• 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!

Is This Discrimination?

Is This Discrimination?


  • Total voters
    24
If they knew who was stealing the products, they would have caught them,
they are simply securing those products which have ether a high value, or a high loss rate.
Like a high end store chaining the fur coats to the racks.
 
I was working a retail job just a few years ago. We didn't lock stuff up, but we'd put anything behind the counter that we noticed was getting stolen more often. It had nothing to do with any assumptions of the race of, or really anything at all about the majority of the theives. Basing something like this on what's going missing is a pretty objective and accurate way of going about it.

Some of the items that we ended up safe-gaurding were pretty strange, like sugar. I don't know why people were stealing sugar.

It would be discriminatory if I were to go around following black guys around the store. Our policy was to stalk people who we've caught on camera, which is kind of stupid . . . if we've caught a theif on camera, then I shouldn't have been wasting valuable stocking time following them around the store.
 
If they knew who was stealing the products, they would have caught them,
they are simply securing those products which have ether a high value, or a high loss rate.
Like a high end store chaining the fur coats to the racks.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't believe the article technically ever provided any proof that these products were getting stolen more than other similar products. I wish the story had actually addressed that definitively. Obviously the store was at least worried that these products would get stolen more but the article could have clearly stated if inventory and sales records backed that up. They were kind of vague about that.
 

Hmm...this is a tough one. I think I need to see some more debate on this before I pick.

Here's where I'm struggling. If the decision to lock up specific products was purely data driven (I'd need to review the process), then it is not, in itself, discrimination. The decision would be made because of the activity of product, not the folks buying it.

However...if the results of that analysis suggesting a solution that made sense from a data perspective, but was clearly problematic from an optics standpoint, was the solution the best thought out solution? If all the hair care products were locked up, or moved to a higher visibility place in the store, would this be an issue? Could shrink within this brand category be reduced without making law abiding customers feel discriminated against? And, if so, what was the reason the store didn't try those approaches? Did they not realize the poor optics, or did they recognize it, but not care to change it?

I think there would likely be folks who kneejerk to one camp or another, but I'm not sure we have enough information to make the call. I'm interested to see what other people say.
 
I can see where the average shopper for such products would feel discriminated against. However, if the actions of the store are based on the actions of other shoppers - that is who the person should be mad at. But that would not create a case for Gloria Allred. Sadly, in our society we tend to see racism even when common sense says it isn't.
 
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't believe the article technically ever provided any proof that these products were getting stolen more than other similar products. I wish the story had actually addressed that definitively. Obviously the store was at least worried that these products would get stolen more but the article could have clearly stated if inventory and sales records backed that up. They were kind of vague about that.

Not necessarily proof, but they suggest at it:

We periodically review items that may require additional security measures. Decisions about product access in our stores are data-driven on a store by store basis

The methodology would be pretty easy - they would do periodic cycle counts to validate inventory levels, compare against what they would expect to see from goods bought minus goods sold, and pick out highest shrink percentage items for additional security. I can't imagine any chain retail store NOT doing this. Any retail location I've worked at (and it's been a while) had this process in place.
 
Hmm...this is a tough one. I think I need to see some more debate on this before I pick.

Here's where I'm struggling. If the decision to lock up specific products was purely data driven (I'd need to review the process), then it is not, in itself, discrimination. The decision would be made because of the activity of product, not the folks buying it.

However...if the results of that analysis suggesting a solution that made sense from a data perspective, but was clearly problematic from an optics standpoint, was the solution the best thought out solution? If all the hair care products were locked up, or moved to a higher visibility place in the store, would this be an issue? Could shrink within this brand category be reduced without making law abiding customers feel discriminated against? And, if so, what was the reason the store didn't try those approaches? Did they not realize the poor optics, or did they recognize it, but not care to change it?

I think there would likely be folks who kneejerk to one camp or another, but I'm not sure we have enough information to make the call. I'm interested to see what other people say.

Good points. Which is why I voted other. The article doesn't really clear up questions I had, mainly was there actually more shrink with these items, or was the lock up policy determined more out of fear than actual facts? However, the article does seem to imply that there was more shrink on these particular products although they didn't actually come out and say that that was the case.
 

Honestly, it fully depends on the motives behind it.

If they just think that since it's most typically bought by blacks that it'll be stolen and they lock it up for that reason, yes.

