Woolworths No Longer Bothering to Stop Shoplifters

I am really starting to wonder whether those of us looking out for genuine discounts, but still paying for our groceries, are actually the mugs given what I have discovered about Woolworths' apparent attitude to 'five finger discounts' for anyone that wants one.

Tuesday early evening I was grabbing a few groceries at WW Hurstville when I spotted a shoplifter shoving various items down their pants and up their shirt. Having worked in retail previously and nabbed a few shoplifters stealing from my previous employer, I followed them around for long enough to get a video of them doing it on my phone and while trying to notify a staff member. The shelf packer advised me to report it to the service desk, which I did.

The only person at the service desk was serving customers so I excused myself and asked if they could please call a loss control officer as I had witnessed a possible shoplifter (at that point, the person hadn't left the store, so perhaps they just preferred to carry high value items to the checkout in their underwear).

It was the store attendant's response that really shocked me. He told me that there are no loss control staff in the store and not to worry about it and that there was no-one interested in preventing theft from the store. This really annoyed me because the cost of theft just gets passed on in higher prices for the rest of us, honest customers, so I asked to speak to the store manager.

The store manager empathised with my concern about higher prices, but told me that loss control officers only visit the store a few times a year because 'head office' didn't want to have to pay extra wages. He agreed that shoplifting is rife in the store and that he sees people shoplifting most days. However, apparently staff are discouraged from approaching shoplifters in case they are threatened or injured. Also, most of the video cameras and other obvious anti-theft devices are primarily about creating an impression of security and discouraging honest customers from doing the wrong thing rather than stopping those that are claiming 100% discounts on everything that they buy.

It really annoys me that rather than addressing a social problem (theft), a large company like Woolworths is condoning and effectively encouraging it just because it has the market power to raise its prices to the rest of us.

What do others think? Is it reasonable for me to be disappointed in WW? Should large companies like WW have a role to play in supporting a safe and honest society? Or is it reasonable for them to encourage shoplifting because it hurts the small retailers more and discourages competition, thus allowing the big retailers to make more profits over the longer term.

My other thought is if Woolies openly acknowledges that it doesn't care about theft, why are we all bothering to pay?

Related Stores

Woolworths
Woolworths

Comments

  • +38 votes

    I read in a article once a staff member was told off for chasing a theif. Unfortunately it seems like the cost of a security person outweighs the cost of some chocolate bars many times over. And the risk of possible staff harm to even engage a possible thief is even higher, which all adds up to the attitude u see.

    It's very sad. But a large corporation has the duty of maximising shareholders bottom line, so if they're sssessment that loss control officers are not worth it, they're in their right I suppose.

    • +18 votes

      Yeah we had a store robbed and we got absolutely slammed by management. The checkout staff for slamming his hands in the till and even I got an earfull for running after the guy.

      At the end of the day it's all about liability and its cheaper to let them go than have one staff member hurt stopping them.

      • +12 votes

        Workers comp is insanely expensive. The risk of having to supporting someone's income for life (especially a young check out chick) could be in the 6/7 figures if they were hurt. It's the world we live in.

        • +10 votes

          This is yet another inefficiency of such a litigious society and nanny state.

        •  

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          Yep, couldn't agree more.

        • +39 votes

          @Scrooge McDuck: What is this shit? Your life > a few bucks from the register. How does this have anything to do with a nanny state?

        • +8 votes

          Even 10 -15 years ago when I worked at Coles we were under Siegfried instructions not to resist any theft and if anyone was robbing the register we were to open the till for for them and not fight in any way.

          Liability is just not worth it, especially to the worker..

        • +19 votes

          @The Land of Smeg:

          Was it store policy to advertise this policy on a public forum?

          Many thanks,

          The thieves of Australia.

        • +3 votes

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          Don't worry, it'll all balance itself out in cycles.

          Thieves all take advantage and the losses become greater than the cost to have personnel on site to deal with it.. Then the theft rates drop and it's not worth having them there anymore..

        • +2 votes

          @Scrooge McDuck: I… agree with you, but if you were the guy/girl who got maimed for life while trying to stop a robber or thief, wouldn't you seek a payout to support yourself?

