Wal-Mart thanks employee who foiled shoplifter, then fires her

[babylonsister]

Wal-Mart employee foils a shoplifter — and loses her job


WICHITA — Heather Ravenstein tried to save Wal-Mart some money Friday by foiling a shoplifter’s plan to steal a $600 computer, but it cost her her job.

“I’m a single mom, and I don’t know what I’m going to do,” says Ravenstein, who is 30.

She’s worked at the West Kellogg Wal-Mart for almost two years, most recently as a customer service manager.

Friday night around 10:20, she was standing near some registers when she saw a man with a computer coming up the main walkway of the store.

“Action Alley is what they call it,” she says.

“He was walking rather fast, so it caught my eye.”

Ravenstein says the man kept walking and set off an alarm. She went after him.

“Let me see your receipt, and then I’ll take this off for you,” she told the man, referring to a sensor on the computer.

Ravenstein says the man refused and kicked her.

“And then he punched me in my shoulder, and then he finally gave up and just let go of the computer.”

Ravenstein walked back into the store and sat on the floor.

“I was shaking pretty bad,” she says.

Assistant store managers immediately checked on her.

“They all came out and made sure I was OK,” Ravenstein says. “They thanked me.”

The next day, about two hours before her shift was over, Ravenstein says an assistant manager asked to speak with her. He then told her it’s against Wal-Mart policy for anyone but a manager or someone in asset protection to try and stop a customer from stealing.

“He said there’s really no gray area,” Ravenstein says. “It just goes straight to termination.”

more...

http://blogs.kansas.com/haveyouheard/2010/05/24/wal-mart-employee-foils-a-shoplifter-and-loses-her-job/

[boston bean]

1. And people trust corporations to save the Earth????

[secondwind]

2. WHAT A DISGUSTING DISPLAY OF CORPORATE "HUMANITY"!!!!

[indepat]

63. Proud that my last visit to Walmart, for a single over-the-counter item, was more than

a year ago and that I plan to never go back. :P

[ellenfl]

76. i refuse to shop there. haven't been in one in years. nah, they

haven't noticed. :eyes:

ellen fl

[dchill]

81. Try that in my town...

Where all the other stores have closed.

[ellenfl]

85. i am truly sorry about that. that is what i hate most about wal-mart . . .

all the moms and pops (small business anyone?) that were forced to close. the very worst of our capitalist system. i know the waltons are republican heroes but i despise them.

ellen fl

[CrispyQ]

87. We've lost two grocery stores, an Ace hardware store & numerous other small businesses,

thanks to Walmart. Now if you need a pack of nails, you can hope the one grocery store that's still open has the kind you need out of their selection of four, or you can drive 7 miles to the next town.

"Walmart: The High Cost of Low Price"

Everyone should watch this movie. It's an eye opener on so many levels. In one scene they talk to a woman who admits that even though the business she worked for closed, largely due to Walmart, she still shopped there. :eyes:

One of the more revealing scenes was in a Chinese manufacturing facility. The facility had two separate manufacturing lines - one line for European goods that were not allowed to use certain compounds in the product & one for the US, where those compounds were ok to use. Sigh. Another example of our government looking after the welfare of the people - the artificial people, that is.

[wolfgangmo]

90. If Walmart was my only "local" option.

I would set up a buying club and have food shipped in. With a wholesale account I'd save money too. Not sure how to do it? Send me an email and we'll chat. It's actually pretty easy and I can help.


I will never shop at a Walmart. I will never support a company that does things like this every day. Walmart almost single handedly drove munufactoring out of the US. They get not one thin dime from me EVER.

[Orrex]

122. Out of curiosity, do you shop at Costco? Target? KMart? IKEA?

Every mega-retailer is guilty of heinous practices, some more than others. Walmart is the lightning rod because it's the biggest and the worst. But the others are hardly guiltless.

Mounting a noble campaign against an evil retailer is fine, of course, but it would seem consistent to wage that campaign against all offenders.

[wolfgangmo]

89. Good for you.

I will NEVER shop at Walmart unless and until they change the way they do biz.

And since they are evil incarnate, they will never change.

[Turbineguy]

3. Sounds like they want fewer

good employees and more shoplifters.

[Recursion]

8. They want fewer lawsuits

Back when I worked retail, we were told that what she did is illegal. Now, if Wal~Mart never told her that, they sure as hell shouldn't fire her. But the point is you don't want J. Random Clerk committing assault and battery (which is what she did) on whoever they think has stolen something -- not to mention the fact that he could have had a knife or gun. The reason only managers and loss management people are supposed to do that is they know not to physically confront the person, just get their appearance and hopefully their license plate.

[proud2BlibKansan]

10. How did she assault the guy? HE kicked HER.

[Recursion]

14. She grabbed the computer

Actually by the time she grabbed it, that's battery. The line for assault is surprisingly low, you just have to advance menacingly.

[proud2BlibKansan]

18. It doesn't say that in the article

Nothing about grabbing the computer. Only an offer to remove the sensor.

[jberryhill]

58. And had he injured her, the loss to the store would be more than the computer /nt

[CTLawGuy]

13. she did not commit assault and battery

she merely asked to see the guy's receipt and HE punched and kicked HER.

[Recursion]

16. I will bow to the lawyer in the thread

But as I read it, she had physically grabbed the computer from him.

