[ThirdOfFive]

Interesting thing happened this past Sunday. My wife and I were shopping at Wal-Mart just off 466. Because of the small parking lot and the glut of church-crowd shoppers we didn't park in the lot but on the side by the service bays and entrance. After we checked out, instead of going out the front doors and circling around to the service bays, we exited through the customer door by auto service. We had a cart full of stuff (in bags) and traveled through the store to the side entrance, exiting without anybody saying anything.

Lesson: we could have picked up a dozen other items on our way out and stuffed them into our bags, and nobody would have been the wiser.

I've had several conversations with Wal-Mart associates these past few weeks. One with a lady in electronics just this week revealed that she stopped a person with over $400 worth of stolen merchandise. When I asked what happened, her response was "probably nothing". Another time at another Wal-Mart I stopped to buy a flash drive. After the associate unlocked it and checked me out I commented that the store must be losing a lot of money to the shoplifters. He just smiled and said "Wal-Mart isn't losing a dime--YOU are!"

It got me thinking. If I could waltz out of the store the way I did, how many others, probably far more knowledgeable about the "art" of ripping off stores, are doing it too? Wal-mart is the undisputed leader when it comes to shoplifting targets but other stores are certainly not exempt. Retail stores have about a 3% profit margin and shoplifting must be cutting into that pretty well. But...if the stores' responses are merely to raise prices, along with the occasional shoplifting arrest hitting the papers...are they really motivated to do any more than that? We TV'ers are targets in many ways, and this is one of the more insidious, in my opinion.

Unless the stores do more to stop this, aren't we in effect subsidizing a criminal (petty, to be sure, but still criminal) enterprise? And what can be done to further motivate the stores to actually implement measures that REALLY work--and stop penalizing their customers for their inaction?

[Arctic Fox]

We occasionally get stopped and have our receipt checked when leaving Walmart because we use our own bags, but they are always very polite and we'd rather undergo that than pay more.

I suspect they have security cameras, but whether they look at the footage...

[Two Bills]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

Interesting thing happened this past Sunday. My wife and I were shopping at Wal-Mart just off 466. Because of the small parking lot and the glut of church-crowd shoppers we didn't park in the lot but on the side by the service bays and entrance. After we checked out, instead of going out the front doors and circling around to the service bays, we exited through the customer door by auto service. We had a cart full of stuff (in bags) and traveled through the store to the side entrance, exiting without anybody saying anything.

Lesson: we could have picked up a dozen other items on our way out and stuffed them into our bags, and nobody would have been the wiser.

I've had several conversations with Wal-Mart associates these past few weeks. One with a lady in electronics just this week revealed that she stopped a person with over $400 worth of stolen merchandise. When I asked what happened, her response was "probably nothing". Another time at another Wal-Mart I stopped to buy a flash drive. After the associate unlocked it and checked me out I commented that the store must be losing a lot of money to the shoplifters. He just smiled and said "Wal-Mart isn't losing a dime--YOU are!"

It got me thinking. If I could waltz out of the store the way I did, how many others, probably far more knowledgeable about the "art" of ripping off stores, are doing it too? Wal-mart is the undisputed leader when it comes to shoplifting targets but other stores are certainly not exempt. Retail stores have about a 3% profit margin and shoplifting must be cutting into that pretty well. But...if the stores' responses are merely to raise prices, along with the occasional shoplifting arrest hitting the papers...are they really motivated to do any more than that? We TV'ers are targets in many ways, and this is one of the more insidious, in my opinion.

Unless the stores do more to stop this, aren't we in effect subsidizing a criminal (petty, to be sure, but still criminal) enterprise? And what can be done to further motivate the stores to actually implement measures that REALLY work--and stop penalizing their customers for their inaction?

Same here in UK. Theft from stores is so bad, even meat has security tags on it. Many supermarkets have increased security personnel, as attacks on staff are daily occurrences, both verbal and physical.
Shoplifting is endemic, and the perps are as bold as brass, because 99% of the time they know there will be no retribution.
It is all built into the final cost to the customer.

[Rainger99]

[QUOTE=Two Bills;2280161]
Shoplifting is endemic, and the perps are as bold as brass, because 99% of the time they know there will be no retribution.[/QUOTE]

That is the issue. Why aren’t prosecutors going after these people?

[Dusty_Star]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

I've had several conversations with Wal-Mart associates these past few weeks. One with a lady in electronics just this week revealed that she stopped a person with over $400 worth of stolen merchandise. When I asked what happened, her response was "probably nothing". Another time at another Wal-Mart I stopped to buy a flash drive. After the associate unlocked it and checked me out I commented that the store must be losing a lot of money to the shoplifters. He just smiled and said "Wal-Mart isn't losing a dime--YOU are!"

It got me thinking. If I could waltz out of the store the way I did, how many others, probably far more knowledgeable about the "art" of ripping off stores, are doing it too? Wal-mart is the undisputed leader when it comes to shoplifting targets but other stores are certainly not exempt. Retail stores have about a 3% profit margin and shoplifting must be cutting into that pretty well. But...if the stores' responses are merely to raise prices, along with the occasional shoplifting arrest hitting the papers...are they really motivated to do any more than that? We TV'ers are targets in many ways, and this is one of the more insidious, in my opinion.

Unless the stores do more to stop this, aren't we in effect subsidizing a criminal (petty, to be sure, but still criminal) enterprise? And what can be done to further motivate the stores to actually implement measures that REALLY work--and stop penalizing their customers for their inaction?

I think this is a good, thoughtful question & I don't know the answer.
I did read recently (December 4th issue) in the online news site (I believe banned from this site), that a Walmart employee was arrested in her home for stealing snacks. She took items like Pepsi & consumed them in the break room & then when her shift was over she left without paying for them. I am not supporting her, I think theft is wrong & if she has memory issues, (forgetting to pay), then she should try to pay at the time she took the snacks.
But what does this say to your question? Is Walmart only going after low hanging fruit, regardless of cost? Is Walmart more stringent with employees than customers? Is there any consideration of the price of the stolen items? The article says they have video of six incidents. Are some of these questions decided solely by in store security personnel? Was the lady you spoke to right about the $400 theft, or did she not know the anwser & gave her opinion?
I don't know any of the answers. But am looking forward to the discussion.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by Dusty_Star

I think this is a good, thoughtful question & I don't know the answer.
I did read recently (December 4th issue) in the online news site (I believe banned from this site), that a Walmart employee was arrested in her home for stealing snacks. She took items like Pepsi & consumed them in the break room & then when her shift was over she left without paying for them. I am not supporting her, I think theft is wrong & if she has memory issues, (forgetting to pay), then she should try to pay at the time she took the snacks.
But what does this say to your question? Is Walmart only going after low hanging fruit, regardless of cost? Is Walmart more stringent with employees than customers? Is there any consideration of the price of the stolen items? The article says they have video of six incidents. Are some of these questions decided solely by in store security personnel? Was the lady you spoke to right about the $400 theft, or did she not know the anwser & gave her opinion?
I don't know any of the answers. But am looking forward to the discussion.

Thought-provoking comment about the Wal-Mart employee getting nailed for essentially stealing snacks.

Did some quick research on the topic of employee theft: statistics current as of this past September indicate that Wal-Mart employees are responsible for 28.85% of Wal-Mart losses due to theft. That is more than one in four. Again, this is most likely based on the number of workers actually being caught: the actual loss percentage is probably much greater due to the employees having at least some idea how to circumvent "the system" when engaging in theft. Wal-Mart certainly isn't alone in this, being followed closely by Home Depot and Target.

One unsettling stat I ran across was that the average retail theft by a "shopper" was around $100, while the average loss per employee incident leading to dismissal and/or legal action was over $400. This isn't exactly apples to apples though: a case against an employee may have been built up over several weeks, while the "per shopper" would logically be per incident. In any case, a quarter or more of the total retail "shrinkage" (love that word!) is huge.

A few years back, I remember a whole lot of animated discussion about the efficacy of employee background checks prior to hiring. Several advocacy groups maintained that such checks would disproportionately target minorities as statistically speaking the thought was they they'd be more likely to be involved in the sort of petty crime, leading to a criminal record, than would Caucasians. I'm not sure I agree with that--all ethnicities, if one checks police data, seem to be adequately represented when it comes to retail theft--but that outcry did have some effect, notably "Ban the Box" policies implemented by several states which effectively removed any questions relating to previous criminal activity when employees filled out applications for employment, and employers "encouraged" to first consider the prospective employee's qualifications for the position regardless of any criminal history. Federal regulations took things even further, through implementation of the "Fair Chance Act (2019) which prohibits federal agencies and contractors from requesting criminal background information from job applicants prior to extending an offer".