          [edit] replied to the wrong person

        • +12 votes

          @miicah: Nothing. "Nanny State" is something people mention in seemingly any context. Woolworths making a decision not to allow their employees to pursue thieves has nothing to do with the state, it is literally a company making a decision which doesn't involve the state at all.

          I was in a Dan Murphy's when 3 young blokes were busted trying to knock shit off. The workers basically had to pretend they didn't know what the guys were doing and pretend to offer them assistance. They couldn't even just kick them out. The fear of thuggery paralyses people from taking any action.

        • +1 vote

          @The Land of Smeg: so True my life is worth more then $200 in the till.

        • +4 votes

          That's how it should be! Which horrible employer would expect his checkout staff to actively fight theives who could be armed robbers/murderers. Their income should as a minimum be doubled if that was in the requirement. That's the security guard's job not the checkout chick. Can you honestly say that our system is inefficient because high school kids aren't willing to die for the CEO's to get their 5th mansion at Bondi???? You're joking right???

          Furthermore, every Woolworths store I've been in has a security guard standing right outside. Isn't this his job? If he's not doing that job then yes, OP should definitely be disappointed in WW but no, normal staff should never be expected to stop them. At best they should install a distress button for when that happens and should be more interested in putting more cameras and being pro-active in recoding the time of the theft so that they can be caught by the police (which we pay for to handle this exact thing).

        • +1 vote

          @supersabroso:

          If the courts where the OP is are anything like the ones here, they never prosecute anyone. Well, they might if a kid has a spec of pot on them….

        • +6 votes

          @Scrooge McDuck: How on earth would it require a litigious society or a nanny state for the business to be liable for employees being injured on the job because the business told them to try and apprehend shoplifters? How on earth do those words even come out of your mouth unless you're just parroting the Daily Scarograph without understanding a thing?

        • +1 vote

          @Scrooge McDuck:
          ? "An inefficiency of such a litigious society and nanny state"

          Are you suggesting that girls and young women should be encouraged to detain shoplifters, but that if they get hurt performing that duty, it is overly litigious and nannylike for the store to pay for their recuperation?

        • +1 vote

          @miicah:

          Your life > a few bucks from the register.

          @44sunsets:

          but if you were the guy/girl who got maimed for life while trying to stop a robber or thief,

          @nikey2k27:

          so True my life is worth more then $200 in the till.

          There are at least two different events being conflated here:

          1. Shoplifting as addressed by the OP and the predominant theme of this thread, and
          2. kasp's report of their store being robbed.

          I was referring to the former. We're discussing the possibility of confronting a shoplifter, not every or any shoplifter. I think being maimed or killed in a confrontation with an innocuous looking shoplifter is highly improbable.

           

          @miicah:

          How does this have anything to do with a nanny state?

          @Juddy:

          "Nanny State" is something people mention in seemingly any context. Woolworths making a decision not to allow their employees to pursue thieves has nothing to do with the state, it is literally a company making a decision which doesn't involve the state at all.

          If a victim decides to litigate, a case is brought before a court which adjudicates in accordance with the law. Our courts and laws are both state institutions.

          The litigious society and nanny state are related in that they both stymie liberties in the pursuit of minimising risk.

          I referred to the litigious society because, in the most logical sense, the liability for personal injury caused by an assault perpetrated by a shoplifter lies with the shoplifter. However, since shoplifters don't typically have deep pockets (excuse the pun) and large businesses do, lawyers have employed mental gymnastics to extend liability to businesses. The resulting cases and appeals can be very costly, which is an inefficiency in addition to the reduced action against shoplifting and subsequent increase in losses.

           

          @supersabroso:

          Which horrible employer would expect his checkout staff to actively fight theives who could be armed robbers/murderers. … Can you honestly say that our system is inefficient because high school kids aren't willing to die for the CEO's to get their 5th mansion at Bondi????

          @Parentheses:

          How on earth would it require a litigious society or a nanny state for the business to be liable for employees being injured on the job because the business told them to try and apprehend shoplifters?

