Cellphones On The Salesfloor – The Good, The Bad And The Ugly Of It

The use of cellphones in the workplace has become more prolific over the years. It used to be that managers could put out a policy stating that the use of cellphones was strictly forbidden. I used to be in this camp and to a certain extent, I still am. As a Loss Prevention Manager, I saw the negative impact phones could have on customer service. Employees would focus on the phone at the expense of the customers. When the culprit was a cashier I would see the violators of the policy hiding the phone next to the register and texting in the midst of a transaction. That was totally unacceptable and did on more than one occasion result in a register error. Either merchandise was not properly scanned or the wrong change was tendered to the customer. In several cases, I had cashiers texting family and friends telling them to come in and go through their checkout lane. This would result in theft through passing or “giving back too much change” commonly known as cash theft. Of course, using the phone as a means of stealing from the store was the ugly of the cellphone issues. 

     The bad side of the cellphone conundrum is the customer service issues they cause. You have seen it, the sales floor employee looking at their phone and texting or looking through their music. Eye contact is almost non-existent. As a shopper, this drives me up to the wall. If the employees would spend as much attention to shoppers as they do their phones I can only begin to imagine the increased sales stores would enjoy. Now, as a manager in a college library, I have student assistants working for me who all have phones and most carry the phone in their back pockets. We have policies restricting when they can use the phone but often I have to correct them when they violate the policy and pull the phone out and begin texting. We have the policy in place for the same reasons that stores have (or used to have) the policy; to ensure customer service is the number one priority. Making the enforcement of the policy more difficult is that other supervisors are pulling out their phones and using them. This seems a bit hypocritical in my view.  

     There is a good side to allowing cellphones in a retail or customer service environment and it has softened me just a tad to the arguments in favor of them. If a store employee is on the sales floor and sees suspicious activity from a potential shoplifter the employee can quickly get in contact with a manager without looking for a store phone. 2-way radios are not always the most effective communication devices. Some associates keep the volume on their radios turned up and even if an earpiece is in use conversations can be overheard. I have had shoplifting suspects hear employees talking and drop merchandise as I was preparing to stop them for stealing. I have also seen customers get angry when they heard employees talking about them over radios. It could be talking about the customer’s behavior or something the customer was saying that was causing a disturbance. For example, the customer could be causing a scene about a return they were trying to do that was refused. Radios are just not always the best communication tool from a safety or security perspective. Cellphones make a convenient and more discreet method of communication and can even include text messaging which isn’t heard at all.  

     Another pro-cellphone argument is the ability to summon help in a store in the event of an emergency. As we see in social media today there is hardly a significant event that can take place without someone(s) getting it on a cellphone camera. From natural disasters to vehicle accidents and even active shooters, right or wrong people are going to get video and messages out and post it. The more employees that are allowed to carry their phones the greater the likelihood first responders will be notified quickly from multiple sources in the store. Think about the advantages this could have in the event of an altercation or robbery. Someone is likely to get through to authorities much quicker than if a store phone is the only accessible communication device. 

     As much as they can be a pain in the neck to retailers, cellphones are here to stay. By laying out expectations and policies regarding when they can be used managers can try to manage the use of phones while being flexible in allowing them to be in an employee’s possession. Who knows, such a policy might be a lifesaver someday…literally.   

Vendor Theft: Causes, Effects and Prevention

Having worked in retail for nearly thirty years I have found that more people work in the store than just the people directly employed by the store. My encounters have included working with various external vendors. I have worked with representatives for jewelry and accessory servicing, cosmetic reps, snack vendors and even cleaning vendors. I have checked in soft drink vendors and food vendors through our loading dock receiving procedures. Just like our store employees, the vast majority of vendors who service stores are honest and work hard to satisfy their clients. Unfortunately, just as there are in stores there are bad apples for vendors and they can cause shortage in stores through theft, fraud and even paperwork errors.  

     The good news for retailers is that in the big scheme of things vendor theft generally accounts for the smallest amount of shortage. According to the National Retail Federation 2018 National Retail Security Survey, vendor fraud or error accounted for 5.4% of retail shrinkage in 2017 (pg. 5). That said it is still a source of shortage that can be controlled thereby saving stores potentially thousands of dollars a year.  

