• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ethics: Is this stealing?

Ethics: Is this stealing?


  • Total voters
    55
Probably, but given how big box retail chains screw their employees and offer no benefits, I'd side with her everyday of the week.
 
Probably, but given how big box retail chains screw their employees and offer no benefits, I'd side with her everyday of the week.

Ethics are such a fluid concept when someone chooses to rationalize. Disgusting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Grounds to be fired, just not prosecuted.
Seems the company thought so but neither you nor i can say that without knowing the state labor laws, company policies, rules of promotion, etc.... all those factors come into play

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Do the rules of the promotion state that only the specific person who made the purchase is eligible

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
In all probability they do. Companies do this quite often and they want to prevent any fraud.
 
Probably, but given how big box retail chains screw their employees and offer no benefits, I'd side with her everyday of the week.
So if I think you’re a bad person, it’s OK for me to rob you?
 
Sure its possible she viilated a company policy but what she did was not stealing and i doubt it was fraud either

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Normally I find you a very intelligent and informed person but this situation is your achilles heel. I was in retail management for decades and dealt with many unemployment and other legal cases so I am very up to speed on this subject. In addition, your opinion is in the extremely small minority in this poll.
 
What difference does that make?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Makes a big difference, particularly if the employer has a policy that you can't purchase things while on the clock. Most large employers have that policy. Therefore, if you are on the clock, you can't possibly be a customer (at that particular point in time), which is what the law would look at. If the said transaction on the receipt said 12:57 and the employee was on the clock during that time, then they would be in violation of the policy which states that you can't be purchasing things while working. More than likely, this person violated more than one thing in their employee handbook.
 
Makes a big difference, particularly if the employer has a policy that you can't purchase things while on the clock. Most large employers have that policy. Therefore, if you are on the clock, you can't possibly be a customer (at that particular point in time), which is what the law would look at. If the said transaction on the receipt said 12:57 and the employee was on the clock during that time, then they would be in violation of the policy which states that you can't be purchasing things while working. More than likely, this person violated more than one thing in their employee handbook.

In this case, either the employer does not have such a policy, or they don't enforce it. People don't purchase things often, but it does happen with no repercussions.
 
In this case, either the employer does not have such a policy, or they don't enforce it. People don't purchase things often, but it does happen with no repercussions.

Being a big box retailer, more than likely, there is a policy that you can't buy things while on duty. Most also have a policy that every customer must get a receipt. Of course, there can be many policies that aren't strictly enforced. I was in retail management for decades and involved in several unemployment and other legal cases and know it inside and out. Upper management considered me to be an expert on these types of things. If it is a policy in the handbook she will probably lose an unemployment case. An argument that Johnny bought things while on duty won't cut the mustard, especially if Johnny wasn't doing the same thing that your wife's friend did. My best advice is that this person learn their lesson and move on. Refusing to acknowledge to herself that she did wrong will not get her back into the working world again for long if she intends on pulling similar crap. I have interviewed umpteen millions of people over the years and I can't tell you how many would stupidly go into an interview and explain what happened, defending themselves that they did not do anything wrong and then it is, "Don't call us. We'll call you".
 
Last edited:
Makes a big difference, particularly if the employer has a policy that you can't purchase things while on the clock. Most large employers have that policy. Therefore, if you are on the clock, you can't possibly be a customer (at that particular point in time), which is what the law would look at. If the said transaction on the receipt said 12:57 and the employee was on the clock during that time, then they would be in violation of the policy which states that you can't be purchasing things while working. More than likely, this person violated more than one thing in their employee handbook.
She isnt being accused of purchasing anything while on the clock nor is that what she did. She kept receits that customers declined taking and used them to get free gift cards. The ethical question was asked if that was stealing. Its not stealing anymore than collecting beer cans from the thrash to recycle for money.

Whether or not she violated an employee policy is an entirely different question.

The only way i can see this being considered theft is if the promotion soecifically says you can only use your own receits to redeem a gift card.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Of course it's stealing. The woman in the story pocketed that which didn't belong to her.
 
She isnt being accused of purchasing anything while on the clock nor is that what she did. She kept receits that customers declined taking and used them to get free gift cards. The ethical question was asked if that was stealing. Its not stealing anymore than collecting beer cans from the thrash to recycle for money.

Whether or not she violated an employee policy is an entirely different question.