          @mowersfourpeter:

          Are you suggesting that girls and young women should be encouraged to detain shoplifters,

          Those 3 arguments are straw men. No one above has suggested that businesses should "expect", "tell" or "encourage" staff to "actively fight", "try and apprehend" or "detain" shoplifters. The issues are merely that staff are being discouraged from approaching shoplifters, and those who took the initiative to pursue shoplifters by their own volition were reprimanded by management.

           

          @Juddy:

          I was in a Dan Murphy's when 3 young blokes were busted trying to knock shit off. The workers basically had to pretend they didn't know what the guys were doing and pretend to offer them assistance. They couldn't even just kick them out.

          And you call that being "busted"?

           

          @supersabroso:

          Which horrible employer would expect his checkout staff to actively fight theives who could be armed robbers/murderers. Their income should as a minimum be doubled if that was in the requirement. That's the security guard's job not the checkout chick.

          No, that's not the security guard's job either.

          every Woolworths store I've been in has a security guard standing right outside.

          Most of the Woolworths stores I've visited didn't, and it would seem, neither did the one OP visited.

           

          @Parentheses:

          How on earth do those words even come out of your mouth unless you're just parroting the Daily Scarograph without understanding a thing?

          They don't, I type them with my keyboard. ^_^

           

          @mowersfourpeter:

          Are you suggesting that girls and young women should be encouraged to detain shoplifters,

          No, I am not.

          Are you suggesting that girls and young women have a lesser ability to detain shoplifters than boys and young men?

          That's sexist!! :P

        • +4 votes

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          If a victim decides to litigate, a case is brought before a court which adjudicates in accordance with the law. Our courts and laws are both state institutions.

          The litigious society and nanny state are related in that they both stymie liberties in the pursuit of minimising risk.

          I referred to the litigious society because, in the most logical sense, the liability for personal injury caused by an assault perpetrated by a shoplifter lies with the shoplifter. However, since shoplifters don't typically have deep pockets (excuse the pun) and large businesses do, lawyers have employed mental gymnastics to extend liability to businesses. The resulting cases and appeals can be very costly, which is an inefficiency in addition to the reduced action against shoplifting and subsequent increase in losses.

          All of which has nothing to do with what a so called "Nanny State" is. A nanny state is when a government is overprotective or overly intrusive in citizens' day-to-day lives and choices. Some would argue your right to sue is a liberty that should be protected and that minimising your right to compensation when wronged would be more of a "Nanny State" thing to do.

          I wouldn't even argue that Australia is all that litigious and the kind of pay-outs people can get from injury isn't the obscene amounts you often hear about from the U.S.

          It makes sense for company to minimise the likelihood anyone would get hurt by telling their employees "do not pursue shoplifters". What if a customer was hurt while a worker was pursuing a shoplifter? Would they have no recourse because that would be being too litigious? If I was doing my groceries and some worker slammed into me while chasing someone who stole a pack of razors and I was injured I would expect compensation, and so would you.

          Or how much good do you think it would do the company's image and reputation if some large, burly worker grabbed some teenage thief and hurt them seriously? Most people would say the shoplifting was wrong, but if they kid had a broken arm, leg, rib, collar bone, etc. or serious fracture most people would also say that response was disproportional.

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          And you call that being "busted"?

          I simply meant busted as in "the workers were aware of what they were up to". It was actually all pretty pathetic how the blokes wandered around for a few minute presumably pretending they were still "browsing" while being shadowed by a worker and then finally gave up and walked out. The dude at the checkout told me it happens everyday.

        • -1 vote

          @Parentheses: I've known employers in Cairns that would dock your pay if you didn't attempt to stop robbers. This included a lone female video store clerk who was pregnant at the time.

        • +1 vote

          @supersabroso: your right no checkout staff should not risk there life for $200 in there till i personally would risk my life for 160,000 in woolworth total. i been in room with 5million plus i know my life worth more then that. Woolworth get shop lift that do it all the time. track them watch them and get them. I pesonal did 16 years at woolworth.

