I see what you all are saying ,but it seems to me that it would only really apply in those areas that are both extremly competitive and have very low profit margins to begin with–which, I must admit, is true for most of the businesses discussed here. It is my understanding that there is a point past which lowering prices in not effective, period–the increased market share you gain by selling widgets for $1/each will not make up for the lowered profit margin, and that this point would exisit no matter what factors are included in your overhead. In those cases, shrinkage will not have an effect on price, just on profit.
Can we agree that the relationship between shrinkage and price is non-linear? There seems to be a popular perception that 5% shrinkage = 5% price jump, and it seems to me that the relationship has to be much more complex than that, and that at places like grocery stores where they run a 3% profit margin already, the actual benefit of shrinkage elemination would not be all that dramatic to the actual consumer.
If we want to keep argueing this, we should probably take it to another thread, as it is really irrelevant–I don’t tihnk anyone thinks that the effect on prices is an arguement legitimizing shoplifting (I have been careful to point out that shrinkage can and does drive businesses, often small retailers, out of business). It’s just a sidenote I find interesting.
I remain unconvinced that bag checks reduce shrinkage to any noteable degree, and “They wouldn’t bother if it didn’t” does not strike me as a good arguement when we are talking about corporate policys.
Because there isn’t any set price that they “need” to make. They don’t start out with a goal. If they can get away with making 5% more money than the other store, they will.
When Jaime worked at Best Buy neither one of us could carry anything into the store when we were just shopping there. That included bags, purses, and our cell phones. I didn’t appreciate that…
Anyway, I think Best Buy does lose money if too many products are lost. Best Buy sells their large items just above cost, so they don’t make much money off of TVs, cd-players, etc etc. However, their accessories are marked the fuck up. When Jaime worked their many accessories that would have cost 70-80 we got for about 15 with his discount. Therefore if someone waltzes out the door with three or four “little” things than they lose a pretty big profit, and if they lose enough than they have to mark their items even higher.
And Costco checkers do not make minimum wage, so don’t feel too sorry for them. My cousin worked as a door check and he made close to 10/hr.
among the other even more lame excuses posted near the exit of the Costco I go to simply doesn’t wash. Are they trying to convince me that the checker - after carefully reviewing my sales slip - will be able to determine that the U2 CD I paid for (you know, that little slab of plastic stuck in the middle of said cart full of other articles) is in fact the latest Britney Spears one? To me, the prevention of theft by employees (or their accomplices) seems the most valid reason, and management should say so instead of serving us bogus explanations. I’m sure it could be couched in sufficiently diplomatic terms so as to not offend the employees, who are most probably aware of this situation in the first place, and it would make the practice more palatable to the customers.
Bull. Respect my desire not to have you “help” :rolleyes: me. If I don’t get the right thing, I’ll deal. Just like I do at places where they don’t treat me like a thief. What’s that you say? You insist even though I find it disrespectful and insulting? But wait, werent’ you just saying that you do respect the customer? And I’m supposed to just take your word for it? Gosh, sorry, I’m gonna have to go with how loudly actions speak (especially since your own words previous to this back up your actions. )
And ** Spiritus, ** intruding on my privacy as part of a plan to **ensure my safety ** is something I can tolerate. To ensure ** the store’s bottom line? ** I don’t think so.
** Fenris **, I think it’s time you just copped: you have a crush on me!
This is part of the argument that I can’t understand. Has anyone argued that you are required to tolerate this (or anything) from any store? If you personally find it distasteful, don’t shop in these places. I think the significance of the airline comparison is not with regards to your personal prefences - rather that as there is no implication that you are a hijacker, so too there is no implication that you are a shoplifter. Rather, that you might be a hijacker or shoplifter, as might any other random person.
The question remains… What happens if you keep walking?
Now, for private (warehouse) clubs, I don’t think it’s a good idea, but I’ve never had a problem with Best Buy or CompUSA. Of course, it may just be self-confidence. Anthracite seems to have had different experiences.
Anyone able to find that link to the old thread?
But the possibility that I or any other passenger might be a hijacker is a matter which poses a threat to my safety, and I am therefore willing to undergo a certain amount of insult. The possibility that we customers might be shoplifters is not my concern. I don’t care. It’s not my problem. It’s the store’s. Insulting me is not ok with me in that instance.
As for shopping elsewhere, of course. But apart from this rudeness, I like these stores.
