Walmart in Pico Rivera California closed the store for 9 months for "plumbing problems" after the workers started to organize a union a few years back.
Rite aid always claiming theft in all their stores for loss but also part of the reason they claim for their bankruptcy.
Walmart shuts down immediately if a store tried to unionize.
If we ever got every store to try to unionize simultaneously Walmart would just shut themselves down and cash out. Hint hint if you wanna destroy a large Corpo.
the unfortunate reality is that many stores cannot even afford to unionize. the existence of Walmart had already destroy the local markets and no strings attached terms offered from the local government would crater the economy if Walmart just take the ball and go home.
Walmart preys on these towns and offers them deals they cannot refuse, because they can always open one up next town instead.
ever wondered why the techy bay area has only 1 Walmart while there are at least 5 across the bay? it's because the bay area is rich enough to not agree to Walmarts bullshit terms.
when the end result of unionization is plunging the entire town into economic hardship I wouldn't do it either.
The Great Unionization at Unison of the United States.
So you're saying that I should go to corporations with flyers and give them to employees so they'll unionize? I'm just asking questions!
Our city's most profitable Rotten Ronny's closed down with the public excuse that it's not profitable.
This location was in the heart of downtown, directly across the street from a University with a daily population of about 30,000
The location was so busy they had two kitchens - one upstairs and one in the basement where they fed orders up on a conveyor system.
If you made the mistake of going there from 11am-1pm you were going to wait a minimum of 10 minutes just to get into the door (pre app days), another 10 in line, and 10 more for your order.
The real problem was that they were unionizing. Uh oh!! A new Rotten Ron's was opened next door 18 months later. Weird how they'd open again in such an unprofitable location!!!
Is rotten ronnys a real name for a chain? Or is this a British/Aussie nickname?
think it's slang for mcdonalds
I love commonwealth slang lmao
You're probably right, however, you can also be not profitable because of shitty business decisions, ineffective management, embezzlement, and inventory waste. It could have been the two kitchens and various levies and taxes in that location. If they had lines, it also means they had a finite cap of serving customers per hour, and if cost or any other of the things I mentioned could still outweigh what they made per night.
The unionization could have been a scapegoat, when they secretly declared bankruptcy, sold the assets and name to another owner, and reformed in a second location. That happens in nightclubs a lot in popular districts.
What is with the zeal to step up and find some scenario you think might apply here? Is this some kind of tacit effort to excuse what they did?
You can read right in my comment that a union was forming and magically the most profitable location in our city closed under the public guise of not being profitable. And then opening up as soon as the wind blew over, right next door to the original?
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not trolling and you're just trying to have a lively discussion, but it couldn't be more inappropriate for the situation.
There's nothing wrong with looking at a situation with nuance and exploring different potential causes... I agree, your take is likely the correct one, but why shut down discussion entirely?
Class war. Your attempts at discussion are exactly what the other side relies on. Show some solidarity and acknowledge the fact that organized labor is a threat to profits because profits are stolen labor.
Frankly it's just sea lioning. There's no good faith discussion happening here just excuses to try to explain away heinous behavior by a corporation to undermine workers rights.
As an outsider I fail to understand why the reason to close shops is so critical. Can’t they just say « fuck it we’re done here » at any point in time? What’s the point on pinning the closure on fictional crime level?
They are generating political action on an issue that is undeserving of resources. It is also about covering bad choices so investors don't lose faith.
covering bad choices so investors doing lose faith
That's a bingo.
The consequence I can see it happening and being concerning. The investors thingy I don’t think it’s sound ; as an investor I would be all in for closing underperforming stores. No need to cover it for them they surely don’t give a shit beyond « money would be better invested elsewhere ».
I would agree on this point, generally businesses lie to the public for political reasons, to gin up political favor for their desired outcomes.
Most rich CEOs are out of touch and think crime just comes from "undesirables" and the only way to fix it is to massively increase police presence. In other words, they're authoritarians. This has more to do with creating a narrative about crime and intent to get political support for further instituting a police state and taking the required effort for security off the businesses. It's really about passing the bill for keeping their stores "secure" onto the taxpayer, so they can rely more on local police and on private security less.
The article in question even covers how there are already attempts to write bills targeting this problem at the Federal level. (A bipartisan bill, I might add.)
They are usually pretty honest with their investors. I would expect their investor presentations are a lot more honest, but because that's "economics news" it usually gets fewer headlines or people reporting on it. It would be interesting to contrast Target's investor calls compared to what they're saying publicly. Same with other businesses like Walgreens leaning on the same story.
They would have to spend time analyzing why they failed to make sure investors knew they wouldn't do this again. Cheaper and easier to blame the poors.
Given the amount of analytics and reporting ongoing in retail I have no doubt they have all the info at hand. And they could still directly blame the poor for the poor sales performances and call to invest in better locations. More money from investors and trust is maintained.
I don't know if you've ever been in one of these stores but they were terrible. Like if the merchandising was a complete train wreck, it would require multiple people at multiple levels to admit they fucked up. Plenty of retailers in the immediate area are doing just fine, they can't even blame the location. They just aren't setup to provide what people need if it isn't a big box store.
The Ballard Target is such a pile of shit. I never went to the u-district one and haven't visited the City Target downtown in years.
Why the fuck go to any of them with Fred Myer just a few blocks away?
