All about eyeballs, it always has been.One thing I'll say for Gavin Newsom, he handles himself extremely well in these situations. I'm almost surprised they are giving him the platform.
Wait a minute. Did CNN and Fox News just flip their DNA?
It is not shoplifting! People should get to take what they want.of course they are. :facepalm:
I took the bait and researched California SB553. It would prohibit employers from requiring employees to confront shoplifters. Are you against that? Because this garbage site, zerohedge.com completely and intentionally misrepresents it stating that the bill makes it illegal to confront shoplifters. I recommend avoiding posting crap like this and your posts could get more respect.of course they are. :facepalm:
The “garbage site” literally puts it in their article. :laughpound We’re you against the site doing that? :facepalm:I took the bait and researched California SB553. It would prohibit employers from requiring employees to confront shoplifters. Are you against that? Because this garbage site, zerohedge.com completely and intentionally misrepresents it stating that the bill makes it illegal to confront shoplifters. I recommend avoiding posting crap like this and your posts could get more respect.
I think that sounds like a good bill to me. When I worked at Menards the managers were required to help chase down shop lifters, they all hated it because more than once somebody pulled a knife on them. $10 of drill bits at a s#!tty retail store isn't worth not being able to go home and see your kid at night.I took the bait and researched California SB553. It would prohibit employers from requiring employees to confront shoplifters. Are you against that? Because this garbage site, zerohedge.com completely and intentionally misrepresents it stating that the bill makes it illegal to confront shoplifters. I recommend avoiding posting crap like this and your posts could get more respect.
I got caught stealing twice, by dudes that worked at the store...one stopped me on my bike (a huffy) and one stopped me when I tried to run.I think that sounds like a good bill to me. When I worked at Menards the managers were required to help chase down shop lifters, they all hated it because more than once somebody pulled a knife on them. $10 of drill bits at a s#!tty retail store isn't worth not being able to go home and see your kid at night.
Yeah, every normal person is against this.I took the bait and researched California SB553. It would prohibit employers from requiring employees to confront shoplifters. Are you against that? Because this garbage site, zerohedge.com completely and intentionally misrepresents it stating that the bill makes it illegal to confront shoplifters. I recommend avoiding posting crap like this and your posts could get more respect.
The first paragraph you conveniently left out.The “garbage site” literally puts it in their article. :laughpound We’re you against the site doing that? :facepalm:
SB 553, authored by Democrat Senator David Cortese (San Jose), requires employers to maintain violent incident logs, provide active shooter and shoplifter training, and to discard policies requiring workers to confront suspected active shoplifter
HOWEVER…..if one would keep reading (which you didn’t and seem to be pro-shoplifting) one would see the following….
According to the California Realtors Association (CRA), the bill will apply to all industries - not just retail, if passed. CRA president and CEO Rachel Michelin told Fox2/KTVU that the bill "goes way too far."
"I think it will open the doors even wider for people to come in and steal from our stores," she said.
According to the CRA, most retailers already prohibit regular employees from approaching someone who is shoplifting. These situations are handled by employees specially trained in theft prevention instead.
If employees trained in theft deterrence are not allowed to do their job per the bill, “What does that mean? We are opening up the door to allow people to walk into stores, steal, and walk out,” Michelin added.
You might be anti your own posts then I guess. You think it’s not going to be harder to prevent shoplifting after this bill. And then combine it with the change from $400 to $900 to be considered felony shoplifting. It’s no wonder “petty” shoplifting is out of control. You should be more outraged at the “bulls#!t” shoplifting than people calling out CA for their pro shoplifting crime laws.The first paragraph you conveniently left out.
Shoplifting in California may get a lot easier, after the state Senate passed a controversial bill on May 31 that would make it illegal for store employees to confront thieves.
simply not true. It’s misleading garbage and you know it. And don’t be a d!(k and accuse me of being pro shoplifting. I’m anti bulls#!t. Which means I’m anti-posts like this.
So you think employers should be able to require employees to confront shoplifters. Note that hired security guards are exempt from the bill.You might be anti your own posts then I guess. You think it’s not going to be harder to prevent shoplifting after this bill. And then combine it with the change from $400 to $900 to be considered felony shoplifting. It’s no wonder “petty” shoplifting is out of control. You should be more outraged at the “bulls#!t” shoplifting than people calling out CA for their pro shoplifting crime laws.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB553
Note that hired security guards are exempt from the bill.
Employers should be able to require certain trained employee to confront shoplifters. An 18yr old check out clerk, no.So you think employers should be able to require employees to confront shoplifters. Note that hired security guards are exempt from the bill.
Just to head this off before someone tries to make it a thing, when talking confront shoplifter, we are obviously talking those not brandishing weapons.Employers should be able to require certain trained employee to confront shoplifters. An 18yr old check out clerk, no.
Section 12 doesn’t state that or make any differences on employee type like security guards. Are you seeing this spelled out somewhere else in the bill. If so please copy and paste.
I thought you disagreed with the bill…Employers should be able to require certain trained employee to confront shoplifters. An 18yr old check out clerk, no.
Section 12 doesn’t state that or make any differences on employee type like security guards. Are you seeing this spelled out somewhere else in the bill. If so please copy and paste.
You can disagree with the bill or not, I don't care. I do care about your original post's source was intentionally misleading and false.Employers should be able to require certain trained employee to confront shoplifters. An 18yr old check out clerk, no.
Section 12 doesn’t state that or make any differences on employee type like security guards. Are you seeing this spelled out somewhere else in the bill. If so please copy and paste.
The California bill, if enacted in law, would require employers to provide active-shooter training to workers, keep a log of any violent incidents, and allow companies to apply for workplace violence restraining orders.
SB 553 is not targeted at—and does not affect—trained security guards. In fact, the bill highlights the need for dedicated safety personnel.