[CTLawGuy]

25. it's not a lawyer thing

it's a reading facts thing. I can see how it might be unclear from the article whether she tried to grab the computer, because it said "he gave up and let go of the computer." It did not say though that she grabbed the computer, which I think it would have if it were true, since that would be an important fact to know in evaluating the situation. But then again, we all know how accurate the media is these days...

[Javaman]

62. It says nothing of the like...

Ravenstein says the man kept walking and set off an alarm. She went after him.

“Let me see your receipt, and then I’ll take this off for you,” she told the man, referring to a sensor on the computer.

Ravenstein says the man refused and kicked her.

“And then he punched me in my shoulder, and then he finally gave up and just let go of the computer.”

Ravenstein walked back into the store and sat on the floor.

[proud2BlibKansan]

23. I agree

She offered to help take off the sensor. That's all she did and that's not assault.

[CTLawGuy]

26. yeah she didn't even accuse him of stealing

NT

[proud2BlibKansan]

75. I was in retail management in the 70s

Back then we were never to accuse a shoplifter until they left the store. And what this lady did was exactly what we were encouraged to do. Distract them so they can't leave.

Maybe all that has changed :shrug:

[blondeatlast]

91. Having worked in retail (high end), she did what was considered proper.

You never make the accusation; you always offer to assist them with their purchase.

[jberryhill]

60. IMHO, the larger point is about avoiding injury to employees

Let's say the shoplifter knocked her down and broke her collarbone.

Who pays?

[Wednesdays]

64. Wal-mart, probably. About the same amount as if it were a store manager.

So, what was the incentive for Wal-mart firing her, again? :shrug:

[jberryhill]

67. That would seem to indicate....

That Wal-Mart places a higher level of confidence in its managers (who have health insurance) than its hourly employees to make judgment calls in these situations. That does not seem unusual.

Personally, I wouldn't shop there on a dare.

[w4rma]

101. A insurance company. nt

[habitual]

15. i agree with you about the lawsuits and reasoning, but

where do you get that she committed assault and battery?? just cuz she ran up to him and asked to see his receipt?

i think it was the customer who committed the assault and battery...

[Recursion]

17. "He let go of the computer"

Which to me says she had grabbed the computer.

[proud2BlibKansan]

20. So you're making an assumption

She did not assault him.

[Statistical]

35. Well to be fair you are also making an assumption.

:)

At best one can say there is insufficient information to draw a definitive conclusion.
Usually the media is sloppy. Without reading a Police report it not possible to draw a conclusion.

Usually the express "he let go" indicates the other part was also holding on to it. If "he let go" and nobody else was holding on to the item it would have fallen, and generally someone would write that "he dropped the computer".

Still it is an assumption either way, there simply isn't sufficient facts.


Regardless was crappy for Walmart to fire her. Likely some training is all that was necessary. Then again when underemployment is 20% employers don't feel the need to work things out.

[Bill McBlueState]

52. that gets to the root of this

Maybe she shouldn't have stopped the guy, but there are solutions other than firing her.

[Statistical]

54. I agree 100%.

Zero tolerance policies are generally counter productive.

Likely she wasn't aware of the policy, didn't understand the policy, or had forgotten the policy.

To "correct" the situation all it would require is a written warning and a 5 minute talk on the policy with her manager.
Walmart could even have a policy in place that when an incident happens all Managers remind their direct subordinates of Walmart policy.

To ensure no favoritism something like the following could be adopted:
first offense - written warning
second offense - termination

[ima_sinnic]

24. it seems pretty obvious THEY NEVER TOLD HER THE POLICY

otherwise, she would have known better, right?

sheesh--keep a policy a secret (or, better yet, make it up on the spot), then fire someone for not "observing" it. thank goodness I started boycotting WM many years ago. FUCK THEM. I think I'll go shoplift from them TODAY.

[DaveinJapan]

61. I would assume that the policy is somewhere in the fine print of the employee handbook. nt

[wolfgangmo]

92. Imagine it.

A website going viral showing milliions of people around the world how to shoplift from Walmart and then setting up flash mobs so that it happens with thousands at a time in every store on earth.


Not that I am advocating looting. Ahem.

[Orrex]

118. It's very likely that that she signed a policy acknowledgement when she started the job

It probably wasn't "fine print," either. It was probably a big notification in bold type, and it was probably covered several times in the course of her training. That's how they did it for the retailer that employed me ~20 years ago, and I can't believe that Walmart has a less thorough training program.


Incidentally, it's nice to see that you endorse criminal activity to satisfy your sense of moral outrage. If you anger someone, do you thereby justify that person breaking into your house and stealing your property?

[treestar]

4. That's stupid

Hard to believe that is their policy.

[Wizard777]

37. No that is a fairly common policy. A CVS clerk recently killed a guy for shoplifting.

He stole toothpaste and crayons. The clerk chased him into alley way and put a choke hold on him that killed him. That's gonna get really ugly. Both the store and clerk will more than likely loose big time in a wrongful death suit. The clerk has one thing on his side. There is possible police involvement in the incident. So the police are uninterested in investigating. So the guy may not face murder charges. But local politicians are calling for a DOJ investigation. If they do investigate. He could end up facing murder charges in a federal court. This is just one reason stores leave this to the pro's. The other reason is the employee getting killed or injured. The store looses big time in those suits as well. One of the losses Loss Prevention prevents is losses from suits by customers, criminals, and employees. So I absolutely agree with the thanks but no thanks. Loss Prevention is NOT your job. Thank God the clerk was only kicked and punched and not shot or stabbed.

