Employee theft is an increasing problem for the retail owner, or big retail stores in the United States and around the globe. The economic conditions of recent years have many employees struggling to support their families and make those conditions excellent excuses for stealing from their employees. Many of the programs that a retail store can implement are lacking, or non -existent. Loyalty programs that offer employees privileges are no longer used, and supervision and security for the work force is negligent. Billions of dollars are lost each year due to employee and shoplifting crime, are you doing the right security for your business? Read more about this by following the links.
7 Steps for the Strongest Retail Loss Prevention System
In the retail industry, theft leads to billions of dollars in lost revenue each year. If you own a shop, it is vital that you develop an integrated plan for loss prevention to avoid becoming a victim. To ensure your plan is effective, make sure it takes into account the seven expert suggestions detailed below.
1. Have Obvious Security
If you want to catch thieves, hiding all of your security measures might be the best strategy, but if you want to deter thieves, you need to make your store appear well defended. While cameras, mirrors and window bars will not stop all thieves, people are much less likely to steal from a store they perceive to be monitored. According to studies, cameras and dummy camera domes are particularly effective for this purpose.
2. Protect Against Internal Theft
Internal theft by employees represents the most significant single component of white-collar crime annually according to the Institute for Financial Crime Prevention. It costs companies billions of dollars each year, yet most store owners do little to prevent theft by their employees.
Minimize your chances of internal loss by investing in access control that is auditable, keeping cash locked in a safe, and only allowing necessary employees access to cash handling areas.
The first instances of dedicated loss prevention, or ‘security’ programs being used by retailers dates backs to the early 20th century where there was largely a culture of secrecy aligned to them. This was primarily due to their core objective of ‘catching’ dishonest employees or customers.
For many retailers, limited change in terms of evolution or maturity within their Loss Prevention program has taken place since the start of 20th century. Many retailer’s Loss Prevention programs are still focused on the issues of theft, either by staff or customers, as their sole contribution to their organisation’s efforts to reduce the impact of shrinkage on their profit.
This arguably is in direct contrast to the wider retail industry which has evolved dramatically, particularly during the last 20 years. For example, core functional areas such as Human Resources, IT, Merchandising, Marketing and Supply Chain have all matured in their approaches thereby broadening their value propositions to retailing. More importantly, they have seen that they had to operate outside their traditional thinking and approaches to truly support Retailers. What that said, for a few fortunate Retailers, significant maturing has taken place in their Loss Prevention programs since the start of the 21st century and this maturing has resulted in significant improvements within their shrinkage.
Shoplifter lawsuit highlights retail dilemma
Sometimes it’s better to just let things go.
That could be the mantra for overprotective retail clerks and loss-prevention agents everywhere following a lawsuit in Santa Rosa civil court by a would-be shoplifter who was badly injured when he was tackled by a grocery store manager.
The clash happened July 13, 2011 when plaintiff Johnny Ramirez was stealing a bottle of rum from the Rohnert Park Raley’s, according to a tentative ruling from Sonoma County Superior Court Judge Arthur Wick.
Ramirez tucked the glass bottle into his waistband and ran out the door, only to be stopped by manager Shea Carpenter, who tackled him to the asphalt, Wick wrote.
The bottle broke when he hit the ground, causing injury that required emergency surgery. Ramirez later sued the grocery chain and the manager for monetary damages.
He argued Carpenter acted with negligence because he was aware of the fact that the bottle was in his waistband and could break if he tackled him. Under the law, negligent behavior warrants higher punitive damages.
This week, Judge Wick said there were no grounds for Ramirez to seek punitive damages from the store. But he said Carpenter could be held liable because he knew the consequences of his actions and failed to avoid them.
Speak Your Mind
You must be logged in to post a comment.