Not true. For example, you are clearly a dumbfuck.
(Yeah, I know. I am a tightass who should bite you.)
If the “neutral” third party was arranged by the union, or at the union’s behest, they are not actually neutral. On the other hand, Stemba is representing the interests of the company (which does not want anyone to steal from them, ever). To suggest that his actions should be reviewed by a disinterested party is to say that the company cannot protect its own interests. There’s nothing fascistic about objecting to theft.
If the union is going to spend any amount of time on this sort of bullshit, they’re already wasting everyone’s fucking time. Stealing is (a) removal of company property or funds for one’s own use without proper authorization, or (b) conversion of company property or funds for one’s own use without authorization, or © destruction of company property without authorization. Our pharmacist was guilty of (b), even if he never left the store with the rest of the Tylenol, because he converted that property to his own use without authorization.
Now that I’ve educated you, can I assume that you will never again ask for the definition of theft?
None of this has the least factual bearing on whether the man stole anything. It therefore has no bearing on how he must be treated after having done so. If your position is that it should matter, you are entirely and irredeemably wrong, and there is nothing more to be said.
Or we could just let the manager who told him not to steal, and observed him stealing, carry through on what he said he would do, without interjecting any sort of bureaucratic idiocy in the process.
Unless, of course, you believe that anyone engaged in management is automatically in the wrong and not to be let out unsupervised, which does seem to be your position in general.
If he was planning on paying, he should have done so before he used that Tylenol for himself. If he didn’t, then by (b) above he is a thief. It doesn’t matter that he hadn’t left the store, since he had already engaged in theft.
Assuming that Stemba is being honest and accurate, the gentleman should have been fired based on his conduct alone. Theft is, or ought to be, worthy of firing in all cases. The dollar amount is much less important than the fact that you cannot possibly trust that employee again, ever. Furthermore, theft is a crime (yes, even when the person that you steal from is better off than you), so arrest and prosecution are perfectly valid responses. The fact that this does not happen in all cases of employee theft means that most retail store management is much more forgiving than you seem to be implying.
As it happens, he deserved what he got for being so incredibly stupid. Even if he hadn’t been stupid, however, the response was appropriate. The fact that you are paid to object to such things does not change this.