[treestar]

105. OK, I see, so they oppose that due to liability concerns

[Statistical]

39. Most chains have similar policies.

If you google it you will find hundreds of example of stores, 7-11, gas stations, banks, chains, resturatants terminating employees for preventing theft.

A single lawsuit can be 100x, 1000x, even 10,000x the average loss from shoplifting. So even in 99% of incidents result in no lawsuits the 1 in 100 ends up costing the store more.

Plus retail loses more money from employee theft than shoplifting anyways. It is simply considered a cost of business. If you have a retail operation you will lose some % of product via (shoplifting, consuming food in store, customer breaking products, employee theft, coupon scams, etc).

[treestar]

106. Thanks, that is informative

Didn't realize that. It does make sense.

[political_Dem]

5. So much for praising the "Employee of the Month". Wal Mart is an atrocity.

[Better Today]

6. I've never stepped in a WM and I never will, however, I think in this case WM has it right.

I'm going to guess that the asset protection and managers are trained to not get into a physical altercation that could risk the life and health of an employee or a extend out to customers. What if the guy had a gun or a knife or just plain was determined enough to smash her face in with his bare hands. No merchandise is worth that, I feel certain WM knows that from a liability standpoint if not a humane one.

She was wrong, and they are right to fire her. I would imagine a trained asset pro or manager would have requested, then followed out to the car, while calling 911 and making sure the parking lot cams were recording by calling or walky-talking to the offices. Anyway, some procedure that wouldn't risk a melee on the store floors.

Edited to add: Oh and I would consider giving her a pass, if she had even attempted to do the right thing which was to call an asset pro or a manager, but it doesn't sound like she even did that.

[the other one]

29. Nailed it. The policy is probably in the employee manual

And as a two year employee she would be expected to know it.

Walmart should spend more time REinforming employees about behavior that is grounds for dismissal.

[proud2BlibKansan]

30. But she didn't initiate a physical altercation

HE kicked HER.

[Statistical]

38. From a lawyers perspective that isn't the point.

Maybe she was 100% in the clear however if you take 1000 examples of employees confronting a shoplifter a beancounter is going to figure that Statistically one of them will be in the wrong. That one wrong case will result in a lawsuit and that lawsuit might cost Walmart millions.

Thus it really isn't worth it for Walmart to allow employees to even get involved in any way, shape, or form. It is all about protecting Walmart (or any store) from a potential lawsuit.

Still seems like Walmart could have given her some remedial training, and maybe have manager remind employees storewide of the policy. I mean zero tolerance policies tend to be counter productive.

[uponit7771]

46. Asking for a receipt doesn't amount to "stopping someone from stealing" before the assault you, she

...might have had those intentions but that wasn't the action she took...she just asked for a receipt, like MANY Sams...COSCO employees do and got assaulted.

Again, this sounds like a fight WM shouldn't have started...

[Statistical]

49. The fact is she took ANY action....

"Ravenstein says the man kept walking and set off an alarm. She went after him."

Even if the guy hadn't assaulted her Walmart might have fired her for that. The policy in many retail companies is the only person who approaches a suspected shoplifter for any reason at any time and under any circumstances is theft prevention department.

I still think Walmart should have a policy like first offense written warning & counseling, second offense termination however many other stores likely have similar policies.

From a lawsuit prevention standpoint (which is Walmart real concern not employee safety) they simply want to prevent ANY situation where non-trained employees approach customers leaving the store. Period.

[uponit7771]

45. RIGHT!! She just asked for a receipt she did not try to stop her

[Better Today]

70. No she didn't "just" anything. She went after him, she apparently had ahold of the computer,

and most importantly she did all of that, got kicked and managed to stay attached to the computer; but never called the store officials she was supposed to call FIRST, not last.

[Better Today]

69. It sure reads like she latched onto the computer and wouldn't let go.

Otherwise he would've just left. She seems so proud that she held on longer than he and even through being kicked. AND at no point did she call the store officials she was supposed to call FIRST. You are over-simplifying the entire thing to justify BS.

[proud2BlibKansan]

74. Where does it say she ever had a hold of the computer?

[Better Today]

78. She says that he "just let go of the computer," not that it fell or dropped, but

let go, which implies to me that when she said, "“Let me see your receipt, and then I’ll take this off for you,” she told the man, referring to a sensor on the computer, she must've reached out and grabbed it to remove the sensor. Otherwise her latter comment makes no sense.

[wolfgangmo]

95. She did the right thing.

She got fired for it.


And many folks agree with the store.


The flushing sound you hear is the country circling the rim.

[liberalhistorian]

120. Where the hell are you getting that?

The way I read it was that she asked for the receipt so she could remove the sensor that was sounding the alarm, HE then kicked and punched HER and he then released the computer and ran. It sounds to me like HE was the one who was holding onto the computer. At no point did I read anything where it indicated she had ahold of the computer.

This reminds me of that store chain in Chicago that would fire employees who were held at gunpoint and forced to empty registers or have their heads blown off. Mike Royko used to write blistering columns against them, as only Royko could and did.

[uponit7771]

44. In this case she JUST asked for a receipt and the man assaulted her. She can make the case that she

...just asked for a receipt, was assaulted and then fired with them having a reasonable expectation that she would file for workman comp etc.