So I think I’m going to complain directly, and perhaps email them a link to this thread, so they can see how many people are offended, and how many people have made that choice.
Bullshit and fuck you back. Treating me like a thief, a rapist, or a Goddamned murderer certainly doesn’t make it so.
Can you please cite credible evidence that this means exactly jackshit in regards to a businesses practice?
I am assuming that your neighbors are familiar with the store’s policies and have probably been checked many times as well?
I would like a cite please. Who do you think pays for the loses caused by theft? The business or the consumer? If you say businesses, you are very naïve.
Bullshit. Cite?
I come from a family with two businesses. One a small, although very lucrative family run business with a small, non-family staff (it has been sold since my grandparents retired and no one in the family was in a position to continue). The other, although still family owned, has grown into a chain of stores (18 this year) that you may recognize if you live here in the west. I can assure you most definitely that although the larger business spends many times that of the smaller business for security, theft and loss has ALWAYS played a major role in prices.
I understand the position of BigGirl and those who have no other choice but to shop at places that employ these practices. What I don’t understand are those of you who find it insulting and demeaning but continue to shop those stores. I just have one question – Why?
Don’t be confused. The ZIP code business is all about determining demographics. The store wants to know where its customers are coming from (for better ad placement, etc.).
Wal-Mart managers probably fed some BS line to their cashiers vis a vis this procedure, which is what Mr./Ms. Cashier repeated to you. He/she really doesn’t know why it’s Wal-Mart’s policy, but he damn well better follow it, or his friendly manager will be on his ass. It makes the cashier’s day a whole lot better if you don’t bitch about it. It’s not as if anything REALLY REALLY CONFIDENTIAL OR IMPORTANT can be gleaned from a ZIP code.
This goes to the whole societal thing I was trying to explain earlier. I don’t like to make anyone’s job harder than it has to be, but this type of intrusion is rude.
Are we becoming a society where no one can be trusted to do anything, where there is no privacy? I don’t want to have to provide fucking citizenship papers next time I go to Radio Shack to get some batteries.
All of you appologists have got the wrong idea, none of us has said it is illegal for businesses to search you, just that it is wrong. Try to get the concept through your head that just because something is legal, that does not make it right
But the fact that you might be a hijacker or shoplifter is merely a true fact, from their perspective. So where is the insult?
I would imagine that if there were enough people who felt like you and were willing to pay for it, there would be other stores that were identical to the ones you name, save for this practice. If such stores do not exist, than it is likely that few people are willing to absorb this additional cost.
(It has been suggested by several posters in this thread that these security checks do not measurably cut down on shoplifting. The implication being, of course, that the stores that engage in these practices are motivated by sheer stupidity. This is not out of the realm of possibility, but I think - as with anyone challenging professional wisdom in a given field - the burden of proof would be on the ones making this type of assertion.)
Are we becoming a society where no one can be trusted to do anything, where there is no privacy? I don’t want to have to provide fucking citizenship papers next time I go to Radio Shack to get some batteries.
All of you appologists have got the wrong idea, none of us has said it is illegal for businesses to search you, just that it is wrong. Try to get the concept through your head that just because something is legal, that does not make it right **
[/QUOTE]
There are no citizenship papers to provide. Wal-Mart simply wants to know which newspapers its ad should appear in. If you don’t like it, make up a ZIP code. That’ll sure show 'em.
Just a bit of hyperbole. Have you been to Radio Shack recently? Last time I bought batteries I had to fill out more forms than your average loan application. Name, address, phone number, employer name and address (remember, this was for a personal purchase of less than $20).
I’m truly torn about this. Since I know Biggirl and would trust her with both my life and the lives of the WeeToons, I can take everything she says at face value. Yes, she got judged by asshole storeowners in the South Bronx, and yes it was fucking bullshit and wrong. She got judged on sight- something I’ve experienced rarely instead of pandemically since I’m white and she’s not.
I went to check into a hotel once. I’d been shooting all day, and it was summertime. That meant several things:
I am so soaked in sweat that where it HAS had a chance to dry, it has left a white ring along the edge of my Steadicam Vest that outlines the device. Everywhere else, I’m just dripping.
I look filthy.
I am dragging a handtruck filled with approximately 450 pounds of equipment.
I smell like a goat.
