NDP supports Crazy

[willystyle]

Originally Posted by Noizz

Industry standard is 5 steps, sometimes 6.

1. Observe customer enter area
2. Selection
3. Concealment
4. Continuity
5. Failure to pay
6. Leave store with merchandise (obvious)



Uhh... manager holds every right to kick anyone out of their store. You don't need an LP department to do that. It's private property. It's for the safety of the customers and employees that allows you, as a manager/supervisor to refuse service.

True, but most large retail stores don't allow managers to evict an individual regardless if they are a known shoplifter or they may have observe an individual shoplifted because they are not trained to detect shoplifters and for safety reasons. Therefore, they have LPO's, it's their job to deter or apprehend.

Managers/Supervisors can customer service the individual anyway they can, in hopes that they can deter the individual, but they shouldn't be walking up to a group/individual and straight up tell them to leave. Most large retail stores would not allow their managers or supervisors to do that in fear of misidentifying a customer as a shoplifter.

[Razor Ramon HG]

I like this.

Now instead of having to wait for the shoplifter to leave the store in order to get them, you can just nab them on the spot.

[Noizz]

Originally Posted by willystyle

Managers/Supervisors can customer service the individual anyway they can, in hopes that they can deter the individual, but they shouldn't be walking up to a group/individual and straight up tell them to leave. Most large retail stores would not allow their managers or supervisors to do that in fear of misidentifying a customer as a shoplifter.

Onus would be on the manager to make that decision, don't need to waste time and beat around the bush, it isn't rocket science trying to identify someone when you have the same hype and regulars who comes in to steal cheese and meat.

And if it was a false accusation, although its just bad PR, customers need to understand that the store is providing a safe and secure place to shop. The falsely accused would have no grounds to sue if their personal space was not intruded. He/she was on private property, but again it's just bad PR if that ever happens. And if a manager could not handle a false accusation situation, they shouldn't be a manager.

IIRCC in January 2010 alone, there was over 1,500+ cases of theft under $5,000 in Vancouver alone. Note these are actual police files and it does not account for simple warn & bans that occur much more frequently. Someone's gotta put the hammer down.

[willystyle]

Originally Posted by Noizz

Onus would be on the manager to make that decision, don't need to waste time and beat around the bush, it isn't rocket science trying to identify someone when you have the same hype and regulars who comes in to steal cheese and meat.

Again, even if it may not be a false identification, the major issue is that upper management doesn't want untrained managers to be evicting suspected shoplifters because they feel that it's unsafe for managers, associates and customers. These individuals can be carrying dangerous weapons, in a situation if these weapons were used, a manager may not know how to react. This may lead to managers, associates and customers being harmed or severely injured over $40 worth of meat or cheese. Would that be worth it?

That's why I am proposing that if this law is to be pass, it should be only exercised in the hands of trained professionals; such as a LPO.

Originally Posted by Noizz

And if it was a false accusation, although its just bad PR, customers need to understand that the store is providing a safe and secure place to shop. The falsely accused would have no grounds to sue if their personal space was not intruded. He/she was on private property, but again it's just bad PR if that ever happens. And if a manager could not handle a false accusation situation, they shouldn't be a manager.

Unfortunately, in the real world, customers are never understanding, and that they would try every way to get something out of a situation. True, the customer wouldn't have grounds to sue; however, the company doesn't want its public image to be damaged and risk the chance of losing that customer, in addition, it can potentially lose hundreds and thousands more because that customer can take their case to the media, friends, and online blogs and forums such as this one. This situation will definitely cause a snowball effect. Picture someone posting a similar story like that on revscene, it is human nature that most of us will side with the victim as corporations are always seen in the negative light. Therefore, medium to large businesses don't even want to risk this situation from occurring that's why they have policies in preventing management to evict or deny customer service, unless it's very severe.

[Great68]

Originally Posted by willystyle

Again, even if it may not be a false identification, the major issue is that upper management doesn't want untrained managers to be evicting suspected shoplifters because they feel that it's unsafe for managers, associates and customers. These individuals can be carrying dangerous weapons, in a situation if these weapons were used, a manager may not know how to react. This may lead to managers, associates and customers being harmed or severely injured over $40 worth of meat or cheese. Would that be worth it?

That is very true.

Though it brings back some memories of my time at Crappy Tire. 2nd day on the job some crackhead woman runs out of the store with a VCR. The manager is right there, calls a Code 1 (Code for emergency, everyone to the front of the store) and goes after the woman.

The next thing you see is a fuckload of red shirts running out the door, some with wrenches or whatever they had close by. It was pretty funny.

The woman ran into the middle of the street, stopped a minivan with a family in it and then jumps inside. Then starts threatening the people in the van and the manager with a needle.

Like fuck, who knows if this woman has any diseases (Likely for a crackhead), is that $100 VCR really worth it?

For the $8 an hour I was getting paid by crappy tire it wasn't worth it for ME to get involved.

[Razor Ramon HG]

I laughed pretty hard at the thought of a bunch of red shirts pouring out of the store with wrenches and shit.

Fail on the minivan driver for not locking the doors. I would've just taunted her if that happened to me.

[Gt-R R34]

Not going to do much, if this passes.

Goes to Supreme Court, gets shot back down as unlawful.

Waste of our time and money.

[willystyle]

Originally Posted by Great68

That is very true.

Though it brings back some memories of my time at Crappy Tire. 2nd day on the job some crackhead woman runs out of the store with a VCR. The manager is right there, calls a Code 1 (Code for emergency, everyone to the front of the store) and goes after the woman.

The next thing you see is a fuckload of red shirts running out the door, some with wrenches or whatever they had close by. It was pretty funny.

The woman ran into the middle of the street, stopped a minivan with a family in it and then jumps inside. Then starts threatening the people in the van and the manager with a needle.

Like fuck, who knows if this woman has any diseases (Likely for a crackhead), is that $100 VCR really worth it?

For the $8 an hour I was getting paid by crappy tire it wasn't worth it for ME to get involved.

It would be interesting if there were injuries to the suspect, the driver in the minivan and to the sale associates of Canadian Tire. It can be a potential multi-million dollar lawsuit that Canadian Tire will need to cough up over a loss of a VCR. They deserve it though for not implementing correct corporate policies.