If, through loss prevention initiatives, they determine that it is a product that is routinely being stolen, and they lock up all items that they find that sort of data on, then no it's not.

If they determine it's an item routinely stolen and lock it up, but don't tend to lock up other items routinely stolen or with a significant potential profit loss with it's rate of being stolen, then it becomes a more grey area where you again have to question the actual motivations.
 
Good points. Which is why I voted other. The article doesn't really clear up questions I had, mainly was there actually more shrink with these items, or was the lock up policy determined more out of fear than actual facts? However, the article does seem to imply that there was more shrink on these particular products although they didn't actually come out and say that that was the case.

Even with shrink statistics, though, a chain retailer, in this day and age, should understand about the optics of only locking up the "black products". That's where I raise an eyebrow. Not suggesting it's necessarily an organizational issue, but someone at the store should have been like "Hmm...maybe there's a better way to do this".
 
The options for a store are limited. One effective way of reducing shrinkage on high theft items is to lock them up. If that's why the store did so, then there is no discrimination. As other posters have noted, lots of items are locked up or placed behind the counter these days. And security packaging in general has become common, though it is a pain to open up most packaging when you get it home. I've seen a toy worth maybe a dollar in a package that must have costs more than the toy is worth.

I had a friend who retired from GM and opened a tool store. It was a one man operation. His loss ratio was so high he closed the store after only two years. The other thing that happened to him was people who would buy all the tools to do a job (including electronic test equipment like multi-meters), and then return it all after they got the job done. After some particularly heavy rains he sold over two dozen pumps, only to have most of them returned a few days later. People pumped out their basements and returned the pumps for a refund.

I worked at Cabela's (Friday nights and Saturday) for a couple of years when the store was first opened here. I simply wanted the great employee discount they offered back then. I once outfitted a dentist for his Alaska hunting trip of a lifetime; everything he would need. As soon as he got back he returned everything to Cabela's, who have a no questions asked return policy.

People (shoppers) can be assholes.
 
Voted other. On the surface it does seem like discrimination but the reality is stores are locking up products for a reason. As the OP article points out, other retailers like Walmart have already been through this and odds are we will end up with court decision that will have ideological reasons mixed with legal reasons for it.
 
Even with shrink statistics, though, a chain retailer, in this day and age, should understand about the optics of only locking up the "black products". That's where I raise an eyebrow. Not suggesting it's necessarily an organizational issue, but someone at the store should have been like "Hmm...maybe there's a better way to do this".

True, but is it discrimination or just stupidity by the business?
 
True, but is it discrimination?

I'm honestly not sure...probably not...maybe racism: "I know this is offensive, but because it's re: blacks, I can't be bothered to care or do anything about it".

Strong disclaimer: I can't claim to know what was behind this, I'm just running scenarios. I'm not even alleging anything.

It's the technical side of this issue I'm interested in...it seems (carefully choosing words) like a gaffe was committed, the struggle right now seems to be how to classify the gaffe, if in fact it was committed.

hehe...trying to keep it between the lines, how am I doing? :lol:
 
I'm honestly not sure...probably not...maybe racism: "I know this is offensive, but because it's re: blacks, I can't be bothered to care or do anything about it".

Strong disclaimer: I can't claim to know what was behind this, I'm just running scenarios. I'm not even alleging anything.

It's the technical side of this issue I'm interested in...it seems (carefully choosing words) like a gaffe was committed, the struggle right now seems to be how to classify the gaffe, if in fact it was committed.

hehe...trying to keep it between the lines, how am I doing? :lol:

Brings up an interesting question, can something be racist but not discrimination?
 
True, but is it discrimination or just stupidity by the business?

I don't consider it discrimination (if backed by evidence) nor even a stupid thing to do. It is a necessary thing to do. The other choice is to put it behind the counter. Then THAT would be called discrimination. It's a no win for the retailer. A St. Louis council woman (I think it was St.Louis) said that putting up safety glass between the customers and the clerks in ghetto convenience stores was racist. Never mind that those stores are often robbed. Of course, she doesn't have to work there at 2 AM. Most of this "outrage" is politically motivated.

My local hobby store keeps all the drone and helicopter parts behind the counter now because of the high loss problem. Lots of things are secured in stores now. Just the way it is; it's not discrimination. If they can't keep the losses down we all pay the cost. Maybe the smart play would be to keep all the black care products out in the open and just charge 50% more than they do now to cover the loss. But then THAT would be called discrimination....
 