        • +2 votes

          @voolish: You knew employers who broke the law - docking pay is illegal for pretty much anything under the sun in Australia. You can have your pay reduced if you don't turn up or leave early, but if you're there you're getting paid.

          Theft, the famous 'didn't get the plates' at servos, even screwed up till counts you are legally not allowed to dock pay. It's considered a risk of doing business, and since the employee gets zero benefit from the business doing well, they are shielded from the business doing badly. They can of course be fired, but that's another story.

        •  

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          I referred to the litigious society because, in the most logical sense, the liability for personal injury caused by an assault perpetrated by a shoplifter lies with the shoplifter. However, since shoplifters don't typically have deep pockets (excuse the pun) and large businesses do, lawyers have employed mental gymnastics to extend liability to businesses. The resulting cases and appeals can be very costly, which is an inefficiency in addition to the reduced action against shoplifting and subsequent increase in losses.

          However, what would you suggest as a possible alternative?

          These rules were made by other people much more intelligent than you or I, and for good reason.

        •  

          @Serapis:

          These rules were made by other people much more intelligent than you or I

          *you or me.

          Speak for yourself!

        • +1 vote

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          Meant to type, "you and I, for good reason" but it's 1 am here and I'm typing on my phone in bed so whatevs. Rather than correcting my grammar how about you suggest a solution to fix your perceived 'problem'…

        •  

          @Serapis:

          Meant to type, "you and I, for good reason"

          That wouldn't be correct either.

          Rather than correcting my grammar how about you suggest a solution to fix your perceived 'problem'…

          No thanks, there are other things I'd much rather do. :)

        • +1 vote

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          No thanks, there are other things I'd much rather do. :)

          Smart, knowing there is no good alternative :)

        • +2 votes

          @Scrooge McDuck: "than you or I" or "than you or me" in a comparative construction are both right. In "you or me", the "than" is treated as a preposition that assigns accusative case to its NP functioning as object. In "you or I", "than" is treated as a subordinator that introduces an ellipted subordinate clause (i.e., than you or I [am]).

          It's funny - 99% of grammar lessons on the net are actually ad hominem attacks. But for these attacks to work, it is important that you know your grammar, rather than just claiming to.

          Anyway, now you can use your grammar attacks more effectively :)

        • -1 vote

          @mowersfourpeter:

          You can take your ellipsis and shove it!

          Omitting words from sentences is uncouth and often ambiguous. In this case you're rationalising hypercorrection as ellipsis.

        • +2 votes

          @Scrooge McDuck:
          :)

          Where grammatical arguments no longer serve, one can always appeal to vulgarity, ambiguity and in extreme cases, ellipsis ;)
          For the record, one man's hypercorrection is another's use of nominative case as a means of indicating formality.

        •  

          @Parentheses: yeah, I never said it was legal.

      • +5 votes

        i bit by shoplifter i can tell totally not worth it 6 month of heath checks and doc bill.

    • +1 vote

      Well this is True contact head office with time and a date they look on camera of any store at any time. they kick some but. sound like lazy staff to me who do not give a shit. i did this month ago now they fix some problem i point out to them.

    • +2 votes

      The money they save on staff with the new checkouts outweighs having to worry about shop lifters. Shop lifters has always been a problem for every grocery store. They know it's happening, it's all on camera and they send footage to the police all the time and even post headshots of repeat offenders on staff notice boards

    • +1 vote

      This isn't true at all for Coles? Maybe in some isolated stores.
      The Managers and supervisors at the Coles stores I have worked at definitely try and stop the shoplifter.
      I had to follow someone around a store once pretending to present the shelves because one of the supervisors was suspicious.

  • +31 votes

    You talk about the cost of theft but not the cost of hiring a "loss control officer". A loss prevention officer's fully loaded salary for a year is probably going to cost in the ballpark of $80,000 a year… That means they need to prevent the theft of goods that carry ~ $350 of cost per day…. Considering the markup that's probably closer to $1000-$1500 worth of goods a day, every day for a year to break even.

    I don't know the stats, however I reckon you could make an argument that the cost of a loss control officer is going to be higher than just letting people steal.