So...on the one hand America seems to be in pretty significant need of better screening for employees, while on the other we seem bent on hamstringing the very methods needed to assure those better screenings!

Answer?

[Topspinmo]

Not bold to me. I would never think of five finger discount. I was at Lowe’s yesterday brought some landscaping products. Watch lady ring it up, two items that she scanned didn’t total up on ticket. I knew exactly how much I was buying. I immediately said something didn’t ring up cause it don’t match what I brought. She looked over the recipe and found the two bags that beeped, but didn’t total. Majority of us are honest. Yes, I believe that.

[Two Bills]

Originally Posted by Rainger99

[QUOTE=Two Bills;2280161]
Shoplifting is endemic, and the perps are as bold as brass, because 99% of the time they know there will be no retribution.
That is the issue. Why aren’t prosecutors going after these people?

To be honest I haven't a clue. It probably has to do with costs all round.

Half the shops will not press charges.
Courts give offenders a slap on wrist, if shop does prosecute.
Lawyers to prosecute is a cost added to stores.
State will have to pay culprits lawyers costs, as they will have no income in majority of cases.
Judges, court officials, police, jail etc. all add to cost and a law of diminishing return.
Better to let store suck it up, and shoppers cover the increases in costs!
JMO.

[cjrjck]

The key element is whether local prosecutors will pursue convictions for those accused of shoplifting. In many locations, especially some big cities the answer is no. So that is why some police departments and some retailers have given up on pressing charges against shoplifters. I doubt very much that is the case here in TV or the surrounding areas. I can't imagine any of the local district attorneys turning a blind eye to this problem. Also, the lines at the doors of the nearby Sam's Club, and BJs Warehouse as well as other retailers tell me they are serious about deterring theft.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by Topspinmo

Not bold to me. I would never think of five finger discount. I was at Lowe’s yesterday brought some landscaping products. Watch lady ring it up, two items that she scanned didn’t total up on ticket. I knew exactly how much I was buying. I immediately said something didn’t ring up cause it don’t match what I brought. She looked over the recipe and found the two bags that beeped, but didn’t total. Majority of us are honest. Yes, I believe that.

I would hope you are correct about honesty. But there again--just how far does that go? Clicking around this morning I found several websites that had "employee theft" up in the 80% range. Those numbers are suspect (as I believe most statistics have come to be, in this day and age) if for no other reason "theft" could be an innocent a thing as sticking a pen in your pocket from the office supply room and forgetting it there when it comes time to go home. But there seems little doubt that, overall, dishonesty and stealing is a significant concern in America (and probably a lot of other countries) today.

I can't say I would never shoplift. I did once--12 years old--and felt so guilty I went back to the store the next day and surreptitiously left a quarter on the counter to (more than) pay for the package of licorice I had swiped. I certainly wouldn't do it today. But far too many others, apparently, would.

[Blueblaze]

The obvious disintegration of American society was one of the main reasons we retired to this relatively remote corner of Florida, surrounded by 100,000 baby boomers rather than millions of angry children.

Why is it happening? Lots of reasons come to mind, but mostly I think it's just entropy. 200 years seems to be the limit for any civilization that achieves any degree of freedom from the standard human condition of poverty under the heel of some tyrant. By the 10th generation, the population typically becomes too fat, dumb, and happy to pass on the values that led to general prosperity in the first place -- or for that matter, bother to defend themselves from the jealous invaders who ignorantly believe that freedom and prosperity have something to do with geography. It's a sad scenario that has played out over and over throughout history.

Entropy is the property the universe that causes order to disintegrate to into disorder. The common word for it is "evil".

[ThirdOfFive]

"By the 10th generation, the population typically becomes too fat, dumb, and happy to pass on the values that led to general prosperity in the first place -- or for that matter, bother to defend themselves from the jealous invaders who ignorantly believe that freedom and prosperity have something to do with geography."

Scary thing is, you're probably right.

“Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times.” That quote from G. Michael Hopf’s novel “Those Who Remain” sums it up pretty well. The values needed to CREATE a solid society are apparently not the same ones needed to maintain a solid society: when survival is replaced by "keeping up with the Joneses", in whatever form that is manifested, then things like petty (and not-so-petty) theft becomes common--and, apparently, excusable. That is proven, I think, by the fact that only about 15% of shoplifting is due to economic need. The overwhelming majority of it is, bluntly, greed. Yet for the most part we look the other way, because our well-being is not directly and immediately threatened by it.

