all 93 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 115 points 4 months ago* (2 children)

FWIW, no one should feel the need to put their safety on the line for the benefit of their corporate overlords, for a number of reasons.

  1. The obvious point of you potentially getting hurt. The company doesn't want that because they could get sued. So they tell you not to intervene to cover their ass.

  2. The chance of the other person getting hurt. The company doesn't want that because they could get sued. And they'll blame it on you because you were told not to intervene.

  3. The possibility that you are simply wrong. You think you saw someone shoplift, but what if they didn't? You just assaulted a random person.

  4. Basic fucking human decency. If someone is stealing food of all things, why would you feel the need to intervene? It's not your loss, it's the company's. If the company wants to do something about it, they can figure that part out themselves.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 44 points 4 months ago

    Yup, intervene if the person is attempting to seriously injure or kill another person and you feel motivated to intervene.

    Outside of that, the company has a certain amount of loss that is built into their operating budget every year. This person has just taken advantage of that. It's not your fucking responsibility.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 52 points 4 months ago

    so she knew the store policy, decided to ignore it, has known this person has taken food in the past but doesn't call the police and have them trespass, and for some reason thinks she owes the company what? something? to tackle a person taking food?

    no sympathy here. who cares if someone takes food? does anyone who work retail honestly get paid enough to care? and if you do care then there's something painfully wrong with you. I worked retail some 20+ years ago and even then I didn't give a flying fuck if someone took something from where ever I was working. I wasn't be paid enough to care I barely made more than minimum wage. the only people who cared were managers and LP cause they were paid enough to care.

  • source
  • [–] 87 points 4 months ago (42 children)

    If you see someone stealing food... No you didnt. Move on.

  • source
  • hideshow 42 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    Sure but also. If you see someone stealing, no you didn't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Depends on what and from whom. If I see someone stealing some poor bastard's car, I'm saying something.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Yeah or a bicycle, leave peoples bikes the fuck alone assholes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    The guy stuffing 10lbs of ribeye steaks in his jacket is not Jean Valjean.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    The guy judging someone created within a sick society of abundance is the problem. Not the individual who feels the need to steal food just to get by. (for whatever reason. Even if they are using the money to buy drugs. Very few addicts got hooked because they partied too much. Most get hooked because our society is unwell from the top down.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Most get hooked because our society is unwell from the top down.

    And yet the vast majority of people in that unwell society don't end up being addicts. So there might be some other factors involved besides that, that are more relevant to the actual problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    So addiction determines someone's right to eat? You see that's the difference between you and me. No matter how bad things get for you, I always want you to be fed, loved, housed, have community, access to educate, etc. Because I know those things are not in real short supply. Just those who have never been on the other side.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -11 points 4 months ago (27 children)

    Depends on food. If it's truffle or black caviar, for example...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 4 months ago (24 children)

    Who cares. Only worriedos and fascists that's who.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 4 months ago (23 children)

    Are you allowed to steal food from anyone or only from certain categories of people / organisations?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago (22 children)

    Obviously only from those who have excess. If you're Christian, this is literally in the Bible. If you aren't, it's obviously just the right thing to do, for those with excess to give to the needy, willingly or not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    I don't know the verse you're referring to. Of course I'm not a Christian either, technically speaking.

    And Jesus said "if you think Malachai has too much, go on and take a little. He won't miss it"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago*

    I'm also not Christian (it's just the most likely religion for people on here), but this is one verse I was thinking of:

    Leviticus 19:9-10

    ‘Now when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field, nor shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. Nor shall you glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger. I am the Lord your God.

    It's not exactly saying stealing from the rich is good, but it is talking about the common act of the poor taking from fields to feed themselves.

    There's more in there, but I can't really be bothered to look into it more for the two of us who both don't follow it. Lol.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -6 points 4 months ago (19 children)

    How to determine if that person or organisation has an excess?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (9 children)

    That's up to you. We aren't writing laws here. Morality is subjective.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago (8 children)

    Excess isn't a moral term.