The only way i can see this being considered theft is if the promotion soecifically says you can only use your own receits to redeem a gift card.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

If they are using customers' receipts as their proof of purchase to get a gift card, then you are claiming that the customer's receipt is actually your receipt. In other words, you are claiming that it was really you who purchased the items at that time (while you were working) and not the customer. In any event, just about every one of these retailers has a policy that every customer MUST(not should) be given a receipt. This is done for a number of reasons. At the very least, this person violated the company's policy by not giving every customer a receipt. It is the cashier's obligation to give the customer their receipt. They are not allowed to ask the customer if they want their receipt or not. You can be terminated for violating the company's policy of not giving customers their receipt. Bottom line, you're fired. Doesn't really matter whether it for stealing or having a scuff mark on the bottom of your shoe, or for violating the company's policy of giving all customers the receipt.
 
I think if she disclosed the rebate program to the customers and then asked for their receipt with their permission to use it for herself if they didn't want to use it and they gave it to her out of their free will, it wouldn't be an issue to me.

The problem is you can't stand over the cashier and make sure she discloses that to everyone so I would be with the company in not allowing it.

Most companies have provisions in their promotions that employees are excluded from the promotion.

I would bet this is the same.
 
I think I would have reprimanded her first, and then fired her if she continued. She might not have felt it was stealing at all. So I would have made sure she understood company policy.

However, stealing is a strong term; how about these examples. Is this stealing?

You bid on a construction job.
You bought 25 lbs of nails, but only used 20 lbs.
15 gallons of paint but only used 13 gallons.
24 2X4's but only used 22.
Who do these left over materials belong to? Typically, the contractor will use these materials on another job, but they won't reduce the estimate for that future job. So part of the materials for the next job are essentially free to the contractor. But he won't reduce the estimate for the next job because of it. Is this stealing?

You run a body shop.
You repair a car, and use a small amount of finish putty squeezed from a tube, but charge for the whole tube. On the next repair, you also use a small amount but charge for the whole tube again. Repeat this until the tube is empty. Is this stealing?

Both of these examples are common practice.

If you charge for "tire disposal" even though the customer is keeping the old tires because they are still good stealing?

This list could go on and on.

A bad employee can never be made a good employee.

Just because this is the first time this employee has been caught, doesn't mean that it is the first time they have stolen from the company.

The company can't take chances with an employee that sees theft and fraud as normal business.
 
It might not rise to the level of stealing or fraud, but it's unethical at any rate.

Knowing that the receipts had some value, she should have sought permission from the employer to keep them if customers didn't want them. And, she should have notified the customer of both the value and her intent to cash them in. Without both permission from the employer and the customer -- it was the wrong thing to do.
 
Ethics: Is this stealing?

Scenario: My wife works for a large big box retailer. A long-time cashier, 10+/- years, at her store got fired earlier this week for stealing.

The chain has a rebate program where you can get a certain percentage of your purchase back to you in the form of a store gift card, good only at that chain. When a customer would check out she would ask if they wanted their receipt. If they said yes she'd give them their receipt. If they said no, she'd pocket the receipt and cash in the rebate and get the gift cards for herself. Then spend them in her store, which seems incredibly dumb, but I digress. Anyway, is that stealing? (In YOUR opinion, absent opinions or conclusions from others.)

The company feels it's stealing, as is their right. She does not feel it is because the customer was offered their receipt and chose of their own free will to decline. She sees it as no different than finding a dollar bill on the sidewalk.

What say you? Who's right?

1) Yes, this is stealing.
2) This is kind of a gray area.
3) No, this is not stealing.
4) Undecided/Other.

Side note: I believe she was just fired, and no charges were pressed. I don't know if this would be technically illegal, but the legal aspect is not part of the question anyway. Ethics is the question.

ETA: No, it was not my wife that was fired.

Yeah, I see it as a form of theft: she didn't spend anything to get the credits... I agree that it is a kind of BS thing, but 10+ years would make her an expensive employee, so companies are always looking for ways out.
 
Any time one takes something that does not belong to them, it is stealing.
 
There's a lot of good answers and perspectives in here. I like the perspective of fraud instead of stealing, that adds some better depth, IMO, though I think stealing still applies, too. She's getting merchandise subsidized by the chain that she didn't earn as the rebate program intended. Phrased differently, she is getting something of value that was not intended for her.

Thank you, all for your contributions.

Update: Since that cashier was fired two more have been fired for the same reason. One for only doing it once with one receipt (the other I don't know any details), and they claim it was a mistake. Don't know if that's true or not, but that's what they told my wife and others. It's plausible I suppose, but I question why they would have a customer's receipt mixed with their own to begin with. That makes no sense to me.

Just to reiterate: No, my wife is not among any of those terminated.
 
Back
Top Bottom