quote:Also, does anyone have any info about the percentage of thefts? [EDIT: and Nighthawk reads my mind] It's my understanding that the majority of lost revenue from theft is from employees stealing, with criminal types running second and 'casual theft', so to speak, running a distant third.
Of course, but a loss prevention program is designed to prevent ALL aspects of loss. If having two underpaid employees standing at the building's sole exit inspecting the receipt of everyone that comes out is going to prevent even $80,000 in loss annually in a store of, on average, over 100,000 square feet, they've more than paid for themselves.
True. Of course, we have no real way of knowing how much loss they're preventing. I stand by my assertion that they do more harm than good, but acknowledge that they may be a wise use of resources for certain stores (WalMart would be one of those stores).
quote:
quote:I disagree that it keeps honest people honest. I think it treats honest people like criminals until they prove otherwise, which doesn't make me feel all warm and fuzzy about that store. I just don't see the business sense in insulting your customers to prevent a nickel's worth of theft while your employees walk off with a dollar's worth.
This attitude is perplexing to me. What's the sense of insulting your neighbors and all your fellow human beings by putting locks on the doors of your house and car? The vast majority of people are not criminals; the vast majority of Costco's customers are not criminals.
That analogy doesn't work. Costco (and every store, for that matter) wants people to come in and do business with them. They're open to the public.
A better question would be, "What's insulting about my having a neighborhood get together and then frisking everyone on their way out?"
quote:I also don't think you have a good understanding of how complex the internal LP system at major chains is. The security teams and surveillance systems in stores like Walmart, K-Mart and Target are monitoring the customers, sure, but they're primarily there to catch internal theft. The security managers at these stores come into the store when no other employees are there to relocate and conceal hundreds of security cameras so that employees, not customers, will not know where they are. Entire teams of people work at monitoring and tracking employee register behavior looking for anomalies, from the obvious like too much money missing from a till too frequently to the more subtle, like too many receipts filed as accidental loss, mischarges or otherwise voided. Other team members review surveillance footage and sync it up with register activity to ensure that cashiers are not working with non-employees to steal (one of the most common tactics here is to have the employee pretend to scan something, demagnetize the security tag, then put the item in their partner's cart). Other programs and people track return, exchange and warranty service patterns, watching for indications of fraud.
The list goes on, and that's just in the retail stores, to say nothing of programs and employees dedicated to preventing loss in warehousing and transportation.
You may be right, but I don't see your point.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Huh...they usually just look at my receipt for like 3 seconds if that and just mark it clear and wave me through.
It isn't the actual cart checking that takes me such a long time, it's that there are always 8-12 people in front of me, some of whom don't have their receipts out, some of whom want to chat with the receipt checker, and the fact that the receipt checker gets bored with her menial and mostly useless job and spaces out a lot.
All in all, the extra 5 minutes waiting in line doesn't ruin my day, but it is frustrating and seems like a solution that is unlikely to stop many criminals. I suppose they probably have to search everybody to avoid being sued for discrimination if they only searched someone with a cart full of electronics.
To me that's just common courtesy. I have a pretty strict, "get the hell out of people's way" policy when it comes to public lines. If the cashier initiates a conversation I usually cut it as short and polite as I can make it so the next person in line can commence their transaction. I 95% of the time, just never say anything but, "thank you" and, "have a nice day" to those sorts of people.
I know what you mean by the costco checkers getting chatty with people, that is pretty obnoxious especially on a Saturday.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the easiest ways to get stolen merchandise out of the store is to have an accomplice ring up 19 of 20 items, with the 20th being small and expensive. It's harder to catch on camera at the register than it is to catch it at the door with receipt inspection. The mere fact of receipt inspection, known to employees, will suppress most of that activity.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:True. Of course, we have no real way of knowing how much loss they're preventing. I stand by my assertion that they do more harm than good, but acknowledge that they may be a wise use of resources for certain stores (WalMart would be one of those stores).
We have no real way of knowing how much business they're preventing, either. I know comparatively very few people who are staunch enough in their beliefs to personally boycott shopping at a place because of how they feel about ANY store policy, much less one as relatively unintrusive as a receipt checker. Even many people who feel that Walmart is an "evil" corporation with "evil" business practices will still grudgingly shop there, if not consistently, then occasionally.
Do you not shop at Costco or Sam's club because they do receipt checking (or, if you don't shop their for a variety of reasons, is the receipt checking the number one reason)? Are there any other store policies that will cause you to not patronize a business?
quote:That analogy doesn't work. Costco (and every store, for that matter) wants people to come in and do business with them. They're open to the public.
A better question would be, "What's insulting about my having a neighborhood get together and then frisking everyone on their way out?"
No, they're not open to the public; they're open to individuals that are willing to submit to and follow their rules, as enforced by a purchasable membership that is checked prior to entry. That the list of people they want in their establishment is longer than the list of people you want in yours doesn't change anything.
Your counter-question doesn't work for several reasons. If you had a neighborhood get together, I imagine you would be keeping an eye on the state of your home and your particularly important possessions while the event was going on. You would also likely be making a visual inspection of people as they left, albeit not necessarily for theft: you'd stop someone whether they were carrying your blender or missing one of their four kids, if you noticed. You have the advantage of being personally involved in most of what's going on in your home, and being intimately familiar with the surroundings. Costco employees have no such advantage and, as Dag pointed out, the receipt checkers also function to prevent internal theft.
quote:You may be right, but I don't see your point.
