Not sure what the corporate policy is on shoplifting since that piece of the puzzle is left out. HOWEVER, firing is pretty extreme for a first time breach of corporate policy. What if the employees invite the shoplifters back and help them carry merchandise out to the waiting get away vehicle?
This story infuriates me. What an f-ing coward. Reminds me of the CEO of Starbucks throwing that employee under the bus in Philly for enforcing the store’s rules regarding using the facilities. I think those robbers should ransack Mr McDonald’s house. After all, it’s all just “things”.
Although I applaud the Ladies' forthright efforts to protect the merchandise and the store, there are a few questions about this story that I have and I'm wondering if Ann might be so kind as to help me and perhaps others understand it better?
~Is there a chance that the Lululemon CEO felt constrained by liability laws, in the sense that the merchandise was covered by insurance but his employees might not be, at least in this context?
~Would Lululemon be open to lawsuits from the employees if they were to be injured...or worse... during the course of protecting the store from robberies?
~Is it possible that Lululemon had a "no interference with shoplifters" policy in place and he felt the need to send a strong message to other employees because his insurance carrier demanded it?
I have heard of other companies having a similar reaction to honorable employees doing the right thing, and I've gotten the impression that at least in some other cases it was a fear of liability in the matter that drove the company's actions.
That of course doesn't make it the right thing to happen, but perhaps the laws dictated that it be the 'only' thing that could happen?
I wish that the Lululemon CEO had sided with the employees, but perhaps he simply wasn't able to.
Ann, I defer to your excellent lawyerly judgement in the matter and I am prepared to be told how completely wrong I am. :-)
I wonder if LULU's Calvin McDonald would want a daughter of his to work at a store that welcomes criminals? Maybe he's been to Davos and is that woke. But hasn't he noticed all the major retailers forced out of places like San Francisco and Portland?
As usual, Ann's logic is flawless. If prosecutors signal their intent to not prosecute certain crimes, are they really crimes? And if they are not really crimes, what would prevent someone from committing them?
I suppose all these woke corporate types will need to learn the Bud Lite/Target lesson the hard way. Just another sign of the unstoppable demise of the U.S. and its culture.
Excellent, and apparently legal, resolution. They should test it, force an arrest and sue the crap out of the store.
Not sure what the corporate policy is on shoplifting since that piece of the puzzle is left out. HOWEVER, firing is pretty extreme for a first time breach of corporate policy. What if the employees invite the shoplifters back and help them carry merchandise out to the waiting get away vehicle?
This story infuriates me. What an f-ing coward. Reminds me of the CEO of Starbucks throwing that employee under the bus in Philly for enforcing the store’s rules regarding using the facilities. I think those robbers should ransack Mr McDonald’s house. After all, it’s all just “things”.
LAW AND ORDER
There, I fixed them.
Although I applaud the Ladies' forthright efforts to protect the merchandise and the store, there are a few questions about this story that I have and I'm wondering if Ann might be so kind as to help me and perhaps others understand it better?
~Is there a chance that the Lululemon CEO felt constrained by liability laws, in the sense that the merchandise was covered by insurance but his employees might not be, at least in this context?
~Would Lululemon be open to lawsuits from the employees if they were to be injured...or worse... during the course of protecting the store from robberies?
~Is it possible that Lululemon had a "no interference with shoplifters" policy in place and he felt the need to send a strong message to other employees because his insurance carrier demanded it?
I have heard of other companies having a similar reaction to honorable employees doing the right thing, and I've gotten the impression that at least in some other cases it was a fear of liability in the matter that drove the company's actions.
That of course doesn't make it the right thing to happen, but perhaps the laws dictated that it be the 'only' thing that could happen?
I wish that the Lululemon CEO had sided with the employees, but perhaps he simply wasn't able to.
Ann, I defer to your excellent lawyerly judgement in the matter and I am prepared to be told how completely wrong I am. :-)
I wonder if LULU's Calvin McDonald would want a daughter of his to work at a store that welcomes criminals? Maybe he's been to Davos and is that woke. But hasn't he noticed all the major retailers forced out of places like San Francisco and Portland?
The description of the thieves is...? Were they enjoying some type of privilege?
As usual, Ann's logic is flawless. If prosecutors signal their intent to not prosecute certain crimes, are they really crimes? And if they are not really crimes, what would prevent someone from committing them?
A better solution might be to pass a law that protected employees in this situation, similar to whistleblower laws.
(I don't know why boomers can't figure out that appeals to the community are a lame and ineffective waste of time.)
If you are serious about doing something, pass a law. And, get enough fancy lawyers to work on it to make sure the law will have the effect you want.
Logical.
Somehow I think they would be prosecuted, call me cynical.
What can be behind this strangeness? Anybody?
I suppose all these woke corporate types will need to learn the Bud Lite/Target lesson the hard way. Just another sign of the unstoppable demise of the U.S. and its culture.
Legally what can you do about shoplifters
Thank you for follow up story re: crime Ann. Human decency is gone, it has vanished.
despicable