PinPlastic9980 t1_ivywej7 wrote
Reply to comment by Effective_Golf_3311 in 'Second-class citizens': Boston officials fire back after Walgreens abruptly closes 3 stores by Omphaloskeptique
Even with enforcement these companies ALREADY made the choice not to prosecute theft because of the liability for law suits due to their poorly trained staff and because the ROI wasn't worth the price vs just raising costs.
you're entire position doesn't even exist in reality today. its just you being upset that people steal things. which is valid but doesn't change the reality of how companies operate; which is expect theft, increase prices to cover the losses due to shrinkage rates.
no one is going to pay a lawyer 400 / h to charge and prosecute a $20 item. and no I don't want to pay the AG and police offices thousands of dollars to do the same either.
Effective_Golf_3311 t1_ivyyklt wrote
What? Multiple companies have a “shall prosecute” policy and it’s handled by the DAs office, not corporate business lawyers. Not only that but their staff doesn’t intervene, it’s police. So none of what you said has ever been or will it ever be true, so you can stop speaking as if you’re an expert on the subject.
And news flash, nobody gives a fuck about $20 worth of shit, I care about the people loading their vehicles up with thousands of dollars worth of merchandise several times a day all across the commonwealth.
Given your position on the topic I’m going to tell you right now these types of organizations are far more common than you think and are absolutely cashing in on our new found desire for fake justice and once again the only real losers are the regular people that nobody ever seems to care about since they’re losing their convienne store and pharmacy because at some point these companies can’t take the losses any more and decide to vacate.
PinPlastic9980 t1_ivyzxvo wrote
https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wal-mart_to_allow_petty_shoplifting/
until you hit federal levels of theft no one cares. at which point Rollin's policy of not prosecuting no longer applies and this discussion ends. get it now?
Effective_Golf_3311 t1_ivz10o5 wrote
Well I look forward to your utopia where everything is free
PinPlastic9980 t1_ivz1ipc wrote
you're just not getting shit. not my fault. no one is saying don't prosecute shop lifters. everyone is saying: its not cost effective to prosecute every petty shop lifter. the one offs for low price and necessary goods? just let them go. track them over time? sure. waste everyones time over that $20 item? na.
the repeat offenders who steal thousands of dollars of stuff? suddenly its worth the cost and you get enforcement.
Rollin's was 100% spot on to not waste her departments time for the little stuff. So was walmart/target and every other big box store.
Effective_Golf_3311 t1_ivz2hxi wrote
Ok, then you don’t get to complain when mass and cass and other poor areas of the city are a food and convenience desert.
Those companies are 100% right to not waste their time and effort for so little ROI.
PinPlastic9980 t1_ivzhap5 wrote
so we've moved on from petty theft to drug users now got it! so far have we strayed from the original topic of: ecommerce is causing the death of cvs/walgreens/boutique stores not petty theft. mass and cass has nothing to do with the price of milk and is a whole separate topic.
Effective_Golf_3311 t1_ivzi3a3 wrote
Yeah with already razor thin margins there’s no reason to keep the stores open that are hit hardest by petty theft. It’s just doing more damage to an already hurting bottom line. Again… these aren’t charities, they’re businesses. Why do you think these companies owe you or city council anything? They’re a business making a business decision.
Just because you don’t get it doesn’t make it my fault.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments