Retail chains like TJX, the parent company of TJ Maxx and Marshalls, are equipping some store employees with body cameras to deter shoplifting and improve safety. This is part of a growing trend in the retail industry, as stores respond to an increase in organized retail theft and violence against workers. However, some criminologists and worker advocates argue that body cameras are unlikely to be an effective deterrent and that retailers should focus on improving training, staffing, and other safety measures instead. There are also concerns that the body camera footage could be misused, such as to monitor and discourage union organizing. Overall, the implementation of body cameras in retail is a complex issue with pros and cons that retailers will need to carefully consider.
Say no employees. Disrupt shit
Don’t forget to turn on your body cam before clocking in!
They legally can’t require you to do that. They can only require it to be on your person, as part of uniform, prior to clocking in. Operating the camera is considered a compensated task.
Yet some supervisor or manager will argue that you “have to turn it before you clock in to make sure that it records everything.” Wage theft is nothing new.
They can say that. I’m just saying the employees can win a class action suit if they do.
If they want to protect the company against wage theft, they can install a camera near the time clock.
That camera wouldn’t help because wage theft isn’t a crime that employees can do. By definition only an employer can commit wage theft because wage theft is stealing from employees.
Using the time clock incorrectly isn’t wage theft.
Not paying holiday pay or paying below minimum wage is wage theft.
Yeah, I feel like this is more about keeping tabs on the employees instead.
And who is going to pay who for watching all that video?
You just have AI transcribe everything that’s said, and you just have some software highlight anything that includes keywords associated with unions, and send a report to HR periodically.
You could spend a lot of money on body cameras, or you could reduce your prices to being affordable again. I’d say either one has a decent chance of dissuading shoplifters.
But I suppose you can only write off the former.
honestly, body cameras are more about liability after the fact. There’s really only two reasons to strap a camera on somebody- liability defense (cops, armed security guards, etc,) and being able to monitor what the fuck they’re doing. both are important when the individuals in question are armed. Not so much when the expected response is constructive cowardice.
There’s absolutely no way a body camera would act as a deterrent when traditional and AI-enhanced security cameras that they’re absolutely already using won’t. Also, I’m not entirely sure I believe that there’s massive waves of organized shoplifters.
There is- as noted in the article- a massive wave of unionization, though. and that would probably hurt their profits far more than any wave of shoplifting ever will.
I haven’t been to TJ Max in forever. Aren’t they a low cost clothing store?
Nothing is low cost anymore.
reduce your prices to being affordable again
Uh, they don’t get much cheaper in the new clothing market. If you want even cheaper than the cheapest, learn to thrift and repair.
I’m pretty sure you can write off shoplifted items as lost assets, so maybe just let them get shoplifted?
It’s probably more due to the lack of staff than price of goods, something else they could’ve addressed with that camera money.
The primary responsibilities of one job at a Marshalls in Miami Beach, Florida, are to maintain a “proper and professional stance” at the front of the store, act as a “visual deterrent to prevent potential loss/dishonesty” and wear a company-issued body camera. The description says that the camera is to record “specific events involving critical incidents for legal, safety, and training purposes.”
These employees, who wear a company-approved black vest, black pants and black shoes, are instructed not to stop or chase after shoplifting suspects.
It’s the same reason I made sure the security cameras on my house are visible from the street. People with bad intentions just move on to easier targets.
They may have seen the studies down on police forces who adopted cameras. They saw a drop in complaints against officers, as well as fewer escalations by the public against officers. Likewise, they’re hoping this translates to retail.
One massive MASSIVE problem with that logic. TJ Maxx/Marshalls employees don’t have a pre-existing stigma as being known for beating and killing black people and getting away with it. These employees aren’t known to single people out, harass them, stalk them, and make life hell for them.
So if the cops behavior changed because they’ll be held accountable, it’s not quite the same thing as store employees already surrounded by cameras, and always have been held accountable for their actions. If they wanted to use this for shoplifting purposes they’d hire more back of house people to actively monitor cameras, and more human security guards to react live as it happens to theft.
As it stands, all they’re doing is getting yet another video angle of what they already have footage of. This time with a fisheye lense.
They do follow certain people around who may or not be of certain demographic representation.
Stores are already full of security cameras. Shoplifters are generally aware of this. I’m not sure what this adds to that. I suppose it keeps someone employed.
It’s not for stopping theft, it’s for intimidating workers
It’s the same reason I made sure the security cameras on my house are visible from the street. People with bad intentions just move on to easier targets.
no they don’t.
they wear a hoodie. or a ball cap. or they have a package to block their face. or any of a hundred other ways of making a camera useless on the cheap.
Your highly visible cameras only tell them you can afford some good shit. I’m not saying you shouldn’t have cameras- and they’ll usually be visible if you know what to look for… it’s kind of necessary for them to function… But cameras are not a deterrence, and neither are they an active element in your security. They are passive, and really only useful when dealing with insurance or explaining what actually happened in the first place.
100% it’s really for anti-union bullshit because who the fuck is stealing in full view of an employee where the employees having body cams would make a lick of difference?
Or is it meant to deter the employees from stealing? 🤔
Most likely it is there to blame the employee for not being busy enough or not doing everything perfectly with a customer.
They have a big issue with internal shrink.
In other words, they have a systemic issue is where the threat of prosecution isn’t enough to deter employees from supplementing income with theft.
I wonder what kind of conditions led to that.
Guess they need to be lobbying for a better social safety net and perhaps higher minimum wage laws
I’d imagine the biggest difference is that these employees could actually get fired if they turn theirs off.
I noticed in my local supermarket in the UK they started wearing cameras too it’s really weird. I’m really not sure what their goal is - it will never help shoplifting as much as static cameras, and seems a lot of effort to safeguard against abusive customers.
Can’t have people who can’t afford to eat actually eat? This is sad, and it doesn’t bode well, for global society.
I just want to say that I appreciate how your comment has made me understand that writing run-on sentences without punctuation isn’t a strictly American English language thing.
This sounds mean-spirited of me, but I actually mean it. Everybody always makes fun of the Americans for it. And I’m not saying I’m perfect, either. Poor grammar can bring us all together.
I’d hate that as an employee. Imagine knowing that every time you talk to a coworker, it’s recorded. Every time you sit for a few minutes to reset, it’s recorded. Every time you check your phone, it’s on camera.
Most retail stores and restaurants already have cameras everywhere. I had a boss who would sit at home watching the feed and then call the store to yell at us when he thought we were burning sandwiches.
this is the real reason why they’re doing it.
Don’t want them to unionize!
Seriously.
Like if you think mass-shoplifting hurts them- that shit’s already baked into the price of goods being sold before it ever happened.
Unionizing will hurt their profits far, far more than shoplifters ever will.
(Fuck poverty and those who promote and embrace it)
shoplifting [is] already baked into the price of goods being sold
Tomorrow’s recipe adjusted based on yesterday’s shrink? 👨🍳
Question assumes a greedy entity will refuse to allow reduction of its profit margin.
Tomorrow’s recipe adjusted based on yesterday’s shrink? 👨🍳
Nope. They have fancy overpriced mathnerds (“actuaries”) that build models to predict future shrinkage and price that into today’s prices.
The shrinkage is paid for before it ever goes out the door. Probably, before it ever came in the door in the first place.
These mathnerds that work for these corporations are some of the best in the business of risk modeling. Second only to insurance companies.
Them actuaries 🤓
Just called all my friends and we decided to start a TJX shoplifter training school franchise. If we’re successful this year, do we stand a chance at adding a penny to prices next year?
My magic 8 ball says “most likely they get arrested before that happens”.
already baked into the price of goods
I’m probably substituting the specific example here, but once somebody grabbed a huge stack of napkins they weren’t even going to be able to eventually use. When confronted about waste, they replied:
They’re already made!
It’s wild I can still remember this anecdote. I mean, after 20 years?! You can imagine how much it bothered me. No, not a few napkins. The logic, or lack thereof.
(It’s self evident the napkins were previously manufactured - they currently exist in front of our eyes!)
Taking one extra napkin means napkins will be re-ordered one napkin sooner. Much easier to defend: “sorry, it’s just one napkin.“
We need to unionize so bad, yes, but the particular argument being made re: shrink struck me as totally illogical. Surprising because it sounds like you really know your stuff! So maybe I’m missing something. Thanks for diving into the smallest thing with me here.
I’ve worked in contract security for too long.
Not with retailers. We charge too much for them, and they really wouldn’t like my recommendations.
And take it from a manager- Unions are vital. Corporations would ratfuck their own mother if it would increase their profits by a buck.
But their attitude is a bit more like “shrinkage is unavoidable.” So they plan to mitigate its effects before it ever happens. Unfortunately the easiest and most cost effective way to do it is to bake it in and pass that cost onto customers.
…everytime you go
to the bathroomto jack-it.
Hey! Who want’s to shop at a retailer where someone follows you around with a camera and the merchandise is overpriced? Raise your hand now! [crickets] Consumers will shop elsewhere. Making your business like the DPRK is not a winning strategy.
Worked for London.
The camera can only see in front. A person can see in a broad fov…
They think price gouging is going to increase theft and they wanna be ready. They’d rather waste money on this (and on advocating the govt for harsher penalties) than lower them.
Friendly reminder: if you see someone stealing from target? No you didn’t. That goes for target employees too. Here’s hoping your bodycams up with as much “lost” footage as the cop’s.
This is part of a growing trend in the retail industry, as stores respond to an increase in organized retail theft(1) and violence against workers(2)."
The first has been proven to be a lie. The second is true, especially since the pandemic began.
It’s a sad state of affairs when retail workers need to wear cameras to protect themselves, but that is the only value. Not an alleged increase in organized theft. That is just the line being brought out by big companies like Target to excuse bad behavior on their part.
Can’t wait until I can buy all my clothing online and be done with this
We need a campaign to standardize clothing sizes. I can go buy men’s size 32x32 pants in three different stores, or women’s size 7 pants in three different stores, and they will all be different sizes.
Even bras, which are supposed to be standardized, have the same exact problem.
Didn’t NATO do that? Think I read that somewhere
Forget cameras, how about actually arresting criminals and putting them away instead of this catch and release shit that is going on everywhere.
Lovely.
The company I work for has some of the general managers of stores carrying tasers.
Sounds like they would be in for an assault/battery charge if they ever used them.
CCTV already exists. What is this even
Security theatre.