     So how does vendor theft and fraud happen? Just like any other theft it requires the person committing the crime to have the opportunity to steal, the means to steal an item and the perceived risk of being caught or punished. Just like a three-legged stool, remove one leg and the whole thing falls over. You cannot control whether or not someone has a desire to steal but you do have control over the conditions that make theft appealing.  

     Depending on what the vendor is doing in the store can impact how they might steal from you. Having controls in place in the store and requiring vendors to follow those procedures or controls can influence whether that person decides to attempt to steal. For example, many stores have vendor log books and vendors are expected to sign in when they enter the store. They may even be issued temporary name badges once they sign in. When someone has to register when they enter a building there is a sense of accountability, anonymity is lost.  

     The type of vendor can also play a part in how theft or fraud transpires. I have seen cosmetic vendors in stores with large satchel purses and bags. Their paperwork and checklists are stored in the bags but they also make great hiding places to conceal merchandise if they are stealing. A store should have the same requirements for vendors as they have for their own employees. A vendor should be required to have their bags or packages checked before they leave following a visit.  

     A food or beverage vendor may have empty boxes broken down that they are carting out for reuse. An employee of the store should be inspecting between the boxes to ensure no merchandise has been concealed between the layers. A vendor should also never be throwing out their own trash. Store compactors should always be locked and only a manager or store owner should have access to it. The manager should be the one to inspect vendor trash and throw it away as they look for empty packages that could indicate a theft took place. 

     All store entrances should be protected with electronic article surveillance pedestals. This serves as a deterrent to vendors who may be reluctant to try to walk out with merchandise that might cause an alarm to sound. There are many businesses which set up pedestals at the front entrances and even at employee entrances but neglect to place them at vendor service doors. If a vendor has thoughts of stealing they are looking at the anti-theft strategies and will take notice of unprotected access points. 

     Vendor supplied merchandise should also be detail checked in. Validating what an invoice says is being delivered and billed to a store and what is actually received are important steps in the vendor process. It is possible for a vendor to short an order accidentally but that still counts towards the shortage for the store. A driver can also intentionally short an order if they know the merchandise is not detail checked in. The product that is not brought in can then be sold on the side and the profits pocketed. 

     As I stated in the beginning there are very few dishonest vendors but they do exist. Build strong partnerships with them but remember that some may try to take advantage of you. Make your vendor partners follow the same guidelines that your employees follow. Be clear from the beginning and you will run into few difficulties and you will have a relationship that fosters sales for both parties. 

To Prosecute Or Not – The Ball’s In Your Court

Does it matter whether you prosecute shoplifters? There are some retailers that will not prosecute a shoplifter if they catch them. Many retailers discourage their employees from following someone outside to get a vehicle description or license plate number even if they know someone stole from the store. Then there are the retailers that will allow managers to approach someone who is suspected of shoplifting. What is the best approach to addressing theft? Have you thought about why or how you approach the issue of theft?x

Why would a retailer catch a shoplifter but then not prosecute them for the crime? There are several reasons a store owner may choose not to charge a shoplifter if they do catch them. 

  • When a shoplifter is caught and sent to jail or in some cases a citation to appear may be presented, the store manager or person who caught the shoplifter has to go to court. This can be a time-consuming prospect. There are jurisdictions where the person who filed a complaint or prosecuted a shoplifter will be prosecuted themselves if they fail to appear in court for a case. 
  • Some store owners will use the promise of not prosecuting a crook if the merchandise is returned. The owner is more interested in getting their product back than what happens to the thief.
  • There are managers who do not prosecute because they feel badly for the shoplifter. They believe that consideration of the person’s circumstances is an appropriate response to an offender. For example a person may say they shoplifted food because they are hungry or they stole clothes because they are homeless or needed them and could not afford to purchase them.
  • There are situations when a store manager takes age into consideration. The apprehended party may be (or claims to be) a juvenile giving an age that falls into that state’s age bracket for juveniles. The manager may feel they are doing a favor by not marring the youth’s future opportunities with a criminal record. A manager may also feel sympathy for an elderly person because of advanced age or possible mental deterioration.

