« Resume Chocolate Bar | Main | Yoga Signage »

Comments

maskedmustelid

I have trouble believing the claims of police interrogation/coercion though - sounds like you're reading a bit too far between the lines, biased on previous company escapades.

Heavy handed, sure, but it doesn't negate the fact she was stealing in the first place. If anything, it looks like they wanted to make an example of her, and admittedly an easy target that they wouldn't have serious opposition in enforcing.

TiredTA

It wasn't just a few bites or just oreos. From another source "She said she regularly snacked on gum, chips, sandwiches and chocolates, according to the police report." http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/02/walmart-employee-hit-with-felony-for-snacking-on-store-oreos/
NOT OK! I worked in a grocery store, did not get the 10% Walmart discount, paid for everything and never stole anything!

Chronoc

I came across this story a couple days ago and feel no sympathy. I make 7.75/hr and I can afford to get snacks when I want, without any discount. Hell, most of the managers where I work don't make that much money and they can afford all the essentials while still getting snacks. And if she's been stealing let's say $5-10 in snacks every week for the four years she worked at Hellmart, the one where she was caught and the one she worked at previously both of which she confessed to, then she could have stolen hundreds or even thousands of dollars in snacks. I doubt there was any need for an "interrogation," since they have video of her taking Oreos.

Pendragon

Meanwhile, Wal-Mart hemorrhages money by giving it away on returns from things that are either a) past the return date, b) not eligible for returns, c) are returned without an actual receipt and/or d) weren't even purchased from Wal-Mart in the first place.

Not that this is the CSRs' fault; usually, it's management who are stuck in "appease the crusty" mode.

I'm not JUSTIFYING the theft, or even necessarily arguing against Wal-Mart's firing (there are worse reasons to be fired from The Mart), just saying that maybe felony charges might be a little overkill.

Humor_Me

And let's not forget Walmart's policy on letting NAT's walk out the door with anything and not letting employee's stop them. Anybody remember the elderly gentleman greeter who got cold-cocked and hit back and then FIRED for writing down the license number of a NAT? Makes me want to walk in and start stealing shit just so *I* can make ends meet.

Skittles

@Chronoc at 5-10 dollars a week over 4 years it would be between $1040 and $2080. Not an insubstantial amount of money.

I'm torn on this one. On one side whe stole a pretty considerable amount of moneys worth of goods and fully deserves to be punished. On the other hand making this big of a fuss over it smacks of using one particular case to use as a threat to other employees. Were I the one making the decision on how to handle this I would give her the option of paying a lump sum to reimburse for the snacks and being fired only, say $1500. Enough to hurt but not enough to put her in serious debt. Or calling the police and filing charges.

Chronoc

I've also heard that any case of shoplifting is a felony in Indiana, no matter the dollar amount. She will most likely plea to a lesser offense and end up with probation and paying some reimbursement. Or she could fight the charges and end up walking. Even if convicted in such a case it could be overturned in appeals or the sentence could be suspended pending appeal. I live near one of those Walmarts where a greeter got assaulted and the convicted assailant is out right now because her lawyer argued that the sentence was unusually harsh. We also haven't heard from Walmart, they may have offered some sort of deal that she rejected. I wouldn't count on it but possible at this point. As a final thought to the OP complaining about Walmart going after this lady but not letting employees confront NATs or prevent loss, let us remember that the last time Walmart employees made the news for "preventing loss" they'd killed a man unintentionally. Walmart would rather lose even hundreds or thousands of dollars rather than be sued for hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars over injuries suffered by NATs and/or employees trying to prevent said thefts. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/25/walmart-shoplifter-dead-a_n_2189558.html http://www.wilsontimes.com/News/Feature/Story/17820383---Walmart-wins-appeal-in-wrongful-death-suit Walmart and any other store with some sense will take losing some product over defending themselves in these suits any time.

Jay

She had been stealing snacks for over 4 years. It doesn't matter if you steal food, drinks, toys, clothing, jewelry or electronics. Theft is theft! Walmart had done no wrong here.

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/02/19/wal-mart-worker-admits-swiping-junk-food-for-four-years/

The comments to this entry are closed.