I had no reservation, and so just strolled up and asked for a room for the night. I was rebuffed and informed there was nothing- they were sold out. I could tell it was bullshit, so of course I thanked them and asked where the nearest lobby payphone was. I called the 1-800 number for the hotel chain. I booked a room with some nice man in god-knows-where for that hotel, gave my Amex Card # and got a confirmation number. I then walked BACK to the front desk and asked to see a manager. The desk shithead was furious but couldn’t really say no. The manager came out and I calmly explained that even though I had A) ID and B) A valid credit card, I was refused a room 4 MINUTES BEFORE by this employee because I looked disreputable. I then gave my confirmation number to the manager, who checked it and was totally furious. I asked for paper, wrote down the employees name and the managers name and informed them that since I had my laptop with me, by the end of the evening e-mails would be sent to the corporate offices informing them of the unique practices going on in their hotel. Phone calls would ( and did ) follow up the next morning.
They were both livid. Motherfuckers. It’s unconscionable to accuse someone to their FACES of theft.
ABOUT FACE. If the person at the doorway of Costco/CompUsa/Wal-Mart/Whatever Giggastore is professional and quick, and keeps their attitudes to themselves, I appreciate their caution. It’s not a soup kitchen, it’s a business trying to run a profit. If I am NOT a thief, then what do I have to hide??? Let 'em search through my bags or boxes of stuff I’ve just bought. However, god HELP them if they accuse me of theft when it’s not true. I then have the unique priveledge of calling 911 before they do.
I wanna pause here and address the issue of personal privacy when being searched. Let’s go back 3 months. ( God…let’s…) It’s before the WTC attack, and so security checks are what they have been for years. If I have the normal amount of detritus in my purse/handbag, then it’s nothing the store security person hasn’t seen a THOUSAND times. I’ve walked into enough homes that I don’t look at the art on the walls, or when I walk into the bathroom looking for the person’s medications I don’t look at what brand of sanitary napkin or spermicidal creme they use. It’s irrelevant. I look for MEDS. The security personnel don’t CARE what kind of book you read or the kind of tampon you carry. Or the kind of condom you carry. Or, ANYTHING ELSE that does not pertain to theft. You walk into a store and in doing so, enter private property. They can look all they want, it’s THEIR right on THEIR property, they cannot however accuse you and press for legal recourse unless they’ve got you cold.
The laws work both ways. Oh, and what was said up there about how the muscle of their legal rights ends at the store door being wrong, is true. Private propery law is really very well established. If you can sue K-Mart for not salting near your car for $ 500.000, and causing you to slip on the LAST PARKING SPOT , 300 yards from the store doors and only 15 feet from the sidewalk outside of the store’s parking lot, then you can bet your bottom dollar that they have full rights to protect their property and employees OVER THE FULL AREA OF THEIR PROPERTY, including all parking and access areas that they own or lease. Don’t ask me for a cite, just ask your local private rent-a-cop under whose authority they patrol the parking lot outside of Comp/USA. It should come as no shock that they are paid by same. The fact that you are near your car is totally irrelevant, they have the right to detain you forceably if you have stolen merchandise from them. My WAG is that if you enter your car before they make their move, they’re in a barrel of trouble. Lawyers, wanna leap in here?
Of course, they do run the grievous risk of being charged with assault when you prove absolutely that you didn’t steal a thing. YMMV
Look for my earlier posts I believe I touched on this.
I have been pondering many of the arguments here and from my security experience there are some scary misconceptions here.
#1 Store security are a bunch of minimum wage idiots.
In many cases yes, but do not confuse internal security people with rent a cops. Many stores in their desire to see effective loss control find some very competent and experienced people. I’m sure just as many dopers are damn good lawyers, doctors, stock brokers, managers, etc, There are also damn good security people out there. In our uniforms at the amusement park we don’t look any different from any joe-lunchbucket rent-a-cop. We are all part timers doing this for extra cash, I as an inventory manager in my “real job” am the least scary of the team. My coworkers other jobs range from IRS internal security to our manager who is retired army infantry. Would it be bright to assume that the 40 year old guy at the door is a pushover and find out that the guy has real combat experience! We deal with drunks, gangs, break up fights, etc. How comfortable is the average person going hand to hand, not very. We have some pretty serious experience stopping and detaining people if need be. You want to try and blow by the doors at CompUSA, go for it. How about if the person at the door gets your plate numbers and calls PD. CompUSA and BestBuy sell some pretty expensive small items that could easily constitute grand theft. PD will take it seriously and make every effort to intercept you. You think the door checker was inconvenient how about a felony stop. Would you treat the cop with the same disrespect when he asks you to step out of your vehicle. CompUSA’s cameras will probably show you ignoring and or bypassing the door checker. So the cop is not going to be pissed at CompUSA for calling PD they will be pissed at you for creating a scene. As many of us well know our legal system frowns on those who violate the spirit of the law while obeying the letter. Disregarding security measures in a store because “you didn’t steal anything” is begging for trouble.
