"Lululemon CEO who fired employees for confronting thieves stands by decision: ‘It’s only merchandise’ "

submitted by NerveActive from i.imgur.com

all 17 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]ClassroomPast6178 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

This is a tough one, I’ve seen him interviewed and he explained that they were fired because they broke the company’s employee safety policy, not as has been claimed, because they called the police.

The policy apparently is clear that they don’t challenge thieves because they don’t want their staff hurt over merchandise which is insured.

It’s amazing how poorly the story was reported and the leaps that some of the reporters made.

Is what he’s saying true? I am willing to believe him as it doesn’t seem fantastical to think their insurance company advocates not endangering sales staff for the sake of some overpriced leggings.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Yeah it makes sense for the corporate policy to be "don't confront thieves, your life and safety is worth more than the merchandise" and if the employees can't follow those directions that's an issue. If that's what happened it seems fair although the optics on firing your employee for confronting a thief is really bad, and makes me question the decision to do so.

But if the article claims they were fired because they called the police, that would be total bullshit. If an employer fired me for calling the cops, I think I'd have good standing for a lawsuit there, I don't think you can retaliate against employees for trying to protect their own safety which I'd argue calling the police is.

[–]ClassroomPast6178 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Yeah, HR drones are shitpipes but they aren’t going to let someone be fired for calling the cops after a theft…they’ll manufacture a completely valid reason that won’t precipitate a lawsuit.

Firing the employees for chasing after the thieves might be bad optics, but what are you going to do, set the precedent that your corporate policies are voluntary? You don’t want to give the impression to employees that they can pick which policies to follow, or that the safety policy isn’t enforced when the next heroine decides she’s going to tackle Stevie the Methhead when he comes in to get a new pair of yoga pants, and the heroine gets shanked and sues the company.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

You want to give the impression to your employees that you will punish employees who attempt to defend themselves? Seems like a great way to get worker apathy to me.

It really depends on the specifics of what happened. If an employee went and started a fistfight with a thief I'd discipline them were I in that position. It's just stupid to risk your life for company merchandise. Call the cops and let them handle it. If it's truly just a case of they called the cops and got fired. That just tells me corporate literally doesn't give a shit if their workers are safe or not, which fair enough probably is the case.

Zero tolerance policies in general are usually just retarded. Typically they progress into zero thought policies. If a thief attacks you and you defend yourself do you get fired? If a thief asks you to perform oral sex on them and you decline does that count as resistance?

Don't engage with thieves is a solid policy for employees, beyond that though if the situation absolutely requires engagement you can't throw your employees under the bus for behaving in a reasonable manner if you want to have anything resembling a good work ethic at your company.

[–]ClassroomPast6178 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Where did I say employees shouldn’t defend themselves?

I said a policy that employees don’t challenge or attempt to apprehend thieves is reasonable.

Also, having a corporate policy that you don’t implement consistently is a good way to get sued when you do implement it. It’s not “zero tolerance”.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I'm not claiming you said that. I'm saying if we take a very uncharitable reading of this article it seems like the employees were fired because calling the police was seen as "resisting". I doubt that is actually the case, but that's the impression I've gotten from the media buzz surrounding this, and so will probably be the story that most people assume happened.

The CEO when he gave his response said they had a "zero tolerance policy" which is why I used that term. It's been my experience that zero tolerance policies are an excuse for people to pretend to not be responsible for interpreting such policies in the most strict authoritarian means possible.

[–]ClassroomPast6178 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Except they didn’t just call the police, they gave chase and tried to tackle the thieves.

If they were sacked for just calling the police then the CEO is a cunt. But I’m sure I’ve seen it stated that they tried to physically intervene themselves.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

In that case it's a perfectly justified firing.

I don't really buy the story that "they were fired for calling the police" that's obviously outrage bait. But that's the story getting reported and that's the story that people are going to repeat.

[–]ClassroomPast6178 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I’m starting to question everything I hear now, no matter which “side” is reporting it because stories are getting twisted up and then spread when key facts are left out purely to rage bait people.

I think it’s also worthwhile to discuss stories like this, as we have been doing, to hash out the issue. I think we actually agree on pretty much everything.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Does this mean I can go into a lulu lemon store and take whatever I want?

[–]IMissPorn 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yep!

Now that doesn't mean you may or should, but definitely "can".

