FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Politics

Waitrose worker sacked for trying to stop a shoplifter

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
4 weeks ago

A Waitrose worker has been sacked for trying to stop a shoplifter

https://share.google/J1mBBb2aKlQjFjW0f

I guess it’s open season on Waitrose now.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
4 weeks ago

If the details are true its a horror story. I can't afford to shop at Waitrose but if I could I wouldn't!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *usie pTV/TS
4 weeks ago

taunton

Frigging disgraceful no sodding wonder the country is lawless, those two managers who sacked him should lose thier jobs and he should be promoted given a pay rise and put in charge of security at the very least.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oubleswing2019Man
4 weeks ago

Colchester

Perhaps stores, faced with an increase in theft, should refuse to serve law enforcement, nationally if need be. That would spark a national conversation.

.

If the people you pay taxes to are not protecting you and your business, that's a failing on their part and it makes them superfluous.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iquanteMan
4 weeks ago

Birmingham

Usual institutional cowardice.

Presumably the health and safety department has a policy in conjunction with HR probably guided by what their insurers advise. If they tell staff to tackle shoplifters and one of them gets hurt then the staff sue Waitrose. So safer to tell staff not to do anything.

Looks like he has been told not to do it before but carried on doing what he felt like. I imagine there is something else in the individual case that the coverage isn’t aware of.

Another sign of “Broken Britain” I’m sure but in the context I’m not sure Waitrose can accept staff just ignoring what they’ve been told to do in such a situation.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ools and the brainCouple
4 weeks ago

couple, us we him her.

But what about the poor shoplifter are they ok, i hope they are receiving the proper support and counselling?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *inky PerkyCouple
4 weeks ago

Narnia

This is absolutely appalling. I imagine that Waitrose have done a cost benefit analysis on stopping shoplifters but the corporate messaging is now - Only Mugs Pay.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
4 weeks ago


"Usual institutional cowardice.

Presumably the health and safety department has a policy in conjunction with HR probably guided by what their insurers advise. If they tell staff to tackle shoplifters and one of them gets hurt then the staff sue Waitrose. So safer to tell staff not to do anything.

Looks like he has been told not to do it before but carried on doing what he felt like. I imagine there is something else in the individual case that the coverage isn’t aware of.

Another sign of “Broken Britain” I’m sure but in the context I’m not sure Waitrose can accept staff just ignoring what they’ve been told to do in such a situation."

I agree with your point about breaking rules and company policy but should he have been sacked? That’s the question.

The publicity alone will damage the company as shoppers question if they will continue to shop there. But also they have opening the floodgates with the whole world knowing that you don’t have to pay for your shopping at Waitrose, just take whatever you want, they won’t do anything.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iquanteMan
4 weeks ago

Birmingham


"Usual institutional cowardice.

Presumably the health and safety department has a policy in conjunction with HR probably guided by what their insurers advise. If they tell staff to tackle shoplifters and one of them gets hurt then the staff sue Waitrose. So safer to tell staff not to do anything.

Looks like he has been told not to do it before but carried on doing what he felt like. I imagine there is something else in the individual case that the coverage isn’t aware of.

Another sign of “Broken Britain” I’m sure but in the context I’m not sure Waitrose can accept staff just ignoring what they’ve been told to do in such a situation.

I agree with your point about breaking rules and company policy but should he have been sacked? That’s the question.

The publicity alone will damage the company as shoppers question if they will continue to shop there. But also they have opening the floodgates with the whole world knowing that you don’t have to pay for your shopping at Waitrose, just take whatever you want, they won’t do anything. "

Is Waitrose unique in this policy?

Most people I suspect just shop at their most convenient supermarket.

A few months back I was in my local Sainsbury’s and a fight broke out between two teenage boys (one seemed to be accusing the other of disrespecting his mother and was threatening to kill him) and this happened right in front of the flabby immigrant security guard who just stood there watching and looking terrified.

Is every supermarket going to spend time and money training all of its low paid part time staff in physical restraint and close combat? I doubt it.

The insurers would just up their premiums in anticipation of all the impending claims from injured staff and aggrieved customers. Far cheaper to just write the pilfered stock off.

It’s difficult to say with this particular staff member. He can say whatever he likes and Waitrose are bound by data protection so we probably aren’t getting the full story.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
4 weeks ago


"Usual institutional cowardice.

Presumably the health and safety department has a policy in conjunction with HR probably guided by what their insurers advise. If they tell staff to tackle shoplifters and one of them gets hurt then the staff sue Waitrose. So safer to tell staff not to do anything.

Looks like he has been told not to do it before but carried on doing what he felt like. I imagine there is something else in the individual case that the coverage isn’t aware of.

Another sign of “Broken Britain” I’m sure but in the context I’m not sure Waitrose can accept staff just ignoring what they’ve been told to do in such a situation.

I agree with your point about breaking rules and company policy but should he have been sacked? That’s the question.

The publicity alone will damage the company as shoppers question if they will continue to shop there. But also they have opening the floodgates with the whole world knowing that you don’t have to pay for your shopping at Waitrose, just take whatever you want, they won’t do anything.

Is Waitrose unique in this policy?

Most people I suspect just shop at their most convenient supermarket.

A few months back I was in my local Sainsbury’s and a fight broke out between two teenage boys (one seemed to be accusing the other of disrespecting his mother and was threatening to kill him) and this happened right in front of the flabby immigrant security guard who just stood there watching and looking terrified.

Is every supermarket going to spend time and money training all of its low paid part time staff in physical restraint and close combat? I doubt it.

The insurers would just up their premiums in anticipation of all the impending claims from injured staff and aggrieved customers. Far cheaper to just write the pilfered stock off.

It’s difficult to say with this particular staff member. He can say whatever he likes and Waitrose are bound by data protection so we probably aren’t getting the full story."

You missed my point. It doesn’t matter if all supermarkets have the same policy. It only matters which ones are advertising this policy all over social media and in national newspapers. Why take a chance when you can be sure?

I live in a rural area so my choices are limited. The two nearest towns (25 min drive) both have the same choices, Sainsburys, Tesco, Aldi and Lidl. I need to travel an extra 10 mins to add Asda and Waitrose into the mix.

I’ll never shop in Tesco ever again after they banned Xmas, but I’m also not the type of person who thinks shoplifting is ok, despite my flippant comment.

Security are nearly always subcontractors so they have to be SIA licensed and are bound by the terms of that licence. Those terms include “observe but don’t touch”.

I doubt the staff member was a security guard, probably a shelf stacker.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ellhungvweMan
4 weeks ago

Cheltenham


"This is absolutely appalling. I imagine that Waitrose have done a cost benefit analysis on stopping shoplifters but the corporate messaging is now - Only Mugs Pay."

Mugs aren’t a thing in Waitrose. It’s all fine bone china.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
Forum Mod
4 weeks ago

Central

What's the complete story, including the store's account? We obviously don't have the employee's previous history, etc, as well as how they engaged the interaction

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oalie66Man
4 weeks ago

Chesterfield

If Waitrose's priority was the safety of it's partners and customers why was the store left without any security on Mondays and Tuesdays?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
4 weeks ago

Gilfach


"It’s difficult to say with this particular staff member. He can say whatever he likes and Waitrose are bound by data protection so we probably aren’t getting the full story."

The full story would include the anger management issues that the employee displayed during the event.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top