#2 Theft is part of the price of doing business and they should just deal with it.
I have a friend who was a dept mgr for walmart and one of the reasons his store got good reviews is because they consistently have less than 1% shrinkage. In high value items like electronics places its really easy for cashiers to miss an item for a friend. His area was regularly watched by loss control and only once was a shoplifter the problem, 80% of the time there was a problem it was a cashier who didn’t normally work in that area trying to pull a fast one for a friend. In one case a DOOR PERSON (the one everyone so despises) looked at the receipt and discovered that the customer had been charged $49.95 for a large TV. Finding this suspicious he called for a manager, who also notified my friend (electronics dept manager). The loss control hearing the same calls started reviewing the tapes for the area and saw the customer talking to an employee near the TV display. The employee had a printing scanner gun and ran a price tag for a lower priced item and stuck it on the box. He then proceeded to the dept register and rang up the item for the customer. The customer argued that since the item rung up as $49.95 he gets to keep it. Loss contol called mgr and says they have something to show the manager, he leaves for a minute, reviews the tape and comes back During his absence my friend scans the price tag and notices item scans as a much smaller model of the same brand of TV. Customer still ranting and complaining how he is being “inconvenienced” and “mistreated”. Manager goes to a register, has cashier do a refund comes back and hands the guy back his money and tells him to leave. Customer gripes some more but leaves. Employee in electronics was fired.
So that DOOR person saved that Walmart like $250 that day, how many more times could that employee have made that same convenient mistake if he had not been caught. How long would it take for thousands of dollars worth of merchandise to slip out unsold.
And what makes you think I care? I don’t walk into Walmart (ever, as it happens, but if I did) thinking: “How can I help Walmart save some money today?”.
Stoid, I’ve already presented my position to all you people whining about this oh so demeaning practice. I don’t know about Radioshack, Costco, Target, Toy’s R Us, or any of those other places official store policies, but I know from working in Best Buy what our official store policy. It is not because we think everyone a thief. You may want to believe otherwise, but I will just inform you that your opinion is very wrong. I’ve already presented the reasons why.
Go ahead and continue to whine and bitch and moan about being insulted. If this is truly the case, you are way too sensitive and need to consider that.
One more thing: Since Best Buy is noncommissioned, we’re not going to bend over backwards to keep your business. Go shop somewhere that suits your tastes.
Well, I’m warming the bench right now. But I’ll give it a shot anyway.
A representative of a store is entitled to recover chattels (personal property) as long as it promptly discovered and they are in fresh pursuit.
Translation: if the rent-a-cop sees you stealing something, tells you to stop, and you don’t, he can chase after you. If he delays, he has to call the cops to nab you.
If the wrongdoer resists, the person may use any force reasonably required to defend himself, but he cannot resort to force until a demand has been made for the return of the property.
Now, what if you didn’t actually steal anything? This occured in Bonkowski v Arlan’s Dept Store. The S Ct of VT said that security must have a reasonable belief that the plaintiff had unlawfully taken goods from the defendant’s store. If the jury doesn’t believe security had that reasonable belief, the Dept store can be held liable for false arrest, slander, mental illnesses, and whatever else the plaintiff said occurred because of being stopped. Lots of bad things.
But security DOES have the right to detain you on suspicion. “If there were no such privilege, he must either permit the suspected person to walk out of the premises and disappear, or must arrest him at the risk of liability for false arrest if the theft could not be proved.”
So, in the end, it comes down to a question for the jury.
My personal opinion is this: I honestly don’t care if they look in my bag. I’m a big proponent of civil liberties and the 4th amendment, but those arguments just don’t fly here. It takes 3 seconds to verify the thing anyway, what’s the big deal? The ONLY thing you should have in those bags is what you purchased anyway.
Purses are something else entirely, though. I don’t agree with searching those. Fortunately, I don’t even carry a man bag.
YMMV