Actually, I got a tire at Sam's back in December...I guess that counts.

(02-06-2015 04:43 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  I know a lot of people like going after Walmart for their hiring policies and stuff... and usually I defend them.

But for once, I'm on the anti-Walmart crowd side

Boo to Walmart!

And I don't care about the "what if he had been shot, etc.". What about "doing the right thing"?

Quote:It was all in a day’s work — that is, until Watson said he found himself out of work less than a month later.

“It was strange that they came to this conclusion after 27 days,” he told AL.com. “I thought I was protecting the company.”

Watson had committed “gross misconduct” for failing to comply with Walmart’s security measures — namely just letting the guy go, he said.

Just once, I think certain box chains need to grow some damn balls, especially when the employees do the right thing for your organization.

He knew the policy. He broke that policy. He gone. Simple as that.

(02-06-2015 04:57 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  I know a guy who works in security for Walmart in El Paso. He told me they sometimes rough up guys pretty bad, especially if they're illegals. And then when the thief is a little bumped and bruised, well, maybe more than a little, and the cops finally show up, nothing happens to the WM guys. He said they rarely get return thieves.

That is horrible. The WM security should be charged with assault. It shouldn't matter if someone is legal or not.

(02-08-2015 10:43 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(02-08-2015 02:57 AM)supertiger Wrote:  

(02-08-2015 01:54 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 12:22 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 10:51 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I hate what happened to this guy...but...He was a manager. He fully knew the company policy and willfully ignored it.

Don't these "just let them steal stuff" policies boil down to insurance and lawyers?

Economics, mostly. It's not worth the costs associated with preventing the theft, namely the risk of the employee harming themselves, someone else, or even the thief unduly. People have to steal a lot of merchandise to pay for a single employee becoming injured trying to stop them. Not to mention harming another customer.

I was a team leader at a Sam's Club during college. We once went a year without a loss-prevention manager. It's become an extra expense when they not going to actively stop shoplifting. They're scared of getting sued or accused of discrimination.

No, they're scared of causing any injuries to their employees or other customers. Stop injecting this narrative of 'PC gone awry' when it's simple math. It's as simple as the cost of theft prevention is more than the cost of stolen items.

I'll admit there is a safety aspect for protecting employees. Also, this was a store in a black neighborhood in a black city with a store that had an all-black management team. They all didn't want a bunch of ghetto princesses making a scene in the evening news or in front of a jury.

That doesn't make any sense.

(02-08-2015 10:38 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  That doesn't make any sense.

Insightful article on the subject.

http://www.npr.org/2010/12/01/131695505/...population

Let an idiot employee tackle the wrong person. It's cheaper to let some thug steal from you.

I'm fine with that. The last thing I want is to be tackled by some moron who guessed wrong.

(02-08-2015 12:10 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(02-08-2015 12:01 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(02-08-2015 11:27 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  My only complaint about Walmart is I can never find someone who speaks English. If you don't need to ask any questions, Walmart is fine.

They speak English fine, they just don't want to help you...

You get what you pay for, compare that to Costco where they pay good wages and provide ample benefits to their employees.

If you suck at Walmart, you'll never work at Costco.

So basically, those of you who are siding with Walmart... are OKAY with letting people break the law?

I mean that's what it sounds like. Hey, let's let {thief} steal stuff, because if something goes wrong, we're going to get sued? And then we'll just start tacking on to the consumer higher prices to make up for loss-prevention costs?

So if you guys see someone shoplifting, you're okay with not getting involved, because if you were wrong and got sued...?

And yes, I believe "to hell with company policy" on this one.

And no SMN.. I'm not referring to a complete beatdown of a shoplifter, but a reasonable restrain and control...

(02-09-2015 10:47 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  So basically, those of you who are siding with Walmart... are OKAY with letting people break the law?

I mean that's what it sounds like. Hey, let's let {thief} steal stuff, because if something goes wrong, we're going to get sued? And then we'll just start tacking on to the consumer higher prices to make up for loss-prevention costs?

So if you guys see someone shoplifting, you're okay with not getting involved, because if you were wrong and got sued...?

And yes, I believe "to hell with company policy" on this one.

And no SMN.. I'm not referring to a complete beatdown of a shoplifter, but a reasonable restrain and control...

If you believe "to hell with company policy", especially while you're on the clock, your termination as an employee should be a forgone conclusion. Sorry buddy, but thems the facts.

(02-09-2015 10:58 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 10:47 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  So basically, those of you who are siding with Walmart... are OKAY with letting people break the law?

I mean that's what it sounds like. Hey, let's let {thief} steal stuff, because if something goes wrong, we're going to get sued? And then we'll just start tacking on to the consumer higher prices to make up for loss-prevention costs?

So if you guys see someone shoplifting, you're okay with not getting involved, because if you were wrong and got sued...?

And yes, I believe "to hell with company policy" on this one.

And no SMN.. I'm not referring to a complete beatdown of a shoplifter, but a reasonable restrain and control...

If you believe "to hell with company policy", especially while you're on the clock, your termination as an employee should be a forgone conclusion. Sorry buddy, but thems the facts.

^ exactly...he's the 'does not work well with others', type