Each of these decisions has some merit on their own. There is nothing wrong with feeling badly for a person or their circumstances. There can be some ramifications that result from releasing someone who has been caught shoplifting if you are not careful. 

     Consider what happens if you decide not to prosecute someone and they leave your store after you have detained them and they were to be injured. I am always especially cautious when the party is identified as a juvenile. Anytime you are dealing with a child you have to be careful. If you choose not to contact the police after stopping someone, even if you retrieve your merchandise what proof do you have that you recovered anything from that person? Is there a chance you could be falsely accused of unlawfully detaining that person? Even if you do recover merchandise and no issue transpires, without a police officer being present to hear you tell the person not to return there is no documentation of the incident. Nothing prevents that shoplifter from returning to your store again. 

     Catching and prosecuting shoplifters does carry its own risks and headaches. Sometimes there are just no easy solutions. One thing you have to be very cautious of is inconsistency. If you prosecute one person and not another person are you at risk of being sued for discrimination? Could someone say you gave preferential treatment based on age, race, gender or any other factor because it was learned you previously allowed a break to other people?

     If you are going to allow managers to stop people for shoplifting it is crucial that they have received quality training on how to do so safely and consistently. Be certain not to allow any behavior that would endanger your employees and do stress that they are allowed to make decisions based on how they feel about their own safety. If they believe a shopper is stealing but the person’s behavior is threatening or intimidating in some manner trust your managers to back off or if it is serious enough to contact police. 

     No one can tell you the best approach to dealing with shoplifters. Ultimately it is your decision to make. What I can say is that a store with a focus on customer service and a strong retail anti-theft strategy can deter the vast majority of shoplifting and eliminate the need for prosecuting shoplifters because they will leave the store empty-handed.  

Fighting Shoplifting Locally

Across the United States, local governments are passing legislature to combat and punish shoplifting and employee theft.  The harsher sentences are supposed to deter the shoplifter while sending the message of severe persecution if caught shoplifting.  Now, small business owners are taking a new initiative.  They are uniting to fight retail theft, and being able to provide information about shoplifters and shoplifting among retailers in the area.In some areas, the increase of shoplifting is hitting businesses hard and according to them “We are fed up.”

For more about this and other topics, follow the links below.


East Coast supermarket chain finds talent in former drug dealers

PHILADELPHIA

When Jeffrey Brown looks to promote employees within his 13-store supermarket chain, he looks for people with hustle, ability, commitment, all that.

There’s another unlikely attribute that has turned out to be a predictor of success at Brown’s ShopRite and Fresh Grocer stores.

Drug dealing.

“What we realized is that a lot of the people we hired were in the drug trade,” said Brown, founder and chief executive of Brown’s Super Stores Inc. “We were surprised that some of the people we hired have fairly good business skills. The drug trade is a business. It’s an illegal business. You are buying. You are selling. You have inventory. You have some of the common problems that any retailer has. A lot of them are accelerating into management.”

That’s the kind of human capital insight that Brown would never have imagined in 2008, when, at the urging of an outspoken customer, he decided to make it his company’s mission to hire people coming out of prison.


Research Findings from Employee Theft Articles

Peer-reviewed employee theft articles can stimulate discussion and reassessment of policies among LP professionals.

As many of you know, I have been researching employee theft, occupational crime, employee dishonesty, and workplace deviance for more than 30 years. I peruse scholarly journals and academic publications regularly for relevant research studies that can help us all better understand this phenomenon. This column features a couple of employee theft articles that may shed some light on this continuing problem. I have included the full citations so you can find these publications online or in your local library to read and share with your staff. If you do not have direct access to a major research library, try using Google Scholar.

“Workplace Theft: An Analysis of Student-Employee Offenders and Job Attributes”

The first of the two employee theft articles is authored by Elizabeth Ehrhardt Mustaine (University of Central Florida) and Richard Tewksbury (University of Louisville) and published in the American Journal of Criminal Justice 27:1 (pages 111 – 127, 2002). This employee theft study surveyed a large population of college students attending a number of major universities. Since existing research suggests that many dishonest employees are younger, part-time, untenured, and dissatisfied, these two researchers concluded that college students would make an ideal sample of employees to survey about their occupational criminal behavior.