This was as stupid move by the manager IMHO

[Better Today]

71. Over-simplification based on not reading apparently. How could she

have still had ahold of the computer after the altercation, if she hadn't grabbed and latched onto it in the first place?

I understand the desire to demonize WalMart and they usually deserve it, but not this time.

[unblock]

7. good intentions taken to absurdity, kinda like "zero tolerance" crap

it's actually a good idea to want only people with at least SOME TRAINING to confront criminals to confront criminals. people in "asset protection" are hired for that specific purpose and are trained to know when to let it go and protect themselves rather than property. presumably mal-wart's managers get at least some of that same advice.

it's not unreasonable for mal-wart to train everyone else NOT TO CONFRONT criminals but to simply get someone who IS trained to do the confronting.

but it IS absurdly ridiculous to fire someone for this. thank them AGAIN and remind them that mal-wart has designated workers for that and in the future they should just summon them.

[ima_sinnic]

9. FUCK WM right up its greedy soulless ass--think I'll get a job there, then

put out the word to people to come in while I'm there and take whatever they want--because it's "forbidden" for me to do anything to stop them.

fuck WM, they make me feel like going right now and shoplifting from them--asshole scumbag greed-head slave-mongering corporate shit-heels.

[customerserviceguy]

11. She'll get a job

with someone who wants an employee this consciencious. She deserves far better than Mal*Wart, clearly.

[eilen]

12. She shouldn't have been fired

But, she could have been counseled, given the policy to read and sign that she understood what to do in this situation. I think she was just trying to do the right thing. Next time she should just hold the door open for the shoplifter.

[Orrex]

32. It's quite likely that she signed a statement acknowleging the store's policy in this regard

As has been noted above, the potential for personal harm outweighs the potential lost revenue attached to a theft. Retailers commonly maintain non-interference policies in regard to shoplifters, because those retailers know that they face huge liability if the shoplifter harms an employee or another customer.

When I worked in retail as long as 18 years ago there was already a policy in place addressing exactly this kind of situation. I'm very confident that Walmart maintains a similar policy.

But, she could have been counseled, given the policy to read and sign that she understood what to do in this situation.

It's very likely that she signed such a policy during orientation and/or training on one of her first days on the job. I would expect that the penalty for breaking this policy is termination, as it was at the retail job I worked in the early 90s.


With this in mind, Walmart was certainly correct to fire her. Failure to do so--that is, failure to apply the policy consistently and uniformly--would make Walmart guilty of discrimination in favor of this employee and would expose the company to litigation by any other employee previously fired for interfering with a shoplifter.

[Brickbat]

34. Right on all counts.

[wolfgangmo]

94. Maybe so.

But it still stinks to high heaven.

And I still refuse to even step into the stores. With internet there is NEVER any need to shop at that fasist fuckhole.

[Orrex]

103. For many people, necessity is the reason why they shop at that fascist fuckhole

In my case, I can choose to drive 60 miles round-trip to pay 150% for a product that I can pick up at the Walmart that's eight miles away.

Internet-ordering is great when it's a viable option, but it isn't always a viable option.

[Gormy Cuss]

99. While I agree with your assessment, this is going to blow up nicely for Wal-mart

and perhaps they'll start mandatory annual training sessions to remind employees of how to handle situations like this and others where what they THINK they should do is against company policy.

Won't help her, but it may save the jobs of other employees who think it's their responsibility to do same.

[Orrex]

102. While there's nothing wrong with annual refresher classes re: company policy

If the employees take it upon themselves to violate policy--no matter how noble the motivation--the company has little recourse other than to follow the established policy.

[Gormy Cuss]

114. The company policy can always be changed unless the policy is required by law.

Company policies change all the time. It's a matter of whether the board or management wants to make the change.

As I wrote before, the woman in the case is out of luck regardless because it is the policy now.

[Orrex]

117. Certainly you are correct.

However, since I had to agree to a very similar policy in order to work for a different retail establishment almost 20 years ago, I suspect that Walmart's policy has been in place for a long time--probably since before she began her employment with them.

[uponit7771]

47. There's no mention of a policy, also she didn't try to "stop someone from stealing" she asked for a

...receipt then he assaulted her.

WM managers should be more trained IMHO, this could turn into a WC lawsuit easily if she pressed it sense she was hurt on the job.

[Orrex]

66. There's almost certainly such a policy, and her employment was contingent upon her acceptance of it.

this could turn into a WC lawsuit easily if she pressed it sense she was hurt on the job.

If such injuries resulted from her direct violation of company policy, then she has little basis for a lawsuit against her former employer.


Whether or not the article mentions the policy is irrelevant. It's standard even for small retail businesses, and certainly for the world's biggest retailer.

[tammywammy]

124. I worked at an amusement park back in 97-99

I carried thousands in cash from the distribution to my office (with a security escort). We were told under no uncertain terms were we to fight someone that grabbed our cash buckets/bags. The people that worked the little vending carts didn't get escorts, but my office always did. And it's not like the security guard could do much, they didn't have a baton, mace, gun, etc. And we were told if we did put up a struggle we would be fired.

[Rebubula]

19. I know...

...that it is cool (and mostly justified) to hate Walmart - but almost all retailers have this policy of non-confrontation. There have been numerous stories with the same situation over the years.

