611–620 of 627 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The worst part for me is when they prevent you from scanning the same item twice. Yes, I want 2 boxes of cereal. I just find it easier to go to a cashier.
Or the ones that prevent you from scanning item2 until you bag item1. Wastes a lot of time for those of us working with >=2 hands.
Home Depot's self-checkouts are using this facial ID to build/maintain their shoplifting database — this tracks thefts by the same person across multiple visits, and is used over time to build up a case against errant self-checkout-ers (i.e. to get them above a theft threshhold, at which point prosecution becomes easier). There is also CCTV AI (whether artificial intelligence, or actually indians) which can intervene…
I've noticed at supermarkets here that of the dozens of times those 'you haven't scanned something' warnings have come up, only one time the item hadn't actually scanned when I thought it had. Every other time has been a false positive for me. They're pretty dodgy, the workers always seem pretty frustrated with it as they go around clearing them for people (sometimes a handful of people waiting, falsely accused by th…
They aren't allowed to use it and instead are required to physically walk up, move the customer out of the way, and push the same button on your screen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought it was because the stores can't press charges if it's a small thing, so the only way they can bring any action is to build a case.
I have yet to see any actual evidence of such a problem, just a bunch of outrage from social media commentators who also claim things like Portland was burnt to the ground by BLM and other hyper-exaggerated crap. And even if it is true, I still don't see why premeditated charge stacking should be allowed. If someone comes into the store that they know will steal, they should be banned from the store and arrested for…
As we say over here, bless. your. heart.
...if you only knew how bad things really are [deadpan.face]
We are nations of loopholes, inside and out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've noticed at supermarkets here that of the dozens of times those 'you haven't scanned something' warnings have come up, only one time the item hadn't actually scanned when I thought it had. Every other time has been a false positive for me. They're pretty dodgy, the workers always seem pretty frustrated with it as they go around clearing them for people (sometimes a handful of people waiting, falsely accused by th…
Fun fact: the self checkout attendant usually has a button on a portable device that can remotely unlock your session. They aren't allowed to use it and instead are required to physically walk up, move the customer out of the way, and push the same button on your screen.
WalMart has two popular designs within my city (not sure if one is just un-updated, yet¿) — their type which accepts half dollars is my favorite cash design.
I have seen designs which don't weigh each item, allowing simultaneous scanning... that also call an attendant to verify if it thinks you snuck an item by (then plays a loop/clip of its alleged violation).
Personally, I have a family member that works as attendant to a dozen self-checkouts... and it seems like it would make more corporate sense to have more human checkers and only allow cash with them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Generally agree with the sentiment but it can put you in a very hard place. I was accused of shoplifting by a gigantic dude who moved in to detain me as I was going into my car. Could have gotten Walmart badge or paraphernalia from anywhere (most walmarts aren't that aggressive but this one was). I could have told him to eat shit and it was clear he was willing to get violent. At that point I would have had to decide…
I might be misinterpreting the situation, but the idea of going on a shopping expedition with a gun is absolutely foreign to me. The whole situation is wildly outside my experience. I live in New Zealand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are they supposed to do, just let people steal with impunity until they decide the costs are too high, and they have to close the store entirely? I’d rather shop at a store that actually prevents theft, deterring future thieves from stealing. It will be a safer place to shop with lower prices.
> just let people steal with impunity until they decide the costs are too high, and they have to close the store entirely Has this actually happened? Or are the chain pharmacies using “shrinkage” as a scapegoat for other deficiencies? I find it incredibly hard to believe that retail theft puts an appreciable dent in profits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>You can't, resources are limited. Regulatory authorities and courts enforce against wage theft. Shoplifting enforcement is mostly up to businesses. >Shoplifting was down in most cities compared to pre-pandemic levels. Shoplifting reports to police were down in some cities (albeit up in others), but that doesn't necessarily track the actual data. https://nrf.com/media-center/press-releases/shoplifting-inci...
No shoplifting enforcement is done through the courts and most importantly, the police. There is a huge difference here. Courts incur costs between fees and lawyers, and even filing a report with the dept of labor (the typical recourse most people take at first) means you have to wait while you aren't being compensated for that time. Given wage theft in the majority of cases impacts people who can't often afford to g…
Nowhere in my post did I remotely claim equivalence. In actual fact, I was pointing out that they are very different crimes, with different enforcement. Trying to strawman something I didn't actually remotely say is grossly disingenuous.
Whataboutism is grotesque. For any crime, there are always the bores doing the "yeah, but what about worse crime". It's useless noise.
I want both crimes absolutely crushed. If someone is a shoplifting fan because they think wage theft justifes it, they're a garbage person.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone living in Japan, the sheer number of instances of theft in your description shocks me. Is this that common there?
Often happens in the UK for things like bags of screws or bathroom/plumbing fittings. The charitable view is someone is opening the packaging to e.g. make sure that the thread is the right size (in the UK especially we suffer from annoying mixture of old legacy imperial measurement era pipes/threads/etc as well as metric). The unchartiable view is they are opening the packet and stealing the bit they need/lost/broke…
The local Home Depot sells some types of screws only in pre-packed bags.
The Ace Hardware a block over (a franchise of independently owned shops) sells the same screws from cabinets with several hundred types of loose parts, and you can select as many as you need and bag yourself. You can even put multiple types and prices of items in one bag
So if you need one, HD makes you buy four. If you need sixteen, HD makes you buy a bunch of extra plastic waste. That might create an unexpected nudge towards just ripping the bag and pocketing the rest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not how dictionaries work. When multiple definitions are given, it does not follow - and in many cases, it is not even possible - that they are all applicable in any context. Ignoring context leads to things like "English as She is Spoke" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_as_She_Is_Spoke Decent dictionaries give some guidance as to the contexts in which each each definition is applicable, but for thorough…
The courts may disagree. That's why I'm curious if the comment was from a legal context. If we had prior case law of them distinguishing one definition in favor of another, I'd feel more certain about all the assertations being made. If there are no cases, then the courts could interpret however they want in conflict of your entire comment.
Courts sometimes adopt tendentious, cotroversial or disputed definitions in their rulings, and law-makers sometimes (and more frequently) do so when writing the law, but that in no way invalidates what I have written, which is about how to use a dictionary.
I'm pretty sick of misguided/enthusiastic Loss Prevention people, and these digital systems amplify their hijinks. The most conspicuous one recently was at one upscale grocery chain within the last year. There was what I took to be a dedicated LP person who seemed to be lurking behind the self-checkouts, to watch me specifically, and I stood there until he went away. Then, as I was checking out, this employee came up…
We also live in a world where companies believe its perfectly fine to capture biometric data without disclosure or consent, despite the laws in many places saying directly to the contrary, and you don't have a choice because they fired all the cashiers.
When you bring it up they say, that's 15 levels above me (the store manager) we don't have a choice, its all up to corporate, this isn't happening, oh that green border it is, I'll make sure to forward your feedback to corporate (I won't buy anything from you, or come to your store if you do this).
The companies involved are running not on profit from sales, but rather from something else. I wonder what that could possibly be. This is what happens under monopoly, and this is how monopoly fails.
Is the company one of those companies who have been silently nationalized? Do they run on laundered promises from government instead? (money-printing).
This seems likely given they aren't changing their direction despite drops in sales.