security procedures in a retail enviroment
 

Please tell me my store isn't the only retail store that does this. I will not name the store for obvious reasons. But it is a multi-million dollar corporation.

My store's policy regarding theft is....well...non-existent. This is as best as I can describe it.

1) If it happens and only you see it, you cannot approach them. You need at least another person to see it in order to stop that person, otherwise its "harrassment".

2) If the alarm goes off and you see someone running from the store, you cannot chase them down. ( Understandable, though. They could have a weapon.)

3) The cameras are useless. They capture at 1 frame per second, and there any many, many blindspots in the store. The cameras are also extremely blurry and there is no way you could identify someone's face from them.

So basically, if someone comes into the store, steals something and runs out, they get away cleanly. As long as they don't do something stupid like drive away in a car, or come back the next day, there is no way we can catch them.

Management's view on it is that its "acceptable losses", yet they continue to pound into our heads the importance of security. My boss told me this, and I quote, "The point of our security is deterrance, not to actually do anything if it happens." Does this seem contradictory to anyone besides me? If I didn't have morals which prevented me from stealing from my employer, or anyone else for that matter....I could so much stolen stuff in my house right now. Hell, I could make it a business.

So here's my question. Is this normal in multi million dollar retail stores? Or is my store incredibly stupid?

fairly. The store can't officially have a "catch the fucker" policy because of the multitude of lawsuits that result. First, the thief can sue, and will probably win, if you hurt him while you're catching him. Second, if you get hurt by the thief, you can sue for them putting you in a dangerous situation that was not in your job description, and YOU'LL probably win.

When I worked retail, my store got around it by officially saying don't do anything, but they'd buy you lunch if you tackled a thief. Besides, it was fun to catch 'em, so everyone did it anyway.

-Shoplifter steals some clothes. Loss: $50

-Shoplifter tries to steal clothes, employee tries to stop him and gets beat up, store responsible for medical bills and worker's comp. Loss: thousands

-Shoplifter tries to steal clothes, gets tackled by employee and is injured, sues store. Loss: millions

-Employee misjudges situation, chases and tackles someone who's not really a shoplifter, store gets sued and gets bad PR for attacking its customers. Loss: millions

That's why, compared to the alternatives, it's an "acceptable loss".

Edit: ^ what he said...

Cant you tell us which store it is so we can rob it :D

No seriously that does seem like acceptable losses. There cant be that many thieves compared to proper customers and look at the profit retail shops make.

It makes me sick that someone can sue a company if they get injured while robbing it. What is society coming to?

I dont know if I would go and say its acceptable losses. I dont find it fair that they get away with stealing seeing that the only way for a store to make up for those "acceptable" losses is to do something about it. 200 dollars of stuff gets stolen from the store and thats something thats got to be made up. The only way of making up the difference is uping the prices of the merchendise. So the store is making up for their losses but at the customers expense.
Yeah I think its normal. Though I have seen some places where the person has been confronted.

My guess is that it's either a Best Buy or a Wal-Mart. I've worked for those two companies in retail stores, and that is their security policy. Part of the not running out the store to catch the thief is legality. We're not cops, and don't have that authority.

I will tell you that Home Depot has a VERY lax theft policy to avoid pissing off customers...even loss perverntion cannot do much to someone who pockets an item on camera until they get to the front end. Then they ask the person if they want to purhcase the pocketed item in the slim chance it was done innocently. Their return policy teaches you to take back things that don't even belong to the company since you're "buying customer loyalty" by letting them get away with it.

Crazy.

I heard Future Shop (Best Buy to Americans) has this policy, but I've also seen Future Shop employees chase down a shoplifter, so it's an ass-covering policy really. If an employee decides to chase and something bad happens they can point to the policy and say "we tell them not to do anything, this was his choice".

A few years back I worked at a store (not a chain, a local, but large, specialty store). One of our store managers tackled a shoplifter in the vestibule after he'd confronted him at checkout and the guy bolted.

Turns out the shoplifter was a professor at the local university with a bad (but previously diagnosed) case of kleptomania. He'd been arrested several times in the past. The store didn't press charges, because the PR from pressing a case aginst this poor, sick man wasn't going to be pretty.

The store didn't have any policies about dealing with shoplifting--they were much stricter about employee theft, with random bag searches and stuff. A big part of the new employee orientation had to do with keeping receipts for things you bought in the store to avoid even the appearance of theft.

I can understand why the stores are reluctant to stop suspected thieves, but something has to be done to protect the honest customer from having to pay for the mis-deeds of others. The only way I can think to correct this problem is to allow easier prosecution for theft, and the reduction of the ability to sue someone while you are committing a crime against them.

Although I've never returned something I didn't buy there, it works and I am loyal. I appreciate a business that knows how to treat customers well.

I dont think I've ever NOT seen this policy in large chains.

It is for the better overall, for the employer, employee, and other customers. Less physical incidents the better (Verbal on the otherhand is 100% fine by me) .

As for all of the stores who are 100% against arguing with a customer, that I am against. I my self work a retail job to earn money while going through college, and damn am I glad they let us argue with the customers. While you will lose maybe 1-2 customers a month, and then 5-10 from word of mouth; I've had more people say good things that were standing by watching of how a store actually stood up a customer that was overly wrong.