If an employee gets killed doing something that they are not trained to do, then lawyers become front and center. This is a cover the ass policy that I do not disagree with.

[bobburgster]

21. Corporate Stupidity at its Best!

Wal-Mart sucks!

[Wizard777]

40. If they fired her for failing to stop the shoplifter.

We would all be bitching about Walmart placing the lives and safety of low level employees on the line to protect their very replaceable merchandise. That's basically what Walmart is doing here. They are enforcing a very good policy that says our merchandise is very easily replaced crap on a stick from china. Your life and safety is not. We cannot allow employees to act with a total disregard for their own safety.

[bobburgster]

53. Uhhh, Wal-Mart never acts out of safety and concern for its employees....

...and I mean never!

[wolfgangmo]

96. +1

Walmart encourages employees to die. They take out dead peasant life insurance policies on employees with themselves as beneficiaries.

They WANT their employees to die.

[droidamus2]

22. The way I read it

If I was one of the remaining employees at that WM the way I would read it is if you see somebody trying to steal from the store don't get involved it is not worth it. By that I mean don't call management or the designated security people just don't get involved at all. Yes I know that is not a great attitude but if they have rules with no leeway that say I get fired with no way to challenge it then I am just going to make sure I don't get involved so as not to get caught up in some rule I know nothing about.

[ima_sinnic]

27. +++1000 who gives a crap if someone is stealing from poor widdle WM?

considering the livelihoods they've stolen over the past decades, and the towns they've caused to go to blight, the businesses they caused to fail --fuck them. I wouldn't even consider taking things from WM "stealing"--just getting a little back that the pigs stole from us.

[Crystal Clarity]

28. Disposable workers apparently

:grr:

[HughBeaumont]

31. Wow. The citizens should just go in and loot ChinaMart blind. En Masse.

Make a day of it; swaths of disguised flash mobs nationwide stealing at least one item from ChinaMart. Asset protection & managers can't stop everyone.

Hey, if rank-and-file employees are forbidden by policy to be good samaritans and physically stop you, why even abide by the law? You think ChinaMart plays by any set of rules? Like the WalFamily is going to miss any of it's 120 billion dollar combined fortune?

Corporations: The Legal Mafia.

[Wednesdays]

65. Employees and managers can't stop you...but local police will shoot you dead.

See how that works?

[HughBeaumont]

80. Either them or the National Guard.

Both protect the Corporate Upper Crust lovingly.

You should have seen how many state troopers were at Bush's 2005 Coronation: five deep in a line a mile long. I wonder how many crimes were committed that day in their respective states.

[wolfgangmo]

97. Imagine.

Flash mobs of 1000's of folks converging on every Walmart in the country all at the same time. And other flash mobs whose only jobs it would be to call in to the police from pay phones all over the place and reporting violent crimes. The cops won't even respond to property theft if they think some dudes got a gun on his girlfriend and they surround an bunch of empty houses around the city.

Not that I support civil unrest ... ahem. No sir, not me.

[liberal N proud]

33. She wasn't management

Wal-Mart has the policy that only management can actually stop shoplifters. Stupid rule which most of the shoplifters know, just keep going, if you don't see Manager on the name badge, no one will stop you.

Ms. Ravenstein stopped the shoplifter anyway and so Wal-Mart enforced their policy and she is out. She is a CSM, not a Manager.

[Mad_Dem_X]

36. What what WHAT?

She prevented someone from stealing, gets assaulted in the process, and then gets fired for it?

Just when I think I should start cutting Wally World some slack...

[Vinnie From Indy]

41. The Great Wal-Mart of China strikes again

I swear if I worked there after this episode, I would wave at all the shoplifters as they left with merchandise and bid them to have a good day!

[Flipper999]

42. And the lesson is...

don't bother stopping shoplifters at Wal-Mart. Ever.

[gmoney]

104. +1 -- Giving a damn is usually a bad idea.

[uponit7771]

43. She didn't "stop someone from stealing" she asked for a receipt then he assaulted her. She can make

...the case that she was going to file the next day for WC and then this thing turns into a suite that WM has to defend and they'll do it poorly sense it was the next day.

The manager wasn't trained correctly and should have referred to procedures, if there were any, instead of a firing her and opening themselves up to an unnecessary suite.

[Statistical]

56. How do you know firing isn't the procedure?

Most large retail chains have policy for terminating employees who take any action (even saying stop or asking for receipt) unless they are in the loss prevention dept.

Why?

Say she "only" asks for receipt. Guy drops computer and run. What is right outside the doors of a Walmart? The parking lot with access street. Car hits guy and he goes to hospital. 100% guaranteed Walmart gets sued and loses.

The cost of even a POTENTIAL lawsuit simply is not worth it for an untrained employee to do ANYTHING towards a customer leaving the store.

http://www.ksn.com/news/local/story/Clerk-fired-for-stopping-shoplifter-not-the-first/x01VU_G-EkOarCBlYouYiA.cspx

[Better Today]

72. Do think if you type this misrepresentaton over and over it will make it true?

There's no way that she only asked for a receipt. That started it, but clearly she was more attached to the computer by the end than he was. How do you suppose that happened, by her keeping her hands to herself and calling the right store officials? Or by grabbing and latching onto the computer?

[DainBramaged]

48. It amazes me that there are people in this thread defending 'policy'.

But, lately on DU nothing really amazes me.



