Wheres the real problem

[panther10758]

I took this from another LP website in which opinions were expressed I am curious to see what is said here. I will inject my observations in a later post. Suffice it to say I and some other saw two major problems and it wasnt the companies policy.

"Ok, I am going to vent again at another new policy put in place with my company. As I have stated before my particular store is a 2 level mall store, I calculated that 2/3 of the shoplifters caught at the store last fiscal year were under the age of 18, majority being females. Then I also calculated that over 50% of the cases were cases involving concealment on the floor or placing the items plain view, the items being wither costume jewelry or sunglasses. And almost every single case not being solely those items involved the fitting room. So this being calculated I think it would be safe to state that the majority of shoplift cases taken at this particular store are teenage girls stealing sunglasses or costume jewelry.

Now policy that has been in place since I started said no 1 piece costume jewelry cases, risks outweigh the value of catching them. But sunglasses were not included in that because majority of sunglass cases are worn plain view. But I personally would not have taken a sunglass case concealed in a purse or bag unless I have very very clear video of the concealment.

So out comes new policy today. No Costume jewelry or Sunglass cases period. It doesn’t matter if you watched them come in the door walk up to the costume jewelry rack pull out a bag and go at it, under no circumstances are we to take any cases involving just one of those items. So now I am thinking. . . . .how do I get any externals when the source of the majority of my cases has been taken away and the staffing has been cut so that cases involving the fitting room are nearly impossible to deal with, and if you are able to get all the steps to make the stop you have to wait till they exit the store then find some way to get to whatever exit they left from, which might be upstairs, and watch them drive away."


Keep in mind the problems seen were not about the company policy although many took issue with it

[Curtis Baillie]

I took this from another LP website in which opinions were expressed I am curious to see what is said here. I will inject my observations in a later post. Suffice it to say I and some other saw two major problems and it wasnt the companies policy.

"Ok, I am going to vent again at another new policy put in place with my company. As I have stated before my particular store is a 2 level mall store, I calculated that 2/3 of the shoplifters caught at the store last fiscal year were under the age of 18, majority being females. Then I also calculated that over 50% of the cases were cases involving concealment on the floor or placing the items plain view, the items being wither costume jewelry or sunglasses. And almost every single case not being solely those items involved the fitting room. So this being calculated I think it would be safe to state that the majority of shoplift cases taken at this particular store are teenage girls stealing sunglasses or costume jewelry.

Now policy that has been in place since I started said no 1 piece costume jewelry cases, risks outweigh the value of catching them. But sunglasses were not included in that because majority of sunglass cases are worn plain view. But I personally would not have taken a sunglass case concealed in a purse or bag unless I have very very clear video of the concealment.

So out comes new policy today. No Costume jewelry or Sunglass cases period. It doesn’t matter if you watched them come in the door walk up to the costume jewelry rack pull out a bag and go at it, under no circumstances are we to take any cases involving just one of those items. So now I am thinking. . . . .how do I get any externals when the source of the majority of my cases has been taken away and the staffing has been cut so that cases involving the fitting room are nearly impossible to deal with, and if you are able to get all the steps to make the stop you have to wait till they exit the store then find some way to get to whatever exit they left from, which might be upstairs, and watch them drive away."


Keep in mind the problems seen were not about the company policy although many took issue with it

My observations are the same as on the other website....This is not the first time the poster's company has gone to this policy. They have had so many personnel changes at the top of the ladder, their policies are ever changing, to the point that the store LP staff have a problem deciding what's current.

Panther...I edited to show the proper quotation.

[Lynch Mob]

This is reactionary Loss Prevention policies. I would suspect they faced recent lawsuits on these issues. So, a total ban goes into effect as a result.

I would say the problem may not be in the policy change itself, but in how it is communicated. Now, by the post, we do not know how it was communicated to the field, but we clearly see how it is perceived. Odds are good that the policy was put into effect without a clear explanation of why this policy change is good for the company, or without an explanation of the alternative steps that should be taken to deter these type of thefts. If this is the case, you will have a bunch of disgruntled LP agents who feel they are not trusted to do their job properly and who feel the company cares more about liabiltiy than loss of merchandise. As a result, they start to not care about doing their job properly, or worse, decide on their own to ignore the policy.

I think that with better communication and training on policy changes, problems can be avoided, and perhaps, even have the LP agents fully buy in on.

[LPGuy]

My take on such a policy? Idiocy. It's a policy written by executives scared of a potential lawsuit. Instead of training their LP officers to make sound calls and trust in their discretion, they're making a overly cautious policy that will only frustrate everyone who knows how to do their job properly but now can't.

