20-30 something skinny people with tattoos are they dress in an urban fashion more often than not. They usually don't have a work history and consume drugs they can't afford. I sure wish the state could find it in their heart to hang these people from a tree or at least put them in a forced labour camp and only feed them if they can meet a certain quota of production.

I read this nice book called Subbota. It was about the Gulug. If you somehow couldn't get with the programme you got sent to 'better living through Socialism' and they worked you harder and fed you less. I think these people need to go there. I don't like paying higher retail prices because these scum shoplift all the time.

 

[idleprocess]

Shrinkage has been a factor in commerce since its beginning of which shoplifting is one component. While it's ideally zero, in reality it's to be pushed below a ceiling value and written off as it's a component of pricing.

I gather that shopkeeper's privilege has been codified into law more or less everywhere. The Texas statute is remarkably concise:

Sec. 124.001. SUSPECTED THEFT OF PROPERTY OR ATTEMPTED THEFT OF PROPERTY.
(a) A person who reasonably believes that another has stolen or is attempting to steal property is privileged to detain that person in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time to investigate ownership of the property.

Case law around the privilege has likely made the calculus more complex with the procedural expedience leaning towards doing nothing in most cases.

A co-worker's parents owned a convenience store in a rough neighborhood in Dallas and he'd often take partial days to tend the store whenever there were scheduling issue with regular employees. He described developing a sense for when it was worth it to ignore vs intervene. A wrinkle outside of potential litigation was that regulars would occasionally five-finger stuff - a real dilemma as you don't want anyone stealing from you, but if you dropped the hammer on them you risk losing not only that customer but many more when they bad-mouth you to everyone they know.

some retailers are simply allowing people to shoplift, and firing employees that call the police or in any way confront the shoplifte

Awfully curious about the specifics here as shoplifting has become both a cause célèbre in some quarters and an improbable excuse that retailers have raised during earnings calls to excuse poor performance with scant evidence while other operational deficiencies loom large (ala huge inventories and poor internal procedures). I've little doubt that corner cases can be found - both in terms of policy and retailers being ruined by shoplifting - but I'm a tad skeptical that this is a widespread blanket policy or key details are missing.

But now I understand Bezos is opening brick and mortar stores. I guess he has it figured out though, as only members can get in (supposedly) so maybe he can avoid the theft.

The Amazon Go model is a pure market pilot at this point in time. The amount of technology and computing power required to make it work is not sustainable outside of a well-funded experiment at the present time. When it does become sustainable I expect it will initially be used for high-end retail - ala Neiman Marcus - with solid margins and a customer base that demands service over process.

What is likely to happen in the future in riskier environments will essentially be giant vending machines - all merchandise secured within and delivered post-payment.

There used to be a retail store called Best Products where you ordered a product in the store and they'd bring it to you from the warehouse located behind the checkout counters.

Or Service Merchandise for that matter.

 

[ampdude]

Not true. Prison is punishment because you lose everything you've worked for your entire life. If you've owned a home for 20 years and haven't paid the mortgage off yet it goes back to the bank. Everything you own, including your cars and possessions you'd collected over the years are taken from you. All your firearms are taken. You get out and you have nothing. I have worked at a prison and State prisons are not that horrible, but you get out with nothing even after you've worked for 30 years to earn everything you own. It's not a Church Camp.

You get out with nothing and and a felony charge on your record and your best chance of survival is turning to crime. It's the only way.

 

[jtr1962]

Shoplifting isn't new. It's simply become much more brazen than in the past. It used to be people would discreetly slip items into their pockets or purse. Now it's entire gangs coming in, ransacking stuff off shelves en masse.

A wrinkle outside of potential litigation was that regulars would occasionally five-finger stuff - a real dilemma as you don't want anyone stealing from you, but if you dropped the hammer on them you risk losing not only that customer but many more when they bad-mouth you to everyone they know.

This just reminded me of something from my college days. There was a Wawa near my freshmen dorm. One of the complaints I heard was shoplifting by Princeton students. However, those same students bought stuff simultaneously. The idea was you pay for some stuff (they called it feeder money), while you walked out with some stuff in your pockets. Nobody would suspect you of shoplifting. Obviously they weren't doing this for economic reasons. These were mostly white kids from middle class or rich backgrounds. It was probably just for the thrill of it. Anyway, my point is this stuff isn't limited to just lower socioeconomic classes. I was flat broke in college, but didn't steal once from that store.