That was in response to what you said here.
quote:I just don't see the business sense in insulting your customers to prevent a nickel's worth of theft while your employees walk off with a dollar's worth.
I wanted to highlight that because retailers are very aware that internal theft is such a problem, they expend an extraordinary amount of resources to combat it. Internal theft is significantly more difficult to catch than theft by customers as the schemes tend to be more complex, so what may look to you like "insulting customers to prevent a nickel's worth of theft while your employees walk off with a dollar's worth" may actually be a much more complicated decision than you think it is. Every aspect of LP costs money, and those costs need to balance out against, among other things, the cash value of losses prevented and the potential loss in revenue from potential consumers who may elect not to shop their because of invasive security measures.
But as I said earlier in this post, I'm aware of very few people who are so put off by casual deterrence programs like receipt checking that they don't patronize the business.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would think the greeter prevents more theft than the receipt checker. At least at the bank, we were always taught that making eye contact and greeting folks when they walk in is the best way to scare off a robber. They don't like to know you've noticed them.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: Here is some general information about stop and identify laws, including a list of what states have them.
From the site: "Whether an arrested person must give her name may depend on the jurisdiction in which the arrest occurs. If a person is under arrest and police wish to question her, they are required to inform her of her Fifth-Amendment right to remain silent by giving a Miranda warning."
I'm a guy. So I guess this part does not apply to me...?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was wondering what had happened with this since the beginning of the month. The guy's blog is blocked by my work's firewall, but near the bottom of this article I found the following:
quote:Mr. Righi's case may not be one that resolves the consumer/retailer relationship problem since his arrest came after he left the store and the police officer involved ended up charging him with obstruction. His lawyer said yesterday the criminal matter had been resolved and charges would be dismissed.
posted
I actually have a real problem with linking a waiver of Section 1983 rights with the dropping of the case. I need to think about it more, but my first reaction is that this is an improper use of the threat of criminal charges. I think the waiver itself might be unconscionable.
That said, I don't blame the defendant for taking the deal, especially since he didn't intend to sue. I also don't think there's a big reason to sue here.
quote:Ten days ago I had a decision to make. I was presented with an offer to have my charges dropped in exchange for signing a document which asked the following of me:
* I would not file a Section 1983 civil suit against the Brooklyn police department for infringing on my civil rights. * I would not make any disparaging remarks about the police department, with financial repercussions for doing so. * I would not discuss the details of this agreement.
These conditions were completely unacceptable to me. I wanted to fight the charges in court and I wanted to win based on the merits of my case. I felt that it was important to set a legal precedent that would help others in the future. Although I was never interested in suing the police department, signing such a document went against my principles and against the very reasons I decided to take a stand in the first place. I was mad to say the least.
In the days that followed a few things changed. First, I learned that the prosecutor was more interested in protecting the city against a civil law suit than she was in silencing my speech. Prosecutor Hillary Goldberg was willing to drop my charges and expunge my record if I promised not to sue. Although this was welcome news I still wanted to fight the charges in court in order to set a legal precedent for others.
posted
It was probably worth the trouble to him to make a point, but I bet his niece had a lousy birthday party.
Posts: 31 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Those ID and identity presentation laws in Arizona might be changing soon. The current high profile news here is a man that was stopped by police lied when asked his name because his name would have pulled up numerous violent crimes. He wound up shooting and killing a police officer in the ensuing events. The argument will be it is a lot harder to make up names when you have to have to present an ID to back it up (those can be faked too of course, but this guy wasn't the brightest bulb in the box, and I'd wager the average criminal that gets stopped by law enforcement usually isn't either). Murdered cops + very reactionary state government = interesting changes in law. Like the largest city's ban on texting while driving that got proposed and passed in all of two weeks. Going to the state soon to become a statewide law.
As for the stores themselves, I have no objections to showing them my receipt and bags if they politely ask for it. If they're rude about it, I'll turn around, take whatever I just bought, proceed to customer service, and demand a full refund, and swear never to shop there again (only happened twice so far, and not recently). I understand all retail stores fight an uphill battle against theft, and am more than willing to humor them if they really want to check my bags. I've seen signs to the effect that say "We reserve the right to inspect all merchandise exiting the store..." Do these have any legal backbone, or are the strictly a bluff?
Posts: 1368 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most of the time when I have to cashier- very often the EAS alarms go off- almost all the time we tell them to ignore it and go on through.
If they were overly chatty or had a weird return or I don't remember them buying an electronic or tagged items I might ask them for me to look at. Sometimes it's my fault- I forget to scan something- many customers have reminded me when I forget to scan items and such.
But whenever the alarm goes off and people walk on through I always get a little paranoid that they might have taken something.
When you take stuff from my store- I do get personally offended- because I'm the one who has to unload the truck, bring the freight out, put stock out, remember all of the security guidelines for all the items in the store, put it on the shelf in a neat and presentational manner. It's what I spend most of my time doing- and so it's like saying that it's a waste of my time- and in a way they are stealing money out of my wallet.
People will do just about anything to take stuff- and it is part of my job description to make sure people (customers or employees) don't walk away with what they don't own.
And in terms of LP- I know one girl had another guy ring her up- but he forgot to log into his number- and he was in hers- she used her rewards card and my GM got a letter from HR about how her rewards card had been rung up when her number was on the register. They take it very seriously.
I think the guy was being absolutely ridiculous, and I think that most people don't mind and that if stores didn't take such causes- their losses would increase by quite a big factor.
Posts: 980 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
