Jesse, walmart is in the right here, they have loss prevention staff trained to handle these situations. the manager over steped her authrity, put her self, otehr employees and customers at risk.
THis manager dicided to take it apon her slef to randomly check customers recipts. thats a violation of the coustomers rights....loss provention could have handeled this scorrectly iwth a minimum of fuss and injury. her actions, her lack of good sense, her lack of fallowing company policy (alerting loss prevetion and letting them handle it) escalated minor thefet into a dangerous situation. She got her self fired by her own stupidity.
Moonglum,
You might be right from a strict legalistic point of view, but I'm going to call bullshit on the big picture context.
So you think this woman should have just turned her eye away and not confront the errant shopper, er, shoplifter? I think she did the right thing. And you're castigating her? Boy, you sure sound a lot like Rudy Giulani here.
Oh please.
The customer didn't have to accept having her receipt checked. She could have simply said "No Thank you" and walked away.
That's what I would have done and often do do. 'Cause I don't like receipt checkers. And unless one has a prior contract with a store, e.g.: Cost Co, then they have no right.
A GOOD management doesn't FIRE an employee for exercising discretion; they back her. At worst, they have a quiet word to her, "Um, next time don't do it that way, do it this way. And now you can see why."
You WANT people to exercise discretion. That way you get people acting as leaders, not followers. This is total bullshit on Wal-Mart's part.
And no, Moonglum is NOT right from a legalistic point of view either. He's not right about this from any point of view.
The woman wasn't accused of shoplifting. She was asked for a receipt. She could have said no, and walked away. Even when she ran away, no one followed her or chased her, no one yelled after her, "Hey, crook, stop," all of which would have been wrong. They let her go, because after all, all anyone had was the unsupported word of a customer saying this woman was a crook, plus suspicious behavior. They didn't have their own eye-witness.
Everything Wal-Mart did up till then was fine.
What wasn't fine was the woman coming back IN to Wal-Mart and attacking employees. That was criminal and was rightly charged.
What isn't fine is Wal=Mart -- as near as I can figure out this is their theory -- blaming their own Manager for asking for a receipt, on the grounds that this somehow inciting her to riot.
Total and complete horseshit.
First, inciting to riot never justifies rioting.
Second, she didn't incite any goddamn thing. She asked for a receipt. Nothing more, nothing less. Which she had every right to do.
Wal-Mart is failing to back their long-term employee who was validly exercising discretion, after their employee was assaulted by a crazy woman on the job.
Wal-Mart should be sued in a major, major way.
The worst of this is, the fired woman is now questioning herself, wondering if somehow this is all her fault.
This is the bullshit -- people end up being left blaming themself.
HORSESHIT.
Jesse: we are dealign with $34 worth of stuff. my guess is walmart has a policy of lettign this just walk out teh door as acceptable losses for jsut this reason. THis manager thaught she new better then the company policy, better then the loss prevention manager (she had time to contact loss prevention she chose not to ) she took every thing in her own hands.
shes damm lucky that the shoplifter didn't come back with a gun. she ut every ones life at risk with her stunt and opend the store up for liability charges. if loss prevention had been left to handle it non of this would have happened (the shoplifter would have been either escorted ot an office to wait for the police or left to go depending on store policy.
was the risk worth the $35 that was shoplifted, not in the least, let teh people traind to handle the situation handle the situation.
she has no grounds to sue walmart. in fact walmart is damm lucky that her actions didn't get anotehr customer or employee to sue them...that is why she got fired, her irrisponsable actions opened the store up to liability charges.
silverkris: I am not saying that she shoudl have turned a blind eye (unless that is store policy, wich it may well be for the amount that was taken) I am sayign that she should have handed teh matter over to the folks that are trained to handle it, from readign the artical, one of the people hurt was a loss prevention staffer, so they had trained employees present, they should have been notified and dealt with the situation, not the customer service manager.
no blind eye needs to be turned, jsut do things the right way, goign off liek a half assed cowboy could have gotten someone killed.
Moonglum,
You've got to be kidding me that a store policy is to overlook a store theft if it isn't over a certain amount. I think that's bullshit. Stores don't like to lose ANY goods to theft, no matter the amount. Where do you draw the line?
And no, the woman was doing the right thing in exercising discretion - that's called empowering employees. She was acting on behalf of the store's interest, and look what she gets in return.
Clearly, Wal-Mart didn't do the right thing - for whatever store policy they have in dealing with shoplifters.
"What wasn't fine was the woman coming back IN to Wal-Mart and attacking employees. That was criminal and was rightly charged."
"What isn't fine is Wal=Mart -- as near as I can figure out this is their theory -- blaming their own Manager for asking for a receipt, on the grounds that this somehow inciting her to riot."
"Total and complete horseshit."
-I agree.
When I shop in Wal-Mart, pay for my goods and leave, my receipt is checked.
As a matter of fact I usually have my receipt in my hand ready to show it 'cause I know they check receipts.