Then you had the Bling Ring. They weren't stealing for financial gain, but to have stuff owned by the celebrities they worshipped.

I was listening to the Mike Gallagher Show on the AM radio this morning. He was relating about how some retailers are simply allowing people to shoplift, and firing employees that call the police or in any way confront the shoplifter. This just strikes me as crazy corporate policy, guaranteed to kill the companies that do this. Are they just deducting the losses as "charitable contributions"? If I was their property insurance company, I would not insure them with corporate policies like that. 🤪 Corporate suicide!

The companies face liability issues if their employees either intervene or call the police, and as a result get hurt/killed in the process. As abhorrent as I find these crimes, in the end it's just stuff. It can be replaced. The lives of employees can't be.

A lot of stores are in fact closing up shop in areas with high rates of shoplifting. Some shrinkage is expected in retail from both shoplifting and employee theft, but the levels in some places are simply unsustainable. In the end the best long term solution is to shut down where they fence the stolen goods. The fact the goods can be easily resold is why this continues. While we're assigning blame, blame the people who buy stuff online at prices that are obviously too good to be true. When you see "new in box" stuff on eBay for $19.99 which retails at $100, that should raise an alarm, particularly if it's a buy it now sale with dozens of the same item available. Unfortunately, eBay or Amazon can't police where their sellers get their items from. It's up to law enforcement to find/shut down the places where they fence stolen merchandise online. Why don't these stores stick GPS trackers in a few high-end items? I think that might stop this cold in short order. So might keeping more high-end stuff locked in hardened display cases.

BTW, retail is dying anyway, regardless of shoplifting. Selling online has a larger profit margin, plus you only have to worry about employee theft. That's a lot easier to keep in check.

 

[jtr1962]

When my uncle worked in Saudi Arabia he and his coworkers were summoned to the market area one day. A man was caught for stealing twice. They asked his son if he could take care of the family, he said yes. They killed the thief. I understand on first time offense they simply cut off a hand.

Sharia law works. That is a very strong deterrent for stealing. A person is going to think twice before taking something that isn't theirs if they get a real punishment.

I wouldn't get too enamored with Saudi Arabia. This is the same place where you get stoned to death for adultery, or at least the woman does. Rape victims have also faced that punishment, on the theory they committed adultery if they were either married, or raped by a married man.

Jail/prison isn't even a punishment nowadays. It is seriously more fun than church camp.

I don't know about that. I'd probably commit suicide if I was facing even a few months behind bars, never mind more. Losing your freedom is a horrible thing.

You know what crimes I think merit much harsher punishment? White collar crimes. Actuarially, we consider a life worth several million. So if you swindle people out of many millions or billions collectively, you should be punished the same as a serial killer. I would have liked for someone like Bernie Madoff to have gotten the death penalty. Ditto for many others accused of high-profile financial crimes.

 

[TPA]

Not true. Prison is punishment because you lose everything you've worked for your entire life. If you've owned a home for 20 years and haven't paid the mortgage off yet it goes back to the bank. Everything you own, including your cars and possessions you'd collected over the years are taken from you.

...except the the majority of people we see shoplifting these days haven't worked all their life to get a home or car. I suspect some of them haven't worked a single day in their lives.

In 'some communities' the celebration when someone gets out of prison is far larger than if they graduated college, which is a very sad commentary on values.

 

[TPA]

You know what crimes I think merit much harsher punishment? White collar crimes.

100% agree. My work often includes dealing with white collar crimes, and for all practical purposes, there's no punishment. In one of the cases a couple pissed through a $100M business loan on their personal lives and weren't prosecuted. Why? "They're too old." I was furious. They weren't too old to spend the money. They're not too old to wear shiny silver handcuffs in my book. Sure, their business and several homes were taken from them to help repay the lender, BUT by no means was the lender made whole. Worse, the judge didn't even let us dig into their finances. They were living in a 4,000sqft house. Who paid their expenses? "Our friends do." Bull.

 

[pnwoutdoors]

Prison is punishment ... You get out with nothing and and a felony charge on your record and your best chance of survival is turning to crime. It's the only way.

Hardly the only way.

