Lululemon: Ideal for continued, small-gang looting
-
-
@blablarg18 The story does not give enough information. The claim now by the head office official is that they were terminated for trying to interfere or otherwise engage with the accused, but yet it does not mention how this exactly transpired.
Without knowing the full story behind the matter, it's hard to say which side to take. In most retail operations that I have worked, the rules are clear... I have been known to push the line when I worked in retail because you legally cannot harass someone or have them charged for theft until the merchandise has actually left the store, and you're not supposed to engage with them.
I would push the envelope. If I saw 5 items on 5 hangers go into the change room, and only saw 2 items on 2 hangers come out of the change room with the other 3 empty hangers in the change room, I would walk up to them as they're about to walk out the front door, hand them the hangers, and say something like "These are your get out of jail free cards. If those items magically reappear on these hangers in that change room in the next 5 minutes, I'll pretend I saw nothing". If they just ran or walked away, I would not engage any further. By most company policies, even my pushing the envelope is considered a no no.
The same holds true if a customer reveals a weapon and threatens to use it and/or demands that you open the register. Even if you know you can over power them and disarm them, you are not allowed to be a hero, and can only open the register, then hand over the cash and let them walk out of the store with it. Once they're out of the store, most places want you to then lock the door to prevent re-entry, then call 911.
Being the way that I am, I can understand why these employees would want to try to intervene, but given the world we live in these days, that can be quite a dangerous thing to do.
The only difference between martyrdom and suicide is press coverage! -
@MrMazda Thanks for thoughtful reply.
If curious, the link passes you thru to other links:
DM article surprisingly long!
What I can put together from all 3 links.
-
Video proves 2 thieves rushed out with stolen merchandise
-
Same 2 thieves done it many times
-
First several times, 2 employees did nothing - following policy
-
5th or maybe 10th time they recognized thieves... yelled & called 911
-
Were fired for that
-
Husband angry went to media
-
ok 2 ladies finally violated policy - but reasonable, no? Isn't policy what's wrong & stupid?
-
No exception for known repeat offenders? How is it "harass" to recognize someone from 5 previous thefts? Don't policy also let certain customer be banned? Why these repeat thieves not treated as banned customers?
-
Good news: as a result of call, police did nab same thieves, next day at different store.
Having said allllllllllllllll that... Yes we only got 1 side of story.
Could be 2 sides, misreported or missing details, always. Why debate is good
By most company policies, even my pushing the envelope is considered a no no...
Agree - my guess, Lululemon woulda fired u.
-
-
@blablarg18 It's a bit of a hard one to call really. On one hand, one could praise them for taking an active role in trying to reduce the crime rate of the store. On the other hand, one could argue that doing so potentially puts their safety at risk.
Personally, if I were in the same position, I can likely say that I would have done the same thing. When the perps involved become known to management as repeat offenders, something more needs to be done. After all, this was not just a one off situation. If it were, that may make things just a little different.
I mean, I know that businesses have insurance for just such things, but when the issue becomes a repeat or frequent occurrence, you really can't blame the employees for trying to do something about the problem. I do agree though with their husband's point that if this kind of thing continues to be allowed to happen unchecked, then they will end up like any other major US city with a raging crime problem. That's where it begins to get complicated on what side to take.
That said though, even saying that these employees did engage in a way that is contrary to company policy, termination seems a little harsh. You would think they would at least skip the initial disciplinary steps and go straight to a final written warning as a more acceptable solution to the breach of policy. After all, you could reasonably argue that these employees were looking out for the best interest of the store by trying to do something about a recurring issue.
The only difference between martyrdom and suicide is press coverage! -
@MrMazda Indeed.