Another good indicator of that is crime during the great depression. One would think that it would have been a crime-ridden time, but except for a slight increase in violent crime during the first couple of years, the depression actually saw a DECREASE in overall crime. Barry Latzer's book "The Roots Of Violent Crime In America: From The Gilded Age Through The Great Depression" points this out. Apparently people, when adherence to law is needed for the common good, make sure that such adherence is accomplished. It is a fact that vigilantism increases during periods of hard times, such as the great depression.

I sometimes wonder if "The Greatest Generation" would instead have been this generation. Would we have withstood things like ten years of economic upheaval followed by four years of the most destructive war in the history of mankind? I doubt it.

[alwann]

When someone shoplifs snacks or cheap items, I believe it's a feeling of entitlement or retribution. When it's a 1000s worth of stuff, it's likely to be fenced for drug money. I just paid $2 for 5 minutes worth of free air for my tires. Sure made me angry at "The Man."

[ElDiabloJoe]

Very interesting topic. I agree with the Wal-mart employee that stated YOU are paying for it. Shrinkage (theft/loss/damage/etc) is factored into most retail pricing, especially at large places.

A lot of shoplifters find the easiest way to leave a location with misappropriated goods is via the garden center if a store has one. They appear to be less monitored and since customers often step outside with their full carts to look at the flower arrangements, etc that are outside the front of the store, shoplifters feel less conspicuous when absconding with their ill-gotten goods.

There is a reason you will find most big box stores put their Health & Beauty sections far away from the garden centers. Health & Beauty is a frequent target of theft because the goods are easily re-sold, always in demand, small and easily stolen, and generally fairly expensive.

Many stores, like Wallymart and Target, that have loss prevention officers will often focus their attentions and video cameras on these two areas, as well as the Electronics department.

This is the way of society I'm afraid. They are less interested in catching criminals than preventing theft. In fact, I know of a large national chain bank (rhymes with Chase Bank) who has a policy (perhaps unwritten) that when the bank is robbed, they will not call the police until a full 5 minutes have elapsed since the bank robbed have fled. They care less about losing a grand or two (the average bank robbery take) than the liability and bad publicity caused by a hostage situation. From a corporate perspective, a smart move. From a societal perspective of wanting to capture and punish criminals, not such a smart move.

[jimbomaybe]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

Thought-provoking comment about the Wal-Mart employee getting nailed for essentially stealing snacks.

Did some quick research on the topic of employee theft: statistics current as of this past September indicate that Wal-Mart employees are responsible for 28.85% of Wal-Mart losses due to theft. That is more than one in four. Again, this is most likely based on the number of workers actually being caught: the actual loss percentage is probably much greater due to the employees having at least some idea how to circumvent "the system" when engaging in theft. Wal-Mart certainly isn't alone in this, being followed closely by Home Depot and Target.

One unsettling stat I ran across was that the average retail theft by a "shopper" was around $100, while the average loss per employee incident leading to dismissal and/or legal action was over $400. This isn't exactly apples to apples though: a case against an employee may have been built up over several weeks, while the "per shopper" would logically be per incident. In any case, a quarter or more of the total retail "shrinkage" (love that word!) is huge.

A few years back, I remember a whole lot of animated discussion about the efficacy of employee background checks prior to hiring. Several advocacy groups maintained that such checks would disproportionately target minorities as statistically speaking the thought was they they'd be more likely to be involved in the sort of petty crime, leading to a criminal record, than would Caucasians. I'm not sure I agree with that--all ethnicities, if one checks police data, seem to be adequately represented when it comes to retail theft--but that outcry did have some effect, notably "Ban the Box" policies implemented by several states which effectively removed any questions relating to previous criminal activity when employees filled out applications for employment, and employers "encouraged" to first consider the prospective employee's qualifications for the position regardless of any criminal history. Federal regulations took things even further, through implementation of the "Fair Chance Act (2019) which prohibits federal agencies and contractors from requesting criminal background information from job applicants prior to extending an offer".

So...on the one hand America seems to be in pretty significant need of better screening for employees, while on the other we seem bent on hamstringing the very methods needed to assure those better screenings!

Answer?

We are seeing the result of Virtue signaling Compassion laws being passed, its called reality, and of course we pay for it