Anybody can dig a hole. Anybody can flip burgers. Anybody can be a basic "secretary" type (word processor, data entry person, whatever). Or, near enough. Makes it hard, sure. But rooming with a half dozen other poor sods in order to cover a cheap-o rent of a flat isn't hard to accomplish, either. One can learn to live within one's means. Doesn't make for a cheery existence, no. But then, they "earn" that. It's on them.

"Survival" via the plunder, rape and pillage of members of one's community isn't a life or living. It's of great damage to everyone around. IMO, after a couple of instances of a "kid gloves / second chance" approach, society needs to drop the hammer and remove such incorrigibles from society. Via a hard work method (ie, chopping rocks, chain gang, or similar). Permanent removal, if need be, depending on severity.

 

[IMA SOL MAN]

Some how we strayed from the policies of corporate suicide, to the shoplifters, to prison and criminal justice reform.

Reading some of these posts reminds me of this:



I relish freedom of speech, it allows one to hear what is running around in other people's heads.

 

[jtr1962]

Not true. Prison is punishment because you lose everything you've worked for your entire life. If you've owned a home for 20 years and haven't paid the mortgage off yet it goes back to the bank. Everything you own, including your cars and possessions you'd collected over the years are taken from you. All your firearms are taken. You get out and you have nothing. I have worked at a prison and State prisons are not that horrible, but you get out with nothing even after you've worked for 30 years to earn everything you own. It's not a Church Camp.

You get out with nothing and and a felony charge on your record and your best chance of survival is turning to crime. It's the only way.

I was under the impression the prison sentence itself was paying your debt to society. You should get to keep anything you already have which was earned legally. So now they take all your possessions, too? Seems like punishing you twice for the same crime, as well as severely limiting your prospects to live legally when you do get out.

Hardly the only way.

Anybody can dig a hole. Anybody can flip burgers. Anybody can be a basic "secretary" type (word processor, data entry person, whatever). Or, near enough. Makes it hard, sure. But rooming with a half dozen other poor sods in order to cover a cheap-o rent of a flat isn't hard to accomplish, either. One can learn to live within one's means. Doesn't make for a cheery existence, no. But then, they "earn" that. It's on them.

"Survival" via the plunder, rape and pillage of members of one's community isn't a life or living. It's of great damage to everyone around. IMO, after a couple of instances of a "kid gloves / second chance" approach, society needs to drop the hammer and remove such incorrigibles from society. Via a hard work method (ie, chopping rocks, chain gang, or similar). Permanent removal, if need be, depending on severity.

Keep in mind it's not cheap keeping someone in prison. You don't have to be a bleeding heart to realize the best course is to give a person the tools to live without resorting to crime, then release them as soon as they're no longer deemed a danger to society. "Tools" could include remedial education, an HS or college degree, vocational training, and upon release job placement, along with finding them a place to live. Hand everything to them on a silver platter as far as I'm concerned, but with the warning if you turn to crime again we're not going to be as soft on you.

The hard truth is prisons as they are now generally turn people into worse criminals.

I wouldn't even be entirely against some type of adverse conditioning, as in "A Clockwork Orange", if it actually worked.

 

[letschat7]

I wouldn't get too enamored with Saudi Arabia. This is the same place where you get stoned to death for adultery, or at least the woman does. Rape victims have also faced that punishment, on the theory they committed adultery if they were either married, or raped by a married man.

I don't know about that. I'd probably commit suicide if I was facing even a few months behind bars, never mind more. Losing your freedom is a horrible thing.

You know what crimes I think merit much harsher punishment? White collar crimes. Actuarially, we consider a life worth several million. So if you swindle people out of many millions or billions collectively, you should be punished the same as a serial killer. I would have liked for someone like Bernie Madoff to have gotten the death penalty. Ditto for many others accused of high-profile financial crimes.

Well I don't condone adultry. I think you should respect marriage.

Prison really isn't so bad even if you are an LEO. I was locked up with quite a few even a high profile one. They were often time worse than other offenders, committed crimes inside prison, and had a lot of priviliege from staff. One that seemed to be a patsy for the death of an inmate kept to himself and actually was an honest guy.

Losing your freedoms isn't that big of deal. I lost my gun rights at some point and was able to break, bypass, or evade every law that stood in my way. Luckily it is culturally acceptable to break gun laws here in the USA.