    But I suppose, your point is different from the OC:, you are suggesting to steal food based on moral views.
    Which is problematic, as morality indeed is subjective.

    Personally, I struggle to conjure a moral ground to steal food if I know where the food banks are. Or if said food is of a treat / luxury category.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (7 children)

    Excess isn't a moral term.

    What? What does that even mean? There aren't "moral terms." There's morality and ethics. Those are argued in normal language. For example, here is an discussion about a very similar topic from a Kantian perspective. It's just normal language.

    The point is, stealing from the wealthy to feed the poor is, in my opinion, a moral good. I would say most people agree with this. That's why we have so many stories where this is what the hero does.

    Which is problematic, as morality indeed is subjective.

    I said it is, and you agree, but it's also important to keep in mind some people do subscribe to a system of universal morality.

    Personally, I struggle to conjure a moral ground to steal food if I know where the food banks are.

    But this takes limited resource from the food banks that they could use to feed others. I think, as a hypothetical, food banks should be able to take money from the wealthy to fund their work. They aren't allowed to do this, and it would negatively effect their efforts if they did it and weren't allowed, so I still see it as a moral good for people capable of taking from the wealthy to do so, before consuming limited resources that could help others.

    Or if said food is of a treat / luxury category.

    That partially depends on your definition, but that's fine. Is lobster a luxury? What about steak? What about a salad? What about bread? They're all providing sustenance. Why does the cost effect the morality? If it's moral to steal at all for food, where does cost come into that? Personally, I think people arguing that poor people should only get the absolute worst to survive aren't being considerate of those people. I think they deserve to eat something enjoyable sometimes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (6 children)

    I'll address one point for now and the rest - later (sorry, I'm in a hurry)

    Why does the cost effect the morality?

    It's not the cost, it's intention. If you are hungry - steal bread, not some Jamón Ibérico .

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (5 children)

    OK, how does that effect the morality? "You're allowed to steal for sustenance, but you aren't allowed to steal something that you enjoy." What is your ethical rule here? You said it's not cost, so it must be about how much you'll like something. What if you like the thing that's cheaper?

    I don't think you've really analyzed your beliefs here. I think you've been told you're supposed to think some way but you haven't really considered the implications of that.

    As a hypothetical, let's say Musk is hosting a big event. You get word on the vehicles bringing in the food. You have an opportunity to steal it with no risk. Is it morally good to do so, and distribute it to the poor? Keep in mind, this food is going to be very expensive and fancy. Does that change if it's morally good or not?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (4 children)

    "You're allowed to steal for sustenance, but you aren't allowed to steal something that you enjoy."

    Exactly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (3 children)

    You ignored the context of everything else. What if you're stealing for sustenance, but it's something you enjoy? Why does enjoying it make it morally bad? You said it isn't about money, so you're only allowed to do it, in your premise, if you don't get any enjoyment out of it. Arguably, everything you eat you'll enjoy if you're hungry enough, so then stealing for sustenance is not actually allowed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (2 children)

    I'll clarify my stance: you're allowed to steal luxury food / treats only if it's the only food available.

    And, of course, you should be starving and have no other means to sustain yourself.

    To justify stealing is a slippery slope, unfortunately.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (1 child)

    To justify stealing is a slippery slope, unfortunately.

    In order for this to not be a slippery slope fallacy you have to show how it could reasonable lead to whatever you're claiming it'd lead to (which you didn't even state). What is the negative outcome to (morally) allowing theft for sustenance? Keep in mind, it's still illegal, so there are potential negative consequences. There's just not a negative moral judgement (from those of us who are fine with it).

    As the opposite point, hoarding when others are in need, while legal, is immoral (in my opinion). Does that create a slippery slope where people don't create/collect more things for themselves? No, obviously. This is as close to a universal moral principle that I think exists, yet people still hoard. It doesn't create a slippery slope.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

    Does that create a slippery slope where people don't create/collect more things for themselves?