You folks need to see life from the side of the little guy and not the suits.

[Wednesdays]

68. ALL corporate policies are just.

Good god, get with the program.

[Better Today]

73. Whether for the purpose of employees over merchandise, or just a worry about liability issues,

the policy is the best policy to have. I don't know, nor care, what WM's reasons are, but policy itself is to keep employees and their customers away from potentially explosive altercations that could result in harm to either employees or bloom into effecting an entire store.

It sounds like you want policies that put product recovery ahead of sound safety concerns.

[DainBramaged]

77. It sounds to me like you need to get a life

lecture this.............

[proud2BlibKansan]

86. Me too

Disgusting replies.

[Statistical]

50. Pretty common in retail 75,000 hits on google.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=employee+fired+stopping+shoplifting

Whole Foods, Apple, BestBuy, Kroger, Sprint, Home Depot, etc.

Pretty crappy policy but if you work in retail and you are not in theft prevention don't do absolutely anything to stop a customer from leaving the store.

Don't question them, don't check receipt, don't stop them, don't ask them to stop, don't chase them.

Don't do anything. If you want to do that kind of stuff get a job in loss prevention.

[ohheckyeah]

108. There you went and ruined a

good Walmart bashing thread with facts.

[Bill McBlueState]

51. ohhh, but Wal-Mart says their stuff is cheap.

How dare anyone criticize them? You must hate poor people.

[saltpoint]

55. I hope this woman applies at Target or another retail store, is hired,

and is swiftly promoted to assistant manager, and never sets foot in a Wal-Mart again.

[Statistical]

57. Likely if she tells Target about this incident she won't be hired.

http://www.ksn.com/news/local/story/Clerk-fired-for-stopping-shoplifter-not-the-first/x01VU_G-EkOarCBlYouYiA.cspx

Almost every retail store has similar policies.

Unless you work in loss prevention you don't take any action towards an attempted shoplifter.

[saltpoint]

100. I get the technicality of the policy but still praise the integrity of

the individual woman.

[Orrex]

107. Out of curiosity, if the shoplifter had injured her or a bystander

would you praise her integrity as highly?

[saltpoint]

110. I would insist that it was present, as if to show contrast to its absence

in her managers in their decision to fire her.

I'm not disputing that the event was a violation of a stated policy. But I would insist that more integrity was present in her intent than in her managers' decision to dismiss her.

[Orrex]

111. Ah--I see.

I kind of misread the intent of your earlier post, then. Whoops!


Still, we need to assess her integrity, and that of her managers, in the context of the event. If we consider "integrity" to mean "willing to sacrifice her own interests while attempting to prevent a crime," then I'd agree that she acted with integrity. Of course, if we use that definition then she loses any basis to complain when the repercussions are indeed contrary to her interests.

If, however, we identify "integrity" as "acting in a manner in which she contractually agreed to act," then it could be said that her actions demonstrated a pronounced lack of integrity. Her intent may have been noble in that case, but her actions were not.

While we're at it, we could define the managers' "integrity" as "a desire to minimize danger to employees and customers," then they clearly acted with integrity in maintaining the policy of non-interference.


So it's not quite as simple as declaring that her actions showed integrity while their actions did not; first we need to agree on where to set the goalposts.

[saltpoint]

113. My take is you either like Julie Andrews or you don't.

She played Maria in THE SOUND OF MUSIC and would surely have been captured by the Gestapo had the nuns not vandalized the Gestapo's automobiles.

And indeed they did vandalize the cars, removing parts from the cars' engines, rendering them obsolete as moving vehicles while Julie Andrews escaped into the Swiss Alps with her family.

The audience is pleased at the nuns' resourcefulness and good-hearted intent. You and I might argue that a fictional construct is not legally analogous but on the other hand the German and French Underground were comprised of people at least as resourceful and integrity-driven as those fictional nuns. "If a law requires you to be an agent of injustice...then I say break the law," Thoreau wrote.

Why could the Wal-Mart employee not been admonished about the written rule and then told that she should not again run afoul of it? Why fire her? It's a drastic over-reaction, suggesting IMO very insecure management and lousy citizenship.

And if they feel that dismissal was deserved, why stop there? Why not have her detained and beaten? Her having violated the provision is tiny, IMO, compared to her intent to protect her employer. The decision to enforce a written provision becomes highly and dangerously arbitrary when poor judgment pervades the thinking of those paid to enforce it. This was a manageable problem at a far earlier level than dismissal from a company.

[Orrex]

116. From my experience in retail, her actions constitute a terminable infraction

I haven't worked for Walmart, but I've worked for other retail businesses that maintained that same policy: the first time that you physically interfere with a suspected shoplifter, you're fired. End of story.

Why could the Wal-Mart employee not been admonished about the written rule and then told that she should not again run afoul of it? Why fire her? It's a drastic over-reaction, suggesting IMO very insecure management and lousy citizenship.

You're conveniently overlooking the fact that she signed a contract acknowledging the no-interference policy as well as the consequence for such interference. "Lousy citizenship" is a judgment call, and I frankly don't agree with you about it: what if the shoplifter had shot her or an innocent bystander? Would that be "great" citizenship?

And it's not "VERY insecure management," either; it's enforcement of policy. You may not like the policy, but that's too bad.

And if they feel that dismissal was deserved, why stop there? Why not have her detained and beaten?