I would caution against single item jewelry stops, especially if you've lost sight of the item, but my company trained us to a high standard and as a result, my store never had one single bad stop on jewelry or sunglasses. And we'd make a LOT of single item sunglasses stops during the summer months...

[Lynch Mob]

My take on such a policy? Idiocy. It's a policy written by executives scared of a potential lawsuit. Instead of training their LP officers to make sound calls and trust in their discretion, they're making a overly cautious policy that will only frustrate everyone who knows how to do their job properly but now can't.

I would caution against single item jewelry stops, especially if you've lost sight of the item, but my company trained us to a high standard and as a result, my store never had one single bad stop on jewelry or sunglasses. And we'd make a LOT of single item sunglasses stops during the summer months...

Ideally, you could hire all extremely qualified LP agents who are responsible and careful, and pay them $10 an hour. Then, it would be perfect if you could train them on every aspect of making a stop and expect every one of them to make great decisions that keep the best interest of the company in mind at all times.

This is not reality. Reality is that agents, regardless of how well your training program is, are going to screw up. The question comes in the form of a business decision as to which is a better value to the company. Do you want to focus on apprehending thieves stealing less than $10 with a high level of liability risk, or do you prevent the liability of a bad stop, which probaly costs a company an average of about $25,000 per stop?

Seems like you thought ORC was a big problem because of the rare $2500 theft case, but you don't seem to think that the rare $25,000 lawsuit deserves the same concern. How do you rationalize this difference?

[LPGuy]

Ideally, you could hire all extremely qualified LP agents who are responsible and careful, and pay them $10 an hour. Then, it would be perfect if you could train them on every aspect of making a stop and expect every one of them to make great decisions that keep the best interest of the company in mind at all times.

This is not reality. Reality is that agents, regardless of how well your training program is, are going to screw up. The question comes in the form of a business decision as to which is a better value to the company. Do you want to focus on apprehending thieves stealing less than $10 with a high level of liability risk, or do you prevent the liability of a bad stop, which probaly costs a company an average of about $25,000 per stop?

Seems like you thought ORC was a big problem because of the rare $2500 theft case, but you don't seem to think that the rare $25,000 lawsuit deserves the same concern. How do you rationalize this difference?

I don't deny that there's a higher level of inherent liability with jewelry stops. That's why I advocate better training and a higher level of caution in regards to those kind of stops.

But you're making several assumptions and forgetting some numbers. You're assuming that every victim of a bad stop will sue and you're also assuming that they will all be awarded $25,000 judgements. In my experience, neither of those assumptions are correct.

For every $25 jewelry apprehension, you can tack another $250 on top of that for civil restitution (depending on what state you work in). You could make several of those a week, have two bad stops in a year (which is high--my manager had worked for the company for 4 years before one of his officers had a bad stop), and even if both of those bad stop victims sued, you'd still probably come out on top. Odds are that if you treated both bad stop victims professionally and courteously that you're not going to be on the receiving end of a lawsuit.

But besides all this, I'm against a black and white policy which takes all the discretion away from the officer working the floor. I can understand a company that gets uneasy over an officer making single item earring stops. But to say that the officer can't stop someone who empties a display of jewelry into her purse before walking out of the store is just idiocy.

[panther10758]

Where I agree with all of the above its not what got my attention. Here is what I asked.

. Why are you watching merchandise rather than people?

. Why so high a female arrest rate when stats suggest higher male theft and even then its closer to even

It appears the LP staff in this store are doing one or more of the following

. Looking fo reasy catch (fashion jewlery etc)

. Looking at females for other intention sother than theft

. Looking for lifters less threatenning

[Lynch Mob]

I don't deny that there's a higher level of inherent liability with jewelry stops. That's why I advocate better training and a higher level of caution in regards to those kind of stops.

But you're making several assumptions and forgetting some numbers. You're assuming that every victim of a bad stop will sue and you're also assuming that they will all be awarded $25,000 judgements. In my experience, neither of those assumptions are correct.

For every $25 jewelry apprehension, you can tack another $250 on top of that for civil restitution (depending on what state you work in). You could make several of those a week, have two bad stops in a year (which is high--my manager had worked for the company for 4 years before one of his officers had a bad stop), and even if both of those bad stop victims sued, you'd still probably come out on top. Odds are that if you treated both bad stop victims professionally and courteously that you're not going to be on the receiving end of a lawsuit.