    • +6 votes

      I had considered that, but if everyone knows that their policy is not to stop shoplifters, what is stopping everyone from doing it? Surely it shouldn't just be the cost of the actual goods recovered, but also the cost of the additional theft that is happening because more people will steal if they know that they'll get away with it?

      • +2 votes

        I would argue most people won't steal regardless. But it would be interesting to see the stats I suppose.

      • +4 votes

        Surely it shouldn't just be the cost of the actual goods recovered, but also the cost of the additional theft that is happening because more people will steal if they know that they'll get away with it?

        only lowlifes steal. it's a good thing that the majority of people are decent and that they know right from wrong.

      • +12 votes

        You had the store staff telling you their policy was to ignore the stealing, yet I presume you paid for your goods?
        Why do you think you are honest but everyone else is a potential thief?
        People won't steal because it is wrong, and it is also against the law - even with a very low chance of getting caught, the penalty is still very high for most people.

        If it was cheaper for Woolies to stop it, they would. They have decided they have to raise your prices less by letting a bit of shop lifting go through.

      •  

        revisit the idea in a years time

      •  

        Do you think a thief cares about their policy when he or she is stealing?

    •  

      My local Coles has a security guard on at night. He helps out with the self serve checkouts meaning they need one less regular staff member. This would mean the extra cost to the store is probably only half his wage.

      • -3 votes

        I wonder what the cost would be to train packing and customer service staff (if there are any ¬_¬) in loss prevention.

        The staff would gain additional skills adding to job satisfaction, it would save employing a dedicated officer, and there'd be a lot more eyes and ears.

        • +4 votes

          The cost would be horrendous, if your boss taught you how to do his job, but you only got the perks and pay for your original job, is it worth it to you?

        • +2 votes

          @Yamai:

          I value education, edification and personal development, so yes it most definitely would be.

    • +11 votes

      Loss prevention isnt about $ vs salary (well it shoulnt be), its about overall deterrent for a big chain. If you have 1 person going between 3 nearby stores for random days you will eventually catch most of the repeat offenders, its about the long game.

    •  

      Also you need to factor in that people will still steal even with a loss control officer, so even more is needed to break even

    • +1 vote

      An average Woolworths store does about $20 million/year revenue on average per store. The more popular ones do way more. Average thief rates float around 1.29 -> 3% for industry, so lets assume on the low side at 1.29%. That means they lose about $258,000 per store, per year to shop lifting. That's about $706 per day.

  • +6 votes

    I am equally surprised. Surely at least from a moral standpoint a Woolies staff should have approached the person or at least do the old "security check on aisle 3" voiceover. Woolies should play a lead role in crime prevention as a large corporate citizen e.g. Partial funding towards a security officer for the shopping area/car park etc

  • +1 vote

    Times have changed. 20 or so years ago I worked at Safeway and we would go Joe Pesci in Casino like on any shoplifter. But I guess back then staff were stealing more than the customers

    • -1 vote

      I think in all fairness, I should explain to you exactly what it is that I do. For instance tomorrow morning I'll get up nice and early, take a walk down over to the bank and… walk in and see and, uh… if you don't have my money for me, I'll… crack your (profanity)' head wide-open in front of everybody in the bank. And just about the time that I'm comin' out of jail, hopefully, you'll be coming out of your coma. And guess what? I'll split your (profanity)' head open again. 'Cause I'm (profanity)' stupid. I don't give a (profanity) about jail. That's my business. That's what I do.

    • +3 votes

      Somehow my mind went Joe Pesci in Goodfellas … and I thought .. that was a bit tough … Do you put plastic down first?? Then I realised it was Joe Pesci from Casino. Could be worse .. could be Joe Pesci from Home Alone.

  •  

    Maybe you should have dacked the shoplifter as he was passing the checkout

    • +4 votes

      I nearly did, but thought it better to notify staff. Now I'm wondering what would have happened if I'd made a citizen's arrest and then Woolworths turned around and told police that they don't care about theft, so no crime had been committed (except by me for wrongful detainment).

      • +7 votes

        I'm wondering what would have happened if I'd made a citizen's arrest

        9:1 he sues you for assault.

