Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Unprovoked attacks on uniformed LP

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

  • Unprovoked attacks on uniformed LP

    Ok, on another forum, someone who has about 6 weeks into a Target TPS (Uniformed) position wondered about being attacked without provocation during a routine stop: ie: reciept check, customer intervention, etc.

    His ETL told him that there is no procedure for that, since it will never ever happen. I'm wondering if anyone from Target AP (current, former) has anything to say about this.

    It is my understanding that TPS are there for deterrence and support of the APS and ETL only. His store is probally a level 1, with about 20 hours of AP there a week, most of it the TPS.

    What should this person do if someone decides they don't like the TPS on duty, because a TPS assisted an APS with a stop. As I stated on the other forum, after all, your gonna thump on the uniform who's easy to find, than the APS, who is plain clothes.

    Their operator has no idea when to call the police for AP, and has stated she needs a manager's approval to call.
    Some Kind of Commando Leader

    "Every time I see another crazy Florida post, I'm glad I don't work there." ~ Minneapolis Security on Florida Security Law

  • #2
    I have never worked with Target, but here are a couple points I consider valid.

    -Any "unprovoked attack" would justify a call to Police by the unifomed LP, without permission needed by management. This would be a personal assault and the store would have nothing to do with it (even if it were revenge for an earlier stop).

    -An attack during the LP's job duties, ie receipt check, would depend on the viciousness of the assault. Keep in mind much of this type of incident would likely be a SL panicking and pushing past the LP to escape, which would be a training issue. If the suspect went out of his/her way to assault the LP then again it is a personal attack.

    Any instance where the LP is injured by someone should be reported to corporate (accident reporting) and PD as an assault. If LP was "pushed" by an escaping SL, but otherwise uninjured it would be up to store policy, though I am an advocate of ensuring a report is made with PD against the aggressor.
    Last edited by AASC Colorado; 11-07-2005, 08:44 PM. Reason: context error

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by AASC Colorado
      I have never worked with Target, but here are a couple points I consider valid.

      -Any "unprovoked attack" would justify a call to Police by the unifomed LP, without permission needed by management. This would be a personal assault and the store would have nothing to do with it (even if it were revenge for an earlier stop).

      -An attack during the LP's job duties, ie receipt check, would depend on the viciousness of the assault. Keep in mind much of this type of incident would likely be a SL panicking and pushing past the LP to escape, which would be a training issue. If the suspect went out of his/her way to assault the LP then again it is a personal attack.

      Any instance where the LP is injured by someone should be reported to corporate (accident reporting) and PD as an assault. If LP was "pushed" by an escaping SL, but otherwise uninjured it would be up to store policy, though I am an advocate of ensuring a report is made with PD against the aggressor.
      On the other hand, I know that most mass merchandisers require management approval to summon law enforcement, as its seen as a PR issue.

      Having police presence is "upsetting" to "guests," and "needs to be avoided."

      So long as your on the clock, you can be disciplined (perhaps illegally) for failure to do your duties because you are spending time to personally call the police and personally file a report with them.

      Which is utter BS, of course, but the police (on duty) don't generate profit.
      Some Kind of Commando Leader

      "Every time I see another crazy Florida post, I'm glad I don't work there." ~ Minneapolis Security on Florida Security Law

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
        On the other hand, I know that most mass merchandisers require management approval to summon law enforcement, as its seen as a PR issue.

        Having police presence is "upsetting" to "guests," and "needs to be avoided."

        So long as your on the clock, you can be disciplined (perhaps illegally) for failure to do your duties because you are spending time to personally call the police and personally file a report with them.
        This also applies in areas other than retail, and it's not always because you are handling it on the clock. It's more related to N.A. Corbier's 1st point: PR.
        He's right, you could be suspended/terminated for failing to follow post orders. If the attack was minor, then fine. Otherwise, I'd file a complaint with LE, and possibly a personal injury lawsuit and worry about the job last.
        Security: Freedom from fear; danger; safe; a feeling of well-being. (Webster's)

        Comment


        • #5
          Don't forget, if they terminate you for willfully failing to adhere to company policy, they can argue that you don't deserve worker's compensation benefits, as you were terminated for your actions.

          Sound out how the company feels about your being hurt on the job. Some will actively coach you NOT to file a worker's comp claim. Those are the ones that the state Department of Labor wants to hear about.
          Some Kind of Commando Leader

          "Every time I see another crazy Florida post, I'm glad I don't work there." ~ Minneapolis Security on Florida Security Law

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
            Don't forget, if they terminate you for willfully failing to adhere to company policy, they can argue that you don't deserve worker's compensation benefits, as you were terminated for your actions.
            While they can always fight a comp. claim, it's likely that they will not prevail because the on-the-job injury occurred before company policy was violated. If anything, it could appear that the company is trying to avoid its responsibility to care for an injury that happened at work.
            Security: Freedom from fear; danger; safe; a feeling of well-being. (Webster's)

            Comment

            Leaderboard

            Collapse
            Working...
            X