Wal-Mart: Get serious about security or give it up

Hutchinson News ^ | 2/22/11 | Dan Deming

[kathsua]

It is far past time for Wal-Mart to either get serious about store security or abandon the effort and pass the savings along to customers. I was hoping to avoid writing about my experiences at the Hutchinson Walmart as a security officer, something I enjoyed for 18 months before resigning to run for public office. My hesitation comes from not wanting to reveal security information that would be harmful to store operations or lead to even greater thievery. I have a deep respect and friendship with a number of Walmart's local managers and employees. I miss working with many of them and will always treasure relationships developed while working there.

Yet I want to be honest with the public about how ridiculous Wal-Mart security has become, not because of local decisions but from dictates coming down from their Arkansas headquarters and the many security supervisors who have little or no background in security but implement and interpret those policies daily. Guidelines and rules are critical in an organization with thousands of stores and millions of associates but they need to be tempered with logic and common sense.

The latest Wal-Mart hysteria involves several security officers - the company calls them asset protection - fired after they successfully wrestled a gun from a man who tried to get into the store (not in Kansas) and may have been on his way to another shooting spree that could have wounded or killed customers or workers. The gunman was stopped without anyone being injured, but the next day all security employees involved were fired because they violated what is known as AP 9, the security bible for Wal-M art.

Make no mistake about it; there was a violation of company policy by not breaking off contact with the gunman. It is rare when a shoplifter or troublemaker coming to the attention of store security is armed, but it does happen. My experience tells me that in most instances security personnel will back off when confronted with a weapon, which is what they should normally do, but the situation described by those involved in the latest incident indicates that a much more serious situation was likely averted by their actions. Their reward from Wal-Mart: losing their job.

The company has become so concerned about being sued that it has lost all degree of common sense. It makes no exceptions for situations in which security officers legally and properly confront thieves, are pushed or otherwise assaulted or have recovered stolen merchandise. Under Wal-Mart policy, they must back away and allow the shoplifter to freely walk out the door, get into a vehicle and drive away. This is absurd, especially in Kansas, where state law gives merchants considerable latitude in dealing with those caught stealing or otherwise disturbing store business.

Without going into specific procedures and policies, situations that if made public would only enable more shoplifting, I can tell you with complete assurance that Wal-Mart has adopted regulations that enhance and encourage stealing rather than provide for apprehension and deterrence. Since I left last year as a security officer, the situation has only grown worse with considerable more restraint on what can and cannot be done with shoplifters. The situation would be laughable were it not for how current policies handcuff those trying to prevent losses and lead to an increasing amount of merchandise being stolen, triggering losses that are made up eventually by higher than necessary prices. While I am not free to give exact dollar figures, the amount is staggering, with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of items walking out of the Hutchinson store annually. Locally, several excellent security officers who were doing an outstanding job of catching thieves and preventing losses were let go because they dared to touch or make contact with a thief who had pushed them or tried to run from the store. This is no way to run a railroad, yet alone a retail giant that prides itself in offering low prices and a safe customer environment. Not all store managers are comfortable handling security but those who are, such as Hutchinson's Josh Anderson, should be empowered to handle security in their stores without being second-guessed and overruled unless there is a pattern of abusive actions or unjustified stops of suspected shoplifters.

So my unsolicited advice for Wal-Mart or any other mass retailer that doesn't allow its security personnel to be effective is to abandon the largely in-name-only shoplifting security program, save the money and reduce prices accordingly. Stop ruining the lives of a lot of dedicated employees who work hard to stop thieves, become minimally effective because of overly restrictive policies and wind up quitting in frustration or being fired for doing their job.

Then again, if Wal-Mart executives down in Bentonville were to be suddenly struck with logic they would develop new policies that conform to local and state regulations on shoplifting; hire people with some degree of security background; supervise them with veteran security people rather than those who only know retailing and in many instances have zero security or law enforcement background; pay a few dollars more per hour to get folks with common sense and who would fairly and effectively approach suspects; then sit back and watch how many millions of dollars in losses could and would be prevented.

[ViLaLuz]

“Remember, if you see something strange, report it!”

“Define “strange,” from a Wal-Mart vantage...”

The federal tattle-tale phone must be ringing off the hook.

[Mtner77]

Says the liberal “non-union” buster. LMAO.