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”.
Totally agree. But these CEOs reap what they sow. Look at what is happening in San Francisco. While the “leaders” are re-arranging the deck chairs, the place is going into a death spiral. Same for Portland, OR. When what is left of the citizens get fed up cleaning human feces off their shoes and stepping on used hypodermic needles, maybe ( just MAYBE) they will vote these wastes out of public office and stop patronizing these companies.
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. :-)
The employees - females - didn't try to physically stop the shoplifters, just yelled at them. (Then called the police, who caught the 12X repeat shoplifters. Highly unlikely the shoplifters would have taken the time to deck the employees -- unless they were going to do that anyway, which could happen anytime.
Thank you Ann! I'm astonished they were fired just for yelling at the ferals...I had thought there was more going on here. In that case the CEO's response is contemptible. I sincerely appreciate your adding an essential detail I had missed.
It would seem to me that the contingent liability against the company already existed by the fact that the same location had previously been robbed and terrorized by the same criminals and the company did nothing to protect the employees and left them vulnerable to those criminals.
If I owned the company’s equities (LULU) I would have some serious questions at the next annual meeting if not in a shareholder lawsuit. At the very least I would gift the CEO a box of Pampers.
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.
This doesn't work because the employees are middle class, not criminals.
Criminals can risk criminal penalties, middle class people cannot. Do YOU want to try shoplifting from a national retailer? No, you do not, because you are not OK with a criminal record, and neither are these former employees.
A suit would be unsuccessful, as presumably you know when you are not fantasizing.
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”.
Totally agree. But these CEOs reap what they sow. Look at what is happening in San Francisco. While the “leaders” are re-arranging the deck chairs, the place is going into a death spiral. Same for Portland, OR. When what is left of the citizens get fed up cleaning human feces off their shoes and stepping on used hypodermic needles, maybe ( just MAYBE) they will vote these wastes out of public office and stop patronizing these companies.
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. :-)
The employees - females - didn't try to physically stop the shoplifters, just yelled at them. (Then called the police, who caught the 12X repeat shoplifters. Highly unlikely the shoplifters would have taken the time to deck the employees -- unless they were going to do that anyway, which could happen anytime.
Thank you Ann! I'm astonished they were fired just for yelling at the ferals...I had thought there was more going on here. In that case the CEO's response is contemptible. I sincerely appreciate your adding an essential detail I had missed.
Great questions.
It would seem to me that the contingent liability against the company already existed by the fact that the same location had previously been robbed and terrorized by the same criminals and the company did nothing to protect the employees and left them vulnerable to those criminals.
If I owned the company’s equities (LULU) I would have some serious questions at the next annual meeting if not in a shareholder lawsuit. At the very least I would gift the CEO a box of Pampers.
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
This doesn't work because the employees are middle class, not criminals.
Criminals can risk criminal penalties, middle class people cannot. Do YOU want to try shoplifting from a national retailer? No, you do not, because you are not OK with a criminal record, and neither are these former employees.
A suit would be unsuccessful, as presumably you know when you are not fantasizing.