Because the immediate thought from the plebs is "the blacks shut down my favorite store by robbing it all the time" and they go vote GOP harder so that Target gets lower corporate/wealth taxes etc.
I know this because I live in a red state and anytime the locals hear about a store closing "due to theft" a sea of slurs gets echoed at full force.
In order to keep investors basically so that they don't look like they are failing. Just shift the blame
It’s kinda like waking up late for work because you didn’t set your alarm, then telling your boss and everyone who will listen that the reason you’re late is because there was a shooting on your street.
I dont trust this article.
The author of this article is also a co-author of the other popular info article that keeps being cited.
The popular info article cites this website as the proof for the crime in the area. The headline on this says that it doesn't guarantee accuracy and that it requires a police to be involved. I would hazard that most of the theft dont involve police and probably unreported.
If you have ever lived in the area, you would know that nobody reports small crimes. Its hard to even find an article on this.
Known as the Combating Organized Retail Crime Act, the bill seeks to create an “Organized Retail Crime Coordination Center” under the Department of Homeland Security. The authors of the bill claim that “organized retail crime…has been a growing concern to retailers, industry, and law enforcement.” The center, the bill says, will oversee “federal law enforcement efforts related to organized retail crime” and align these activities with state and local investigations. Its director would be appointed by the head of ICE.
This sounds eerily similar to the creation of TSA and the federalization of air security.
It also sounds like the creation of the DEA. Special crime-specific law enforcement subdivisions di not actually reduce crime but get people killed and fill up impacted prisons.
No one should ever take Target public relations at their word. DHS either.
It’s overstepping far more than the TSA, since at least air travel IS a matter of national security. Retail theft absolutely is not.
I have a close friend who used to work loss-prevention for Target. They ABSOLUTLEY closed stores due to excess theft. Anti-union may be icing on the cake for them, but I am certain they legitimately have a problem with organized retail crime.
But think how much money was saved by implementing self checkout! Some executives got a cushy bonus.
And now some different executives are going to get a cushy bonus by proposing that employee checkout could save money.
These executive decisions only ever save money!
Police records apparently don’t match up in Portland. https://www.kfyrtv.com/2023/10/20/target-says-3-stores-closing-portland-oregon-due-crime-police-records-dont-match-up/
You only report a crime when it's happening. If someone successfully takes a lipstick without getting caught then it would take until the next inventory for them to catch that it's missing. The inventory discrepancies are sent in to insurance. Cops wouldn't be involved because no one is going to sit through dozens of camera feeds woth hundreds of not thousands of hours of footage between inventories to figure out who stole it.
If I were an investor I think I'd prefer the truth of "these stores aren't profitable so we're bailing" instead of "we didn't like these stores so we made up some bullshit."
I’ve read a few articles on this over the last few days. I feel like this one (and it’s well cited references) finally gets me to the point of being confident that Target is full of shit.
The articles I read before this tended to be vague and focusing on data that is at least a year old if not from 2020 which, while helpful context, doesn’t do much to counter the claim of rapidly growing theft. Additionally, they often focused on national trends instead of store or store-area specific analysis. A particular store or area can have a big problem even if regional or national numbers don’t show the same issue.
This didn’t mean that I thought target was telling the truth—just that there was still room for doubt about the article’s conclusions.
I really like the crime data analysis linked in the article, which is looking at very recent crime data for a couple of the specific stores cited by Target. That analysis is very strong evidence that Target was full of shit… along with Targets continued failure to actually produce any of their own data supporting their claim.
I have a friend that is a DM of a rapidly expanding gas station/restaurant chain here in southeast. They just opened self-checkout lanes in their stores. I asked about theft/shrink and he said it's a tiny part of their bottom line at this point in a GAS STATION, and with the traffic they are getting, the convenience/cost of labor makes up for it in spades. Target, Walmart and the like are full of shit.
Well, yeah. It's same the lie that publishers use to justify the use of unethical, anti-consumer, customer-punishing DRM.
Make some bad business decisions? Make a bad game? Sales not meeting projections? Need a scapegoat so the investors don't rebel? You just need to blame something other than your own incompetence. It's the same thing conservatives do.
The article is pure speculation.
Target may be blaming increases in theft to "mask other issues."
It might also be assigning a pet parrot to every store. Doesn't mean that it's true.
I am not denying that the author could possibly be proven correct at a later date, but that date is not now because they didn't cite any evidence in their article. As it stands, this is an opinion piece. If you read it as fact (i.e. "it's all lies"), then you're consuming it as propaganda.
Did you read the article?
On October 5, Popular Information analyzed publicly available crime data for the stores Target is closing in New York and San Francisco. This data revealed that stores that are being closed had lower levels of theft than nearby stores that have remained open. A report by the Seattle Times of the stores Target is shuttering in the Seattle area follows a similar pattern.
Did you read the article?
Of course.
The data they are talking about is interesting and related, and while it does have correlation, it's missing causation. There could be unreported theft, they might be closing stores with lower theft to move traffic to other stores (with higher theft) for other reasons, etc.
I'm not taking Target's side, but I still wouldn't say this is immediately conclusive.
Really getting sick of seeing people circle jerk over headlines from opinion pieces. Wasn't this supposed to be better than reddit?
I'm shocked, shocked I say!
Of course it was
Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.
Rules (Subject to Change)
--Be a Decent Human Being
--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title
--Posts must have something to do with the topic
--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
--No NSFW content
--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world