Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Elements

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by panther10758 View Post
    I found this forum topic on a myspace group very disappointing. Many of the posters including Op talk of ignoring elements (steps) and even putting false or misleading info on reports. many of the persons boast of this and even name their stores! Its fools like these that give the rest of us bad names. Here is link to that topic

    http://forum.myspace.com/index.cfm?f...3D580B29401296
    I agree that it's bad policy to name your store or talk about any operational or company policy in a public forum. Shoplifters research these sites just as much as loss prevention officers do.

    I also advocate following a mixture of company policy and common sense with any approach to loss prevention. I understand that company policy in specific regards to the elements required to make a shoplift apprehension are there to form the framework for your typical shoplift scenario and to provide a good structure for the officer to rely upon.

    However, you delude yourself if you believe that these elements should be set in stone and followed in a black and white sort of manner. As with anything else, you need to use common sense. Look around at the rest of your store or company and ask yourself if other store departments do not operate in the same manner.

    I can tell you right now that your store sales managers do not follow a black/white policy in regards to customer service, because they understand that there are times in which those policies should be ignored in the best interests of the customer or company. For example: You have a valued, frequent customer who spends a lot of money in your store trying to return an item that she purchased 91 days ago. Your store policy allows returns within 90 days of purchase. Would you really expect that the company should tell the customer, "No"?

    Or your human resources department requires that all new hires have a minimum of one year sales experience prior to being hired. One of the applicants has an exceptional work history, excellent recommendations, and interviewed extremely well. However, she only has ten months of sales experience. Would you really expect that the company should turn this person down?

    Similarly, a common sense approach should also be followed in regards to theft apprehensions. We obviously follow policy (elements) in an attempt to reduce non-productive detentions ("bad stops") and to eliminate higher risks of liability to the company. However, these policies shouldn't be followed religiously when it's blatantly obvious that there is no liability risk involved, but I'm amazed that some people feel they should be.

    For example, my company sold Coach and Dooney & Bourke handbags that often retailed for between $300 and $400 each. Some of them were placed on mobile fixtures that were locked down, but it was not uncommon for thieves to attempt to use bolt cutters to remove the fixture itself and run out of the door with it to a waiting car.

    Now, there's no way in hell you can convince me that I should not make an apprehension on a subject who I see running through the store with a heavy metal fixture with $3,000 worth of handbags dangling from it--merely because I didn't have "approach" or "selection". That's just ludicrous. You may think that example is extreme, but it's not. We also sold leather coats that retailed for between $250 and $300, and thieves would attempt to scoop up an armload of them and run for the doors. Actually, anything they could grab an armload of and run with, they would.

    There are times to follow company policy, and there are times to use common sense.

    Comment


    • #62
      In Cali you have to see the suspect from the time they pick up the merchandise, conceal it, pass the register and get out of the exit. You can't let them out of your sight or you have no case if charges are to be brought up.
      Todd

      Comment


      • #63
        Lpguy I can agree not everything is black and white and sometimes decisions need to be made. However if you red thread openning line reads I rarely get the six steps" Keyword here is "rarely" This LP is going to cause more harm than not! He has no understanding of "burn" he is all about arrest at any cost! He intentionally ignore company policy! It is never a good idea to ignore company policy! where there might be situation that warrant a rethinking the statement that this LP "rarely" has his steps (elements) he is more a problem than a problem solver!

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by panther10758 View Post
          Lpguy I can agree not everything is black and white and sometimes decisions need to be made. However if you red thread openning line reads I rarely get the six steps"
          I agree that the OP in that forum has some issues--if he's having trouble making stops with all the elements present, he's probably not paying attention. However, you took his comments to be indicative of everyone else on that forum, and I don't think that was true.

          From what I saw, some of the LPOs were talking about making stops without the "approach" element, which can often be safely ignored. Someone else, I think, also made the point that I did above--elements are not some golden standard. You were arguing this point, but really--there are times that you can safely ignore them, if you use common sense and don't act reckless.

          Comment


          • #65
            Where that may be accurate it not up to a store level LPO to decide when its ok to break with policy. the "burn" situation is for those incidents when arrest cannot be made and still meet arrest requirements. Approach I can agree on but selection!? then there was anothe statemnt about "creative writing" in regards to reports! Yes this Op has some serious issue. Yes it was wrong of me to unintetionally lump everyone in that group. My point was (here) that its rogue actions like this OP that scar the rest of us and also force Retailers to install harsher policies that make our job tougher. No store level Lp should "ever" decide when it sok to break corporate or company policy!

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by panther10758 View Post
              Where that may be accurate it not up to a store level LPO to decide when its ok to break with policy. [. . .] No store level Lp should "ever" decide when it sok to break corporate or company policy!
              Personally, I think this is a discretion issue. The times that I would advocate ignoring missed elements and breaking policy are in extremely clear cut, common sense situations that I described previously. Cases where it'd be impossible to make a "bad stop."

              Otherwise, I would go with a "burn."

              Originally posted by panther10758
              Approach I can agree on but selection!?
              See above and the previous examples I gave.

              Comment

              Leaderboard

              Collapse
              Working...
              X