Because that's preposterous hyperbole, and I hope that you know it. I seriously doubt that the contract she signed upon starting her employment involved granting Walmart the right to detain and beat her. However, the contract that she signed did spell out the do-not-interfere policy, as well as the penalty for such interference. If there was no provision allowing her to be "admonished about the written rule," then there was no reason for Walmart to admonish her.

Since she knew (or reasonably should have known) the consequences for violating company policy, why should she not face the consequences for violating that policy?

Your analogy to the French and German resistance, though colorful, is irrelevant and off target. Unless you're suggesting that Walmart is in fact a genocidal army invading a series of sovereign nations and actively engaged in crimes against humanity, the analogy falls flat.

"If a law requires you to be an agent of injustice...then I say break the law," Thoreau wrote.

See, this is the part of civil disobedience that no one understands. Thoreau didn't say "break the law and then pretend that you needn't face the consequences." Thoreau, privileged and well-heeled fellow that he was, knew that his violation of the law was a jailable offense, yet he did it anyway and accepted his sentence. By that logic, the Walmart employee broke policy and should accept the consequences.

Let her write a series of essays about it, like Thoreau did.

[saltpoint]

119. Genocide? No, I'm not accusing Wal-Mart of genocide.

Of being a monstrous monolithic greed hog sucking the life out of American downtown economies, yes. That and more.

The same Wal-Mart which invokes "the rules" this employee signed would be, after all, the same Wal-Mart who denies competitive benefits to its employees nationwide, the subject of specific law suits.

The "rules" are in place; no one questions that. There's also no indication that the woman employed here -- now formerly employed -- was unwilling or otherwise not up to accepting consequences, but her initial action was undertaken out of integrity for her relationship with her employer.

In my opinion it is the greater good.

I wish her the best from this point forward with a new employer.

[Orrex]

121. That's a very different claim, and frankly I won't argue against it.

(Accusing Walmart o)f being a monstrous monolithic greed hog sucking the life out of American downtown economies, yes. That and more.

Well, yeah. No one disputes that, but it isn't relevant here. I would be happy to discuss that assertion in another thread, and I would be sure to mention that a lot of people (on DU and elsewhere) shop at Walmart because they have no other option.

The "rules" are in place; no one questions that.

In point of fact, a great many people in this thread have questioned it. That's kind of what the whole discussion has been about.

There's also no indication that the woman employed here -- now formerly employed -- was unwilling or otherwise not up to accepting consequences, but her initial action was undertaken out of integrity for her relationship with her employer.

Again, it depends how you define integrity. For instance, I would define it as "upholding the policies and rules that she agreed to upon beginning her employment." You, it seems, are defining it is "seeking to protect the property of her employer."

The latter might be noble or it might not, but it's irrelevant in any case. The correct course would have been to follow company policy, which she simply did not do. Therefore she was terminated in accordance with policy, and no one has any basis to complain about it. Even if she isn't complaining, others (here and elsewhere) certainly are.

As to whether or not she's willing to accept the consequences, I'd say that it remains to be seen. It's curious, for instance, that she's talking to the media. I've lost several jobs in my lifetime, but I never rushed to give a soundbyte about it.

Similarly, if she undertakes any sort of legal action against Walmart as a result of her termination, she will clearly not be accepting the consequences. I'm not saying that she's done this, but if she does do it...

[saltpoint]

123. Wal-Mart knows it has to cover its ass and its legal arm is entirely

large enough to do that by co-opting existing provisions regarding customer safety and employee disregard of same.

If I'm asked to choose whether I think that the provision suggests that the woman's impulse was ethically wrong, I'd say no, it was demonstrably correct, even as it violates a document she no doubt signed when she was hired.

No, I'm not terribly interested in "the property of the employer." that is lifted from the agreement, in all likelihood. I argue that her impulse to act against someone she believed trespassed against proper conduct reflects the larger good, the truer integrity. The mgrs "thanked" her before they fired her. If they felt her actions were singularly grievous there would be no cause to thank the woman in the first place. She was thanked because her integrity stood taller than the provision she violated, and the mgrs knew that.

The woman is permitted to act as a citizen, and I would certainly argue for that right if it did NOT exist, though as it does, she can dish out a consequence or two of her own if the court rules in her favor. Consequences go all kinds of directions, after all.

[Orrex]

125. I'd be surprised if any court in the land ruled in her favor if she sued Walmart over this.

At issue is a contract between competent parties entailing competent subject matter. When one party broke the contract, the other party enforced the terms of the contract. Case closed.

I argue that her impulse to act against someone she believed trespassed against proper conduct reflects the larger good, the truer integrity.

Would you argue the same if her actions had resulted in the shoplifter opening fire and killing her and several innocent bystanders?

You might object that this is a pure hypothetical, but it isn't. When she acted against the shoplifter, she had no idea of what the consequences might turn out to be. This is disastrously irresponsible behavior hardly to be lauded. You might still argue that some "truer integrity" is still served by her martyrdom (and that of the bystanders), but I submit that this would be little comfort to the survivors.

If they felt her actions were singularly grievous there would be no cause to thank the woman in the first place. She was thanked because her integrity stood taller than the provision she violated, and the mgrs knew that.