The crazy bitch got mad because she felt she had a right to shoplift and got pissed when she was cold busted.
I hope Victoria Smith sues Wal-Mart and gets enough money to give that smiley face a frown.
"was the risk worth the $35 that was shoplifted, not in the least, let teh people traind to handle the situation handle the situation."
-Maybe the Wal-Mart SWAT team was on a doughtnut run? 
"Maybe the Wal-Mart SWAT team was on a doughnut run?"
What, on Aisle 5?
Ok moonie, I used to work for Wally-World and as I recall this manager followed the standard procedure.
What part of the psycho bitch CAME THE FUCK BACK INTO THE STORE is beyond your frigging comprehension.
Wal=Mart has been checking receipts for the better par of 15 goddamned years now, so why the violent reaction of Ms Shoplifter? I mean unless she was an ex-employee?
As I read the article, she wasn't fired for checking the receipt. She was fired for touching the customer who was attacking her.
I've never had a receipt checked at Walmart, though I haven't been there in awhile. I have been to Sam's Club and blow by the receipt checker if there's a line. Once the rc said she'd call the cops. Me: "Err Okay, I've paid and I'll be at my car" *very cooperative smile*
I don't think the 'lifter charges will hold up since she didn't leave the store and they aren't stolen goods 'till you leave the premises. She should and will go down for the hissy fit slap fight though and should.
Should the manager have been fired? Not enough facts to determine that. I don't know what Walmarts policy is but if its like all other retail, the only thing anyone is to do is to contact loss prevention/security. They are trained for this. It is their job. It is the manager's job to notify them.
She made a different choice and I have a problem with what is missing here:
"It didn't match the items she had.
Normally, Smith then would suggest that some of the customer's items might not have rung up correctly on the register and they'd have to take a closer look."
They say "normally" she'd have done this, but what did she do instead? Did she go all parental and scold the customer because her receipt didn't match up? It doesn't say what she did say, and there was something said to alleged 'lifter because she went all ballistic.
Basically, we have a manager who decide this customer was guilty even before there was proof and even before any crime had been committed technically... based on the word of another customer. There's my big HUH?
Finally, we haven't seen her personnel file and for all we know she could have recieved other warnings and or re-training attempts and this isn't the first bad decision she's made. We don't know. She did put herself needlessly in danger and customers and other employees though. That's a fact.
We don't know if this 'lifter was shoplifting anything either. Maybe there was a problem with the scanner. She went to buy a soda after checkout instead of heading for the exit. I've not shoplifted and I've never used self-checkout because I'm not a cashier right now. I don't work for the store. They're not paying me to do their job.
I don't think we can know if she should have lost her job or been sent to re-training. Just not enough facts.
Bunch of fucking wanking tossers, eh!? Shit for fucking brains 'cos they're a bunch of fucking lying bastids is what they are. Utter fucking shite an' all.
Now, Target on the other hand......... Quite reasonable for the price. Carry on.
If she isn't working for Wal-Mart anymore then she is probably better off.
I used to work retail for a large corporate store like Wal-Mart. Believe me theft was not something I concerned myself with. Though I didn't actively encourage it, it is not like I cared a whole lot if it happened.
This is a good career move for this woman regardless. She was in the Wal-Mart store manager bullseye, one of the very worst jobs in this country today. This sort of shit happens everyday. Watch the Robert Greenwald film about Wal-Mart. I bet the only reason they had camera surveillance outside (though its hard to tell if they did) is because they had the anti-union package.
Wal-Mart couldn't give a shit about employees, its customers or the environment around it. It exists to push a massive volume of crap and make its rabidly anti-union board rich.
um, having spent a considerable amount of time in retail, decades even, many of the places i worked were far, far more aggressive with loss control, and backed up their employees to the hilt, and were absolutely fearless of lawsuits. i guess that's more proof of how freakin' old i am. it seems businesses are so scared of lawsuits nowadays they'd rather set their own employees on fire than piss off a customer.
once upon a time working in a store was a respectable, grown-up job you could support your family with. now it's a travesty and a disgrace. not only do people in this country expect to be waited on like kings, they expect to be waited on by serfs.
sadly, i think anybody who works at Le Mart du Wal probably does because they have to, not because it was their wildest dream.
I think this is of a parcel of the ways WalMart manages to keep all of its employees off kilter and nervous. They might have fired her for negligence had the manager NOT become involved. This kind of arbitrary punishment reinforces to everyone else that they are worthless, unvalued, and can be fired at any time, for any reason.
I f'ing hate WalMart.
Bubba Bo Bob Brain: loss retention would have called ehr a shopelifter for mthe get go,and escoprtered her to a office for the police to arrive. This manager tried to get cute...in the long run that allwayus gose badly wrong. she decided that instead of lettign the properly trained personal handle the situation she would play hero...she damm luck that her stunt didn't get anyone killed.
Commenting by HaloScan