But besides all this, I'm against a black and white policy which takes all the discretion away from the officer working the floor. I can understand a company that gets uneasy over an officer making single item earring stops. But to say that the officer can't stop someone who empties a display of jewelry into her purse before walking out of the store is just idiocy.

I think the assumptions are running the wrong way here. I never assumed all bad stops would sue. I said it would be rare. And, you are assuming that I was mentioning $25,000 as a judgement. A judgement would be a hell of a lot more than $25,000. $25,000 is closer to the average settlement price companies pay.

Doing your math:
3 stops a week at $25 = $75
3 stops with $250 CD = $750
Total per week = $825
$825 x 52 weeks = $42,900

2 settlements in a year = $50,000

You still lost money with your math. However, your math does not take into account that you will not receive 100% back on Civil Demands. Civild Demands usually recover only about 30% of the billed Civil Demands. That lowers your recovery to about $325 a week which is about $16,900 in recoveries.

You assume that agents are capable of making 3 stops a week on these type cases and not get bad stops. You assume that you will recover 100% of your Civild Demands. You assume that the settlements will top out at $25,000. You assume that there will not a multi-million lawsuit as a result of the actions of a highly trained LP agent.

The reality is that what we have discussed is a best case scenario. One where tons of stops are made with almost no mistakes made. Unfortunately, all the training in the world will not make this a reality. I wish your scenario could be a reality. Sorry, I don't see it being a reality.

Here is an idea. Why not burn the person who is stealing the jewelry? Why not just get them to dump? Then you get the money without the risk of the lawsuit. What would be wrong with that strategy?

[LPGuy]

Where I agree with all of the above its not what got my attention. Here is what I asked.

. Why are you watching merchandise rather than people?

. Why so high a female arrest rate when stats suggest higher male theft and even then its closer to even

It appears the LP staff in this store are doing one or more of the following

. Looking fo reasy catch (fashion jewlery etc)

. Looking at females for other intention sother than theft

. Looking for lifters less threatenning

Or perhaps he works in a store that caters almost exclusively to females, with female clothing and jewelry?

That's a much more logical explanation.

[panther10758]

The store in question carries clothing, Jewlery, shoes some toys in other words typical department store

[LPGuy]

The reality is that what we have discussed is a best case scenario. One where tons of stops are made with almost no mistakes made. Unfortunately, all the training in the world will not make this a reality. I wish your scenario could be a reality. Sorry, I don't see it being a reality.

Here is an idea. Why not burn the person who is stealing the jewelry? Why not just get them to dump? Then you get the money without the risk of the lawsuit. What would be wrong with that strategy?

That was indeed the reality at our stores. Our stores averaged perhaps one bad stop a year, oftentimes less. And we made a lot of jewelry stops.

But we only stopped when we were 100% sure that the suspect had the jewelry. If there were any doubts, or the situation had allowed the suspect to dump without our knowledge, then we would go for the burn. Actually, I would say we would burn on jewelry much more often than apprehend. But when we did stop, they had the merchandise every single time.

That's what I call good decision making by our officers. Our company trained us to that standard and trusted us enough to make those good calls. The company described in the original posting obviously does not either train or trust their officers to the same standards.

[LPGuy]

The store in question carries clothing, Jewlery, shoes some toys in other words typical department store

You're still grasping at straws here looking for a bias of some type.

[panther10758]

No no bias. I suspect the items I posted are a problem. If the store in question sol donly lingerie then a high female arrest rate would apply. I mentioned things I felt wrong since this store caters to both sexes there is no reason that it should have a lopsided arrest ratio. I brought up here and on other site my view of problems

[LPGuy]

No no bias. I suspect the items I posted are a problem. If the store in question sol donly lingerie then a high female arrest rate would apply. I mentioned things I felt wrong since this store caters to both sexes there is no reason that it should have a lopsided arrest ratio. I brought up here and on other site my view of problems

The problem is that criminals don't get together and make sure that they all offend at a rate proportionate to their representation in the population or in numbers that agree with national statistics. There are far too many variables at work to simply say, "It looks like you're arresting too many females."

Every department store that I can think of besides Sears caters to females more so than males. In fact, the store that I worked always referred to its customers as females in general (e.g., "Always let our customer know that she's our number one priority.").

You're taking what little information you have about the store's clientele and day to day operations and trying to form some kind of sexism charge out of it. That's ridiculous.

[panther10758]

Actually if you read my post I gave more than one point! I have yet to speak with any retailer who had a large ratio difference until this thread. If most of your stops are all female and/or certain merchandise then your LP team has failed