[–]ClassroomPast6178 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Hopefully, your morality is based on a more ethical standard than “can I get away with it?”, one that acknowledges that theft is wrong even if no one knows you’ve done it and you will suffer no repercussions.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Let's go ahead and put morality aside for a moment and look at the idea purely from a position of possibility.

If you're a person who doesn't have significant assets living in a state where the police do not bother to enforce or pursue shoplifting. Then yes, essentially you can just waltz in and take whatever you want with no repercussions.

If you do have assets then the shop can probably seek damages against you in court which limits your ability to shoplift with impunity. Assuming of course you are stupid enough not to hide your identity.

Of course all this weighs on having a police force that won't pursue shoplifting but will pursue murder. If and when the police are "defunded" to the point they don't do anything, shipowners can and will simply shoot shoplifters dead if they know they won't get prosecuted for it.

[–]ClassroomPast6178 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Sure.

But at some point we have to admit that thieves are thieves because they’re morally deficient or their situation is such that their needs outweighs the strength of their moral conviction.

I am not going to begrudge the 7-year old Iraqi orphan who steals a loaf of bread to feed himself and his 5-year old sister. But I am not going to extend the same understanding to the homeless person who has refused or squandered all help offered because they loves their fentanyl.

As for the state abrogating their responsibility to enforce the law and protect the citizens, well, a state that no longer serves its primary purpose is a failed state, and it really can only be a a matter of time before something really bad happens in places like LA, San Francisco or New York.

The situation in California, New York etc is clearly the fault of the respective governments involved, choosing priorities that didn’t match the needs of their constituents, and then doubling down. San Francisco, in the midst of a doom loop, is giving serious consideration for slavery reparations amounting to millions of dollars per person, that is mental.

If I lived in the US I think I would be concealed carrying now.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Just got back from the US and frankly as usual the internet and the news tends to give a much more negative view of things than you'll get on the ground. Not saying it's all guns and roses over there and shit holes like LA are still shit holes, but a lot of it is the propoganda bubble, designed to keep you scared and in a box so you are more easily manipulated. My last trip to the UK I had people telling me I'd be stabbed for stepping outside. Sure there's plenty of places I won't go to, but I'm not going to avoid the tube during the day because crime happens sometimes. Just need basic street smarts and not be an idiot.

The morality of theft isn't something you can just totally ignore. But we have to discuss the issue from both the moral and the purely opportunistic viewpoints to understand what is going on. I'm going to leave it as a given that "theft is bad" and don't really buy the victimless crime arguments.

I can turn a blind eye to theft if it's done out of pure necessity. Stealing groceries for instance I think should face a lesser punishment than stealing yoga pants. But it's still not morally justifiable. There are places to get food for free in basically any developed country if you need it, it is very hard to argue necessity as an excuse for theft.

Anyway concealed carry is all well and good. I'm fully in support of that. However, the issues come down to this American mentality of control for some. There's really a lot of bravado going on with some Americans and they aren't really good at avoiding problems before they start. Like there's this Reddit post the other day of some gay couple getting harassed by the cops after making out in some mini-golf course. Legally they are in the right, and they were being harassed there, but they could have easily avoided the whole debaucle had they simply avoided intentionally offending the crazy woman who called her cop friends on them after she got offended at them kissing.

Here's how it went down.

"Gay kiss"

"Don't do that in front of my kids!"

"Gay kiss harder to show her"

"I'm calling the cops"

"Beatdown"

Here's how it could have gone down.

"Gay kiss"

"Eww don't do that in front of my kids"

"Let's avoid triggering the crazy lady and wait for her to leave"

No cop beatdown.

Simple.

Same issue with a lot of shit in the US. Go out into the cities and you'll encounter your own share of idiot dumbasses. But generally speaking. Most of the time when there's a problem, it's because two idiot dumbasses are going at it when the whole thing could have been just as easily avoided by one party understanding it's not worth fighting an idiot over some minor slight.

If someone thinks it's worth risking their life to cut in line, eventually, they'll meet someone else who thinks the same and they'll pay that price. But I don't need to be the one to complete that transaction.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Is it morally wrong? I think it’s wrong if they say it’s wrong. It appears that they are making clothes for anyone who wants to take.

[–]slavdude0 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

BRB. Going to Berlin to rob their stores.