If CA didn't have other ridiculous criminal justice laws, I wouldn't be opposed to this. The police aren't even required to stop crime so I don't see why Walmart wagies should be.
If the wealthy owners of these retailers don't like it, they can use some of that money to fund politicians that aren't pro-crime, let alone stop scoring own goals by funding the pro-crime ones.
So unless they build a literal wall around California, I predict an even bigger exodus of retailers.
That and all shops left being like a kiosk in a gas station/liquor store where all goods are behind security glass and you have to order what you want from the other side.
Yup and I'll best a million bucks this law will be held over the head of someone who tries to stop a robber. You were under no obligation to help so now the law can hold you fully responsible.
SB 553, introduced by Silicon Valley’s State Sen. Dave Cortese (D-Cupertino), is described as a bill to prevent and monitor “workplace violence.” But it also includes a provision that “every employer shall establish, implement, and maintain, at all times in all of the employer’s facilities, a workplace violence prevention plan for purposes of protecting employees and other personnel from aggressive and violent behavior at the workplace” that “shall include … [p]rovisions prohibiting the employer from maintaining policies that require employees to confront active shooters or suspected shoplifters.”
Blocked and Reported podcast (Katie Herzog and Jesse Singal -- I enjoy it) just did an episode that talked about this issue. Not this California law specifically, but it was an interesting conversation.
Right? Even small mom and pop shops where the owners and employees might be friend/family wouldn't make it a requirement, seems like a pointless legislation to show they're doing something or being the foundation for legislating laws later to punish employees who voluntarily trying to stop the criminals
I tried finding an answer but it's a convoluted and obscure mess whose primary purpose is more bureaucracy.
On the one hand they mention "security personnel" as a way to address violence. On the other hand I didn't see anything that makes them exempt from the requirements. Seems a bit schizophrenic.
shall include … [p]rovisions prohibiting the employer from maintaining policies that require employees to confront active shooters or suspected shoplifters.
I don't see this as a bad thing, and the vast majority of companies have already long since enacted policies in place to this effect. What's the average employee going to do against an active shooter? They're going to get shot. Shoplifters clearly don't care about laws against larceny enough to not do it. What other laws do they not care about? Employees attempt to stop them run the risk of getting assaulted, stabbed, or shot. I don't condone theft, but I also don't condone the expectation that the rank and file should put their well-being on the line to save the bottom line of some retail chain.
Stores like this want you to buy it all online. That way they can have a few dozen warehouse workers replace a thousand wagies to put it on shelves in a store.
It'll get shipped to you, and then they don't even have to bother with returns if they don't want to. Just have a no return policy so they don't even have to do that anymore. It also kills the layaway section, if they haven't killed off that.
It works in their advantage too much to show what they have to do to combat theft, so they can just saw screw it, it's all online now, and still get what they want out of it. Less cost and more profit.
If CA didn't have other ridiculous criminal justice laws, I wouldn't be opposed to this. The police aren't even required to stop crime so I don't see why Walmart wagies should be.
If the wealthy owners of these retailers don't like it, they can use some of that money to fund politicians that aren't pro-crime, let alone stop scoring own goals by funding the pro-crime ones.
The real damage of this legislation is by putting it in writing now criminals know with 100% certainty they won't be stopped.
It will almost certainly increase the amount of shoplifting across the state, it removes one of the main threats of retaliation against the criminals.
Employees were never required to stop the criminals in the first place
No but the possibility existed to criminals.
Now: it doesn't.
That’s a good point but the attitude towards vandals and thugs is annoying but you make an excellent point
I predict people wondering where all the businesses went
So unless they build a literal wall around California, I predict an even bigger exodus of retailers.
That and all shops left being like a kiosk in a gas station/liquor store where all goods are behind security glass and you have to order what you want from the other side.
Yup and I'll best a million bucks this law will be held over the head of someone who tries to stop a robber. You were under no obligation to help so now the law can hold you fully responsible.
Who does this apply to though?
The bill just broadly speaks of "employers" and "employees".
Does that apply to personal security of politicians and lobbyists?
What about police?
Politicians and the rich are exempt in both ways.
Want to steal? Move to CA.
Blocked and Reported podcast (Katie Herzog and Jesse Singal -- I enjoy it) just did an episode that talked about this issue. Not this California law specifically, but it was an interesting conversation.
https://www.blockedandreported.org/p/episode-167-a-robber-a-shoplifter#details
Which stores have a policy that forces employees to intervene? Haven't they all been told for the past 20+ years to do nothing besides call the cops?
Right? Even small mom and pop shops where the owners and employees might be friend/family wouldn't make it a requirement, seems like a pointless legislation to show they're doing something or being the foundation for legislating laws later to punish employees who voluntarily trying to stop the criminals
That's the job of security: confront shoplifters, burglars, trespassers, etc. Well, it was. Now hiring security is pointless.
Also, cops are employees, too.
does this include employees explicitly hired a security? if so this is beyond retarded, but what's new with California legislation.
Here's the proposed bill: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB553
I tried finding an answer but it's a convoluted and obscure mess whose primary purpose is more bureaucracy.
On the one hand they mention "security personnel" as a way to address violence. On the other hand I didn't see anything that makes them exempt from the requirements. Seems a bit schizophrenic.
I don't see this as a bad thing, and the vast majority of companies have already long since enacted policies in place to this effect. What's the average employee going to do against an active shooter? They're going to get shot. Shoplifters clearly don't care about laws against larceny enough to not do it. What other laws do they not care about? Employees attempt to stop them run the risk of getting assaulted, stabbed, or shot. I don't condone theft, but I also don't condone the expectation that the rank and file should put their well-being on the line to save the bottom line of some retail chain.
Stores like this want you to buy it all online. That way they can have a few dozen warehouse workers replace a thousand wagies to put it on shelves in a store.
It'll get shipped to you, and then they don't even have to bother with returns if they don't want to. Just have a no return policy so they don't even have to do that anymore. It also kills the layaway section, if they haven't killed off that.
It works in their advantage too much to show what they have to do to combat theft, so they can just saw screw it, it's all online now, and still get what they want out of it. Less cost and more profit.
???
Let the exodus continue!