Topic: California decides no shoplifters are criminals.
+Anonymous A — 4.8 years ago #59,503
What??
(Edited 44 seconds later.)
·Anonymous A (OP) — 4.8 years ago, 1 minute later[T] [B] #611,607
WHAT??
·Anonymous A (OP) — 4.8 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #611,608
Its Pelosis's nephew Newsom.
Let that sink in.
Let that sink in.
+Dead !Pool..v42s — 4.8 years ago, 25 minutes later, 28 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #611,611
It's under a specific amount.
Most companies have all their items insured, so they literally take no profit loss when things are stolen.
Most companies have all their items insured, so they literally take no profit loss when things are stolen.
+Anonymous C — 4.8 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #611,621
@previous (Dead !Pool..v42s)
Oh look its Mr big business expert...who has never held a position more important than head fries attendanant.
Oh look its Mr big business expert...who has never held a position more important than head fries attendanant.
·Dead !Pool..v42s — 4.8 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #611,624
@previous (C)
Just because I haven't held a managerial position (by choice) doesn't mean I haven't asked about policies from anyone in any type of management, even if I'm not an employee of somewhere, I always inquire about policies. And most people who work in loss provention at most stores will tell you the same thing. As long as they can mark down the specific inventory as stolen, they don't actually lose money in the long run
Just because I haven't held a managerial position (by choice) doesn't mean I haven't asked about policies from anyone in any type of management, even if I'm not an employee of somewhere, I always inquire about policies. And most people who work in loss provention at most stores will tell you the same thing. As long as they can mark down the specific inventory as stolen, they don't actually lose money in the long run
·Anonymous A (OP) — 4.8 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #611,629
@previous (Dead !Pool..v42s)
> As long as they can mark down the specific inventory as stolen, they don't actually lose money in the long run
What? You must be extra stoned right now.
> As long as they can mark down the specific inventory as stolen, they don't actually lose money in the long run
What? You must be extra stoned right now.
+Anonymous D — 4.8 years ago, 13 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #611,631
@previous (A)
They're actually correct. But it's up to a certain threshold.
Obviously someone ends up paying for that theft, but the chain typically will be insured up to a certain amount.
This is part of why they have policies in place to never stop a shoplifter. (also because of liability if an employee gets hurt on company property by said thieves)
Source: worked in retail for 6 years when I was younger.
They're actually correct. But it's up to a certain threshold.
Obviously someone ends up paying for that theft, but the chain typically will be insured up to a certain amount.
This is part of why they have policies in place to never stop a shoplifter. (also because of liability if an employee gets hurt on company property by said thieves)
Source: worked in retail for 6 years when I was younger.
+Anonymous E — 4.8 years ago, 33 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #611,638
·Anonymous A (OP) — 4.8 years ago, 3 hours later, 8 hours after the original post[T] [B] #611,652
·Anonymous D — 4.8 years ago, 12 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[T] [B] #611,656
@previous (A)
I worked at a store with aggressive asset protection personnel. They only targeted customers who were taking $5k+ in value or were repeat offenders. Again, Deadpool is correct.
I worked at a store with aggressive asset protection personnel. They only targeted customers who were taking $5k+ in value or were repeat offenders. Again, Deadpool is correct.
·Anonymous A (OP) — 4.8 years ago, 3 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[T] [B] #611,659
·Anonymous D — 4.8 years ago, 7 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[T] [B] #611,661
@previous (A)
Compelling argument. Especially since I'm working with facts and experience here.
Edit: So you're pedobert. Your lack of both intellect and argumentative skills makes sense now.
Compelling argument. Especially since I'm working with facts and experience here.
Edit: So you're pedobert. Your lack of both intellect and argumentative skills makes sense now.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
+ducky !MwWb.dJjRc — 4.8 years ago, 11 hours later, 19 hours after the original post[T] [B] #611,682
·Anonymous A (OP) — 4.8 years ago, 2 hours later, 22 hours after the original post[T] [B] #611,686
·ducky !MwWb.dJjRc — 4.8 years ago, 1 hour later, 23 hours after the original post[T] [B] #611,709
+Anonymous G — 4.8 years ago, 17 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[T] [B] #611,710
cool thread
·Anonymous A (OP) — 4.8 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #611,720
·Anonymous E — 4.8 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #611,725
Start a new topic to continue this conversation.
Or browse the latest topics.