    • +4 votes

      Oh my god…..highschool years….so many people got dacked, including me; it was not funny! I learned to either wear a belt or tie my pants tight if there's anything to tie it up with… And then when they try to dack me, I'm like "Hahahaha, bitch, try to dack me now!" Then got into a fight…….that wasn't fun….

  • +5 votes

    Or is it reasonable for them to encourage shoplifting

    Er … wut?

    • +3 votes

      They didn't have a sign out teh front 'Shoplifters Welcome, take what you want', but the duty manager clearly implied that if I had walked back in and taken a trolley load of the highest value items i could find, noone was going to do anything about it. Also, once someone has crossed an ethical boundary (eg stolen) once and gotten away with it, psycholigically, they are more likely to try it again and again.

      • +2 votes

        funny you mention that, i've read on here and elsewhere, people just walk out with a trolley load because they couldn't wait for the checkout chick any longer.

        I'm surprised ww doesn't have anyone to stop theft, i know kmart and big w always has staff checking bags. Wonder why not at the supermarket!?!

  • +2 votes

    it's all about numbers. work cover and insurance payouts for injures can cost the company tens of thousands of dollars per incident. the amount of resources required to police petty theft would >$100k per store.

  • +19 votes

    "loss control officer" would cost approx at least $40/hour (casual rate, super and penalties built in ). Most Woolies open at least 7 to 11 so that's 16 hours by 363 days (non leap year and closed Good Friday and Christmas day) that's going to cost $230,000 and not 80K. Those Wilson guards (not that company specific) are pretty useless and are just there to call Police when required and are more to give the perception of safety to customers.

    But your report may have helped as the cameras would catch the thiefs facial image and Woolworths will serve him a banning notice from the shop next time he comes in before he steals some more next time (they always come back). With the progress of facial recognition imaging this will be the future with retailers.

    Bunnings does a good job of theft prevention/customer service by having a greeter when you come in and Woolworths is looking at rolling this out in high theft shops

    • +2 votes

      100% agree

      great comment

    • +7 votes

      Oh is that what the greeter's for - to stop recognizable thieves from coming back(or spear tackle them?)? I thought it was just Bunnings being a nice shop and having a dedicated person out the front greeting people saying hello and stuff and come again and all that giz……interesting….

      •  

        it is ridiculous to put a person recognizer in the entrance. they are there for greeting.

    • +1 vote

      Interesing, I'm surprised Bunnings is that concerned about theft, kinda thought that most of their items are way too bulky to be shoplifted?

      • +1 vote

        Things like padlocks, drill bits and a heap of other smaller items can be rather expensive and small enough to fit in a pocket.

  • +31 votes

    Society has gone to the shitter.

    Teachers aren't allowed to reprimand misbehaving school kids…

    Participation ribbons given out to everyone …

    Political correctness ruining humour and office environments …

    list goes on

    • +5 votes

      Another great comment they have changed the little red riding hood story because it is too violent when the wolf dies i mean WTF is going on!

      too many left wing lunatics and hippies in society!

      • +3 votes

        I wonder if cannibalism has been removed from Hansel and Gretel yet.

        You should read the original Little Mermaid story too… Ariel walks on land in severe pain, and has to murder the prince before dawn and drip his blood on her feet. Somehow Disney missed that part :-)

        • +2 votes

          That's because those shows are supposedly for kids and is suppose to be kid friendly…….

      • +1 vote

        Whose the real idiots here? The left wing lunatics and hippies, or idiots who listen to them?

        Not like anything you said was true, it's all right wing bs. Hippies smoke weed all day, and so can barely do anything, and nobody listens to the left wingers because most of them look like wackjobs. How could they ever do anything? It's laughable.

    • +13 votes

      Teachers aren't allowed to reprimand misbehaving school kids

      lol what?

      Participation ribbons given out to everyone

      Yeah it happened in the 90's too, nothing new mate

      Political correctness ruining humour and office environments …

      Aka "I can't tell racist and/or sexist jokes any more without getting in trouble"

      •  

        Chat to a teacher and see their thoughts on what they are allowed to do when a child runs rampage through the class. They can barely touch a kid these days without being threatened with a lawsuit.

