What is their motivation even when company policy states otherwise?
The cost to the company of a single employee injury or death sustained while stopping a shoplifter is probably equivalent to hundreds of single-person personal thefts. Even if there’s never any workers l-comp-esque payouts, the hours of administrative time spent reviewing and investigating the incident probably costs more than a dozen thefts.
You have one store where employees don't stop thieves.
You have another store where thieves are stopped by security and those who are caught have their hand chopped off.
A couple questions: 1) Is theft reduced 2) If theft is not reduced, does theft at least decrease at handless-thief store in favor of store that does nothing.
It's not hard for me to imagine that having say a hand chopped off even once can lead to hundreds of less thefts at a store.
My humble conjecture. Not saying hands should be chopped.
I'm not sure what Dr. Su was referring to when they said "it all comes down to employees," it might not be stopping theft from the public. Internal theft obviously is about employees, and product damage and to some extent vendor fraud are also things more obviously effected by employees.
Best Buy has staff that absolutely can stop shop lifters, just not in all stores at all times. Why? Because those employees require special training to do so safely, and companies know it is cheaper to let people steal than provide that training to all employees.
The incentives are properly aligned. If a company could force their employees to intervene with no training and no regard to potential harm to the employee, they would all do so.
How do you quantify the value of a neighborhood that is intolerant of theft vs one that is tolerant?
If community impact is a concern, then the company should dip into their profits to properly staff their stores. They shouldn't be able to demand their employees to get shot or stabbed.
1. “Trained” staff can also die. 2. What are the chances they will die?
> If community impact is a concern, then the company should dip into their profits to properly staff their stores. They shouldn't be able to demand their employees to get shot or stabbed.
This is a strawman. The topic is about employees intervening on their own and getting fired for it, not the company demanding that they intervene.
Nobody here is saying a business has the right to tell regular employees to intervene.
So why do companies let any staff intervene? Because with traning, the risk is reduced to the point where it is worth it. Also, there might be fewer liabilities. You might be able to insure against harm to a trained employee.
> 2. What are the chances they will die?
Obviously high enough that companies don't want to risk it. They could be injured as well.
> Nobody here is saying a business has the right to tell regular employees to intervene.
If companies do not have to accept liability for loss prevention mishaps, they will compel untrained employees to intervene. There will be an obvious gain (less theft) and no cost (liability gone).
These companies run on "bean-counter logic". They're going to make the numbers go up if they can.