    I think yes. Look at the billionaires. They leech ability of creation things from the poor

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago* (2 children)

    Maybe start with the millions of pounds of food the UK throws out every year? Getting mad about food that was never going to be in your empty stomach is wild to me. Says a lot about your morals.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago

    This. When I lived in housing cooperatives in college 20 years ago we would lie in wait at various places (Trader Joes, Whole Foods, Einstein Bros., Roma Pizza, etc.) and grab ridiculous amounts of good food they would throw away at closing time. We actually got enough perfectly fine food that way that we were able to completely subsizide all of the food costs of the single parents and poor members of our community. I don't think folks can even do this anymore as now places have locked dumpsters or even keep the entire dumpster enclosed in the building itself.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    If something is a profitable (and for-profit) food-selling organization, I'd say they have an excess. Which would almost automatically include any grocery chain. Which doesn't make them all evil, of course, nor does it necessarily imply they have huge profits or great excess.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 28 points 4 months ago (11 children)

    Why would you even risk yourself for a company who doesn't give a shit about you? Observe and report is the absolute maximum you should do even if you are allowed to physically intervene.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 4 months ago* (10 children)

    Observe and report?

    Bruh if you saw food theft. No you didn't.

    None of this is your job.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    But what if it's like all the bacon?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (2 children)

    That's what the back is for. It's where they keep all the good stuff.

    Haven't you ever worked retail?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Really depends, if you see a guy in an expensive suit shoplifting food than honestly that could be annoying enough to report. Or if it is someone who does that regularly or damages the shop while doing so which in this case if you don't report puts your livelihood in risk too. If it is a one off food theft from someone who looks like is in need, sure. But I don't think it is always that black and white.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

    If the man in the expensive suit feels he has to shoplift at the grocery store. I guarantee he isn't doing as well as you think he is.

    But again. Still not your job.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago* (1 child)

    Really depends, some people are assholes some people are in need some people are in need and also are assholes. You can't bin everyone into one group. I am pretty sure reporting theft would be part of one's job, whether justified or not. Make your judgement and decide whether that person seems like really in need and worth risking your job. If so go for it, I am all in for being a decent human being to non assholes. But if someone regulary shoplifts in a store because you don't report I would take it to mean that they don't really care whether if you lose your job or not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 26 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    All the people in this thread saying shoplifters should be confronted. No amount of theft is worth my life, or your's. Shops have cameras. Call the police.

    Then, fix the underlying problems in society. I know that is hard work, but we as a society need to stop abandoning our responsibility to make this world a better place for everyone.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    Fucking seriously. I was the hbic of the arcade at a Dave and Buster's, and because I was built like an NFL tight end, they asked me to enforce the mask mandate att it was happening. I said absolutely not! I ain't getting shot cause of some idiot.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 58 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Rule number one: If you see someone shoplifting food, no you didn’t.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    goes for basically anything small/cheap as well, it's not going to significantly affect the store (and if it does, holy shit does the store have bigger issues) and they might well be stealing it so their kid gets a single birthday present that year.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Never ever do anything to stop shoplifters or robbers.

    1. Because they could be brandishing a deadly weapon
    2. You aren't paid enough to stop them, let alone intervene in any way
    3. If you were paid enough to stop them, you're paid more than enough to let them get away and not feel any pain from it.
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago

    Also:

    1. If you cause them any bodily harm at all, it's disproportionate to the crime they've committed.

    2. You might be wrong, in which case all you've done is attacked someone for no lawful reason.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 4 months ago

    It sounds like she gave a poor rashernale.

  • source
  • [–] 29 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    GOOD

    Fuck that former employee

    You aren't being stolen from, a company is.

    You aren't losing money, the company is

    You don't gain anything by interfering, the company does

    You don't get rewarded, you have rewarded the company (assuming you stop the theft)

    YOU DON'T MAKE ENOUGH MONEY TO CARE ABOUT SHOPLIFTERS

    I don't care how much you make. You don't make enough.

    If you, as someone with a lower quality of life (relative to the rich) than a medieval peasant and who definitely doesn't have the money to take care of potential medical bills thy arise from a potential altercation.

    I cannot fathom caring so much about a company's profits that I intervene in any shoplifting.