        Participation ribbons started in the 90's apparently. I never liked them, didn't enjoy getting them and only ever counted my place ribbons.

        There is an article in todays news limited about how some marketing manager got offended because he was jokingly given a 'Marketing for Dummies' book. Such an obvious joke. Additionally, we all know stories about guys conversing in locker talk (all guys do it), and then someone 'overhearing' and getting offended.
        Yes i agree with getting rid of racist and sexist jokes.

        • +1 vote

          Teachers are not allowed to touch students unless they have undergone restraint training. So yeah you can't touch them.

      • +1 vote

        Participation ribbons given out to everyone

        Yeah it happened in the 90's too, nothing new mate

        Being born in 1990 I have first hand experience with this. At the end of an athletics event or swimming carnival all of us kids would be proudly walking around with 1st/2nd/3rd place ribbons, and all the dumb "participation" ribbons would be thrown on the ground or in a bin. It was starting to be introduced but even as children we recognized it for the garbage it was and treated it accordingly, whereas now the "participation is what counts" delusion is setting in.

        Political correctness ruining humour and office environments …

        Aka "I can't tell racist and/or sexist jokes any more without getting in trouble"

        Have you ever worked in an office environment? Nobody tells overtly racist or sexist jokes, politically correct morons just take offence at nothing. You can be outraged and offended, but it doesn't mean you're right.

    • +6 votes

      and that is why people like trump get elected. political correctness and pseudo civil liberties give rise to dissatisfaction and the result is becoming pretty clear.

  • +22 votes

    Should have followed the thief around with a bell tune playing on your phone calling out "SHAME! SHAME! SHAME!"…

  • +2 votes

    The times have definitely changed and I have noticed this.

    We are currently in bizarro land at the moment.

    Not sure what the future brings but if history is to repeat itself as it normally does we will have the past coming up surely and shortly very soon.

  • +4 votes

    I worked at BWS/Woolworths liquor for 3 years they do not care about shop lifting some stores with higher levels of theft will have the an ever useless Willison security personal on site where i have literally seen i guy steal a bottle of 60$ whisky infront of him and all he did was say "you cant do that" the guy then proceeded to walk out with the bottle.

    Here is the fact the staff (like myself in my uni days) do not get paid enough to give a sh*t about shop lifting I used to report theft all the time managers don't care because also do no get paid enough. As a general rule i was always told to just record and report it after the thief had left for safety reasons there had been innocents when staff members have tried to stop them and gotten hurt which makes Woolworths liable for the staff member because it happened at work and ends up costing them way more.

    The fact is they have insurance and increased costs in high theft areas. So yes to cut a the story short no they don't care it is the consumer who pays for it.

    ALSO i worked a Coles for 4 years in my high school days and it was a similar story

    •  

      They are a multi million(even billion if I last read right - or maybe it was another company) dollar company, surely they can afford such measures??

      • +2 votes

        Sure they could probably afford it but the fact is it would probably cost more monitor it in every store then to just let it slide in a number of them and claim it all back on insurance later

  • +3 votes

    The attitude goes like this: 'I'm a minimum wage worker, they're stealing from a multinational corporation that makes hundreds of millions of dollars or more, I don't want to get hurt/upset in a confrontation with the accused, so I'm letting it go'

    I once knew a university exam invigilator who told me she saw students cheating in exams but did nothing about it. Why? Because she didn't want to confront a hostile student and she thought the mainly foreign students would remember her and seek revenge. She honestly thought they would seek out and find her in a city of three million people. So she did nothing.

    It seems the only people who can stop a crime in progress are police. Security guards can stop someone but must call police asap.

    • +1 vote

      Most security guard are useless (probably because they are sh*t money too).

      The Police don't really care in my experience!

      100% agree if you're getting paid peanuts they can't expect much, $10-28 per hour is roughly what 95% of the staff get paid in coles and woolworths i wouldn't stop a potentially dangerous individual for less then 60$ an hour especially knowing if you get hurt they will do everything to screw u off work cover.

  • Top