She was thanked because the managers forgot (or temporarily ignored) company policy, and I expect that the managers received a pretty sharp reprimand for encouraging employees to violate company policy (if so, then the reprimand was deserved). No doubt the decision to fire her came from someone higher up the ladder than the floor manager who thanked her. Her "tall integrity" is super-duper but irrelevant.

[saltpoint]

126. Agree -- the document remains itself and in all likelihood her

signature is on one of those copies in her file.

Her legal position is tenuous.

Ah, but in the mgrs' "forgetting company policy" is the true gauge of her action, IMO. A court would have no leeway but to defend a retailer's legal provision, set in place for that purpose against such events as this one. But I believe there would be dissenters, as a group of that woman's peers would understand her motive, understand her impulse, see her action as being in support of her employer and not as action against its interests. The law may bind them to a specific zone of focus but it would not persuade them that she deserved to be fired from her job.

Your assessment of Wal-Mart as a company in another post in this thread is exactly correct, IMO. You use notably harsh language in that assessment and just for the record, 'I got no problem wit dat.'

:thumbsup:

[Orrex]

127. Hey, look at us--we reached agreement!

We rock!

:toast:

[saltpoint]

128. We do, goddamit. Now can you recommend a hallucinogenic

compound that will get me through this oil crisis in the Gulf?

[Orrex]

129. If I knew of such a compound, I would have consumed all of it myself by now.

Sorry.

[Dr. Strange]

130. Orrex and saltpoint, sitting in a thread.

D-i-s-c-u-s-s-i-n-g.

:D

[Orrex]

131. Many internet discussions look on lesser ideas viciously, especialy silliness.

[The Backlash Cometh]

59. More reason why employees should not bond with corporations,

when loyalty isn't a two way street.

[BrklynLiberal]

79. WalMart sucks..and always will....

[blondeatlast]

82. "Customer service manager." So now Wal-mart is Wal-Marting the English language.

Why the hell am I not surprised?

[LanternWaste]

83. Insurance friendly policies...

Insurance friendly policies and profit motivated companies overriding a good act. I'm shocked.

[Toucano]

84. Shoplifters of the world, unite and take over!

Sounds like Wal-Mart just revealed a policy that should make them an easy target.

No employee outside of management and asset-protection will try to stop you.

Clean em out!

[and-justice-for-all]

88. I admire their courage, however...

I would not put myself out there for Wal-Marts sake. If I saw some one stealing, I would go and report it and provide a description of the perp, but Wal-Mart firing them is over board, I am sure Wal-Mart did it because if something happened to that employee, then Wal-Marts liability would cost more than that merchandise.

I am not defending Wal-Mart, I am just sayin'...

[Statistical]

112. Also it isn't just their employee they are responsible for.

Employee approaches shoplifter, confrontation happens ....
employee injured = Walmart sued
bystander injured = Walmart sued
shoplifter injured = Walmart sued
shoplifter runs out into street gets hit by car = Walmart sued
shoplifter runs out of store knocks someone else in front of car = Walmart sued
shoplifter runs out of store, car swerves hits parked car = Walmart sued

There is essentially no outcome where Walmart doesn't face increased liability by having untrained employee confront shoplifter.

Pretty simple rule and EVERY retail store has similar rules.

If you want to confront shoplifters then get hired in the asset protection team.
If you are not in asset protection team don't approach potential shoplifters.

Google: "shoplifter fires employee" returns 342,000 results.

The funny thing is that in this instance it is Walmart so some people get bent out of shape but what is it was another store?
Google results return similar situations involving Whole Foods, Sprint, Apple, Best buy, Home Depot, Lowes, Yarget, Sears, etc.

[jmowreader]

93. The problem is, she went outside the store to confront this guy

I read that the alarm went off, she confronted him and was assaulted by the customer. To me that says the associate went through the door to catch this guy. Any large retailer in America would have fired her for doing that--you can get killed that way, and people have.

That being said, if you're going to get canned for following a shoplifter into the parking lot, at least do it with some style. One of my friends at Home Depot saw a shoplifter steal a thousand-dollar cordless tool set. (Understand about this associate: in her spare time she was on a women's semipro football team. I wouldn't have messed with her.) She followed the guy to his car. He got in. She opened the guy's door, pulled his ass out and screamed at him until he gave up.

The other customer service war story related to this: one of our lot guys saw a customer stealing 4x4s from the rack in front of the store. When the customer was confronted he ran to the cab of his truck and tried to get away. My guy jumped in the back of the truck, threw all the stolen 4x4s out, then called the cops to get them to pull the driver over, so he could get back to the store. They had a car in the area so the guy got nailed a block from the store, but still...

[Kievan Rus]

98. Yet another reason why I won't go anywhere near a Wal-Mart

[TexasObserver]

109. She broke a rule even non employees know Walmart invokes.

How could any Walmart employee who isn't authorized to chase shoplifters forget the rule they've all been told countless times? There are good reasons for the rule, such as opening the store up to liability far greater than the cost of some consumer goods.

I can't stand Walmart and think they're deplorable for many reasons, but this is not one of them. Most retailers have similar rules, and every time some employee thinks they're a hero and decides to chase down a shoplifter, we get one of these stories that always says exactly the same thing.

[naaman fletcher]

115. It's not Walmart, it's the lawyers.

If the guy ran away and got run over, they would sue Walmart as she is their agent. what needs to happen is that states need to pass laws fixing this problem, but the lawyers won't let that happen.