Eh they are getting tougher on white collar crimes. I knew a guy with like 809,000$ in fines. I considered it at some point in my life but after getting a visit from the FBI who was asking about funding t'rism I knew there was just no way.

But anyways back to theives if we let them steal and barely punish them who do you think bears the cost of all of this? Chances are it is us the working class.

 

[IMA SOL MAN]

I was under the impression the prison sentence itself was paying your debt to society. You should get to keep anything you already have which was earned legally. So now they take all your possessions, too? Seems like punishing you twice for the same crime, as well as severely limiting your prospects to live legally when you do get out.

Keep in mind it's not cheap keeping someone in prison. You don't have to be a bleeding heart to realize the best course is to give a person the tools to live without resorting to crime, then release them as soon as they're no longer deemed a danger to society. "Tools" could include remedial education, an HS or college degree, vocational training, and upon release job placement, along with finding them a place to live. Hand everything to them on a silver platter as far as I'm concerned, but with the warning if you turn to crime again we're not going to be as soft on you.

The hard truth is prisons as they are now generally turn people into worse criminals.

I wouldn't even be entirely against some type of adverse conditioning, as in "A Clockwork Orange", if it actually worked.

You really do worry me. But, I do agree with your post down to about the last sentence. BTW, I believe it's "aversion therapy" that you are reaching for here. Yeah, that was a sick movie.

 

[jtr1962]

You really do worry me. But, I do agree with your post down to about the last sentence. BTW, I believe it's "aversion therapy" that you are reaching for here. Yeah, that was a sick movie.

My last sentence was really meant to suggest it as an "if all else fails last ditch solution", not as something to use routinely. I saw the movie many times. There are lots of obvious moral and other issues, not to mention it might not even work reliably.

Well I don't condone adultry. I think you should respect marriage.

I used to think that way until I realized for most people the concept of marriage goes against our genetic drives. That said, I strongly feel if a person is no longer happy with their partner, get a divorce first, then screw around as much as you want. You can't have your cake and eat it too. But stoning to death is grossly disproportionate to the "crime".

But anyways back to theives if we let them steal and barely punish them who do you think bears the cost of all of this? Chances are it is us the working class.

As an engineer I gravitate towards preventing stuff and fixing stuff. If we made it physically harder to steal from these stores, there would be a lot less shoplifting. Here's one of my favorite takes on that subject:

 

[jtr1962]

Failure of architecture and "shop" design, with insufficient constraints upon egress from the shop, combined with failures in procedure and "policy" equates to what we've seen this past several years. Can't keep the product inside if you can't halt forcible removal of such. Which means a shop needs the ability to put a halt to attempted egress whenever that customer cannot prove the products match the receipt. In a high-theft shop, that's about the only way it'll get halted. Using the degree of force actually necessary to get that job done. Precious few shops are prepared to do it properly and effectively. (Today, they'd almost certainly get branded "racist" and whatever other evil moniker gets flung at those bucking the social-reengineering criminality trend.)

We could do this while still being "politically correct". We already put tags on some high-value items which alert security if a person attempts to leave without paying for them. RFID tags could probably be put on most items. At checkout they're deactivated.

The next part of the system is the entry/exit points. If unpaid merchandise is detected, you're trapped in a vestibule. At that point you're given two choices-return the unpaid merchandise, or wait for the authorities to arrive. Either way, your picture gets taken. You get added to the store's database of known shoplifters. This database can be shared with other stores. If you give the merchandise back, that's it, you can go. No charges (that's the politically correct part).

Now here's the good parts. Besides the obvious (i.e. the person wasn't able to steal the merchandise) next time they enter the store facial recognition cameras will tag them as a known shoplifter, and lock them in the vestibule. It might be the same in other stores they haven't (yet) stolen from. Security kicks them out of the store when that happens, with the message next time they enter they're subject to arrest for trespassing. One by one, you make it difficult/impossible for members of organized shoplifting rings to enter stores. Point of fact, most items might not even need the RFID tag if most known shoplifters are reliably kept out of the store.

If people want to keep stealing, we don't need to necessarily get the justice system involved. It's just as effective to physically prevent them from stealing in the first place. They will also be inconvenienced as they find more and more stores are barring them from entering.