My local grocery store keeps Hennesy behind the service counter. Not discrimination. It's a loss prevention measure due to frequent theft.
 
Brings up an interesting question, can something be racist but not discrimination?

I think so...but you better sharpen your knife, cut there will be a lot of hairsplitting involved. Let's take this issue, as a hypothetical:

1) Store locks up only products for black folks: discrimination
2) Store locks up only products for black folks because of statistical shrink analysis: not discrimination <- bank that
3) Store locks up only products within brand category for black folks because of analysis, without locking up rest of brand category, sees the potential for offensiveness, and does nothing because it's only black people: still not discrimination, since products were locked up because of statistical, unbiased analysis, but because it "only" impacted black folks, nothing was done...racist?

Racist, but not discrimination? Not sure... It's complicated. Not easy to accuse, not easy to dismiss. Like most things, a lot of thought and seeking to understand is required. In most cases, the easier thing to do is apologize, implement the better solution, and move on, as what's not all that tough to understand in this day and age is locking up products designed for a single demographic, while not locking up similar products designed for another demographic. That one should be easy...hehe...
 
Assuming they are just going off the loss numbers then I don’t view it as discrimination. It is just math.
 
I find this to be pretty ridiculous. A company wouldn't invest the money in protecting the items if they weren't being stolen. Rather than be upset at the store for protecting it's inventory the outrage should be directed at those stealing the merchandise. If lawsuits for stuff like this start popping up then you will eventually see businesses stop carrying the products at all as the profit gained from selling them won't be worth the headache and bad publicity.
 
I think so...but you better sharpen your knife, cut there will be a lot of hairsplitting involved. Let's take this issue, as a hypothetical:

1) Store locks up only products for black folks: discrimination
2) Store locks up only products for black folks because of statistical shrink analysis: not discrimination <- bank that
3) Store locks up only products within brand category for black folks because of analysis, without locking up rest of brand category, sees the potential for offensiveness, and does nothing because it's only black people: still not discrimination, since products were locked up because of statistical, unbiased analysis, but because it "only" impacted black folks, nothing was done...racist?

Racist, but not discrimination? Not sure... It's complicated. Not easy to accuse, not easy to dismiss. Like most things, a lot of thought and seeking to understand is required. In most cases, the easier thing to do is apologize, implement the better solution, and move on, as what's not all that tough to understand in this day and age is locking up products designed for a single demographic, while not locking up similar products designed for another demographic. That one should be easy...hehe...

Alternately, lock up stuff that is stolen regularly - not discrimination, not racism, just a necessary business action.
 
Interesting. If we judge blacks and whites as if they are the same race, then this is not discrimination. However, if we consider blacks and whites to not adhere to the same social standards, then this is considered discrimination.
 
Were the store to lock up all hair-care products, fine. Locking up only the ones overwhelmingly (if not exclusively) sought by black folks is discrimination in the nature and extent of access to the products offered in the store. It'd be different were white folks, or white, Asian and black folks, both buying hair care products tailor made for black folks' hair type.
  • Hair Types and Race Differences

    Diagram-Showing-Hair-Fibre-Characteristics-by-Race.jpg
Examples of racially generic hair products:
  • Cleansers
    • Some cleansers are made to deal with the vagaries of other products that one may use. For instance, some are made to attenuate the impact of perms and others are made to do the same re: relaxers. Some cleansers are designed to remove more oil while others are designed to remove less oil.
  • Color changers
Examples of racially specific hair care products:
  • Chemical treatments:
    • Curl removers (relaxers) -- Black folks buy these
    • Curl providers (perms) -- Non-black folks buy these
    • What's the difference?


  • Hair "smoothing" (tangle reducers) products (mostly oils of some sort) -- Black folks buy these
  • Products designed to combat the effects of racially specific treatments and preparations.


Even as hair differs roughly by race, hair structure/type has no impact on the behaviors relevant to whether hair care products need to be secured. Behavior is a consequence of mindset. What makes people form a mindset whereby they, in turn, act to steal things? Well, a variety of factors, but one's race isn't among them.

It's probably worth noting that what is and isn't inappropriate discrimination is the issue, and one must know (via sound or cogent reasoning) what be the reason for any given form of discrimination to say whether it's morally reprehensible.
 
Back
Top Bottom