    Note: when I worked for a sporting goods retailer, the ONLY thing I ever did was inform a manager when I believe someone was stealing ammo for a gun. Never gave a shit about clothing, food, or even sports equipment, but in my opinion there's very few reasons to steal firearm ammunition, almost none of them involve a needy person who will use them for benefit.

    If you see someone shoplifting, especially from a company, no you fucking didn't

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago (10 children)

    If she made a decision this poor and reckless, I think it’s safe to assume that she has made other terrible decisions in the past and would make more in the future. I’d like to know how her coworkers feel about the situation.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 4 months ago (10 children)
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 child)

    I work retail in the US. It’s not just some meaningless “policy”; it’s drilled into us that we shouldn’t obstruct a suspected shoplifter, confront them, or even politely ask if they have a receipt. People who try to intervene are putting themselves and others at a bigger risk than they realize. What she did was a MAJOR no-no.

    Companies have decided that the loss of profits from shoplifting are negligible compared to the risk of a lawsuit or worker’s comp due to an injury. Plus, for all I know, the shoplifter has a weapon and/or untreated mental disorders. I am neither qualified nor paid to deal with that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    No it's not. What kind of hokey, pie-eyed, olde tyme colonial school child view of capitalism are you desperately holding onto? The customer gets charged the maximum they will pay, regardless of any other circumstance.

    You and I are going to get charged a certain amount regardless. Theft comes from their bottom line. If you don't steal, you're only giving more money to the rich.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (4 children)

    Look up: Meijer, Inc. v. Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.

    In this case, a security guard went ham on some poor fucker, body slammed him and made him a quadriplegic.

    Dude won 12m dollars from meijer.

    He had brought in some batteries to see if meijer carried the same type. When he put the batteries back in his pocket and walked out the door, he got made a quadriplegic because of some dumb fucking security guard.

    OVER SOME FUCKING BATTERIES

    This was a landmark case that completely rewrote the way security guards handle shoplifters at almost every retail store in the country.

    Somehow, shockingly, again, in 2017, the same thing happened at another mile, which I found searching for this case.

    Apparently, Meijer can't learn a fucking lesson.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    I don't know $12 million in exchange for losing the ability to move at all. I think Meijer got off with a wrist slap.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    I think it was landmark case not because of the amount of the judgment, but because of the way retailers reacted to it. Definitely I think the judgment was an absolute bullshit wrist slap and they should have paid well over 50m.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    I think you're arguing extremes here (ie strawman). No one is saying we should be WWE smack shoplifters to the ground. But the other extreme is encouraging shoplifting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 8 points 4 months ago* (2 children)

    The lesson here is never ever bother with shoplifters. If somebody is stealing from the store you work at, let them. No company deserves your loyalty.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Shops make their budgeting decisions with an expectation of a certain amount of loss. Theft, spoilage, and damage are all estimated and included in the calculus. There's no reason to risk your own safety or well-being for a loss they're already expecting anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago

    Sacks for everyone! I feel like the title is trying to be witty. The caffeine hasn't kicked in yet... so I'll quietly hope someone can bag a better title for us.

    Fun aside: as someone already observed - its not worth chasing down someone for retail theft. Theres insurance, shrink is factored into running costs, and you could get hurt or sued... or both. Also, while it sucks to look at it this way... if someone is stealing food... they probably needed it.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Yeah, yeah, she shouldn't have done it. But, it was wrong to fire her over it. I agree with the union rep, a warning would have been enough.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

    How is it wrong to fire her?

    She is a danger. She could literally kill someone over allegedly stealing a packet of bacon.

    A packet of bacon, I will remind you, is going to go in bin when it expires. The store has already accounted for its loss.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago

    An employee who takes their bacon seriously is exactly the type of employee I would want hire.

  • source
  • [–] -2 points 4 months ago

    Another militant Vegan?

  • source
  • [+] -7 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Yeah, I beat a would be robber with a mop handle and the discussion to fire me went all the way up to the regional manager.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • 31 comments in c/unitedkingdom@feddit.uk view that post