Have you ever walked into a Walmart or similar discount box store and found certain counters or displays locked? Of course you have and most of us know that high ticket or high loss items from theft are the ones principally found there. And, of course, controlled products like guns and ammunition and most electronic equipment are found at the top of the list. Usually, however, low ticket items are not included unless the store has a particular problem with high theft.
Enter Gloria Allred, the headline hungry California attorney who has attempted to make herself out as the hero of victims everywhere, yet so often fails miserable. And in her latest attempt, she is leading the charge for Essie Grundy, a black American woman who is suing the huge discount store chain for........wait for it........racial discrimination. Why? Because apparently Ms. Grundy found a number of inexpensive black specialty cosmetics and related grooming products under lock and key in her neighborhood Southern California Walmart even though they had not been locked under glass at a different store. Gee, I wonder why she didn't buy the products at the other store? That, of course, isn't addressed in the story.
A couple of things are worth note. First, Walmart, as a regular cost containment measure, routinely evaluates their products for likelihood of theft. High ticket items are, of course, the usual culprits and are found locked everywhere or displayed where they can't be just picked up and moved. But they also use the automated numbers review to look at all products lines and if they find a serious issue, they take action such as putting them under lock and key. They are clearly marked concerning how to get help in purchasing them and no one with the ability to pay is turned away from making a purchase. They are merely applying good security rules to try and eliminate theft, a major problem in any retail establishment.
Secondly, many of the product displays, stocking and control are left to the selling vendor, meaning that they have the responsibility for eliminating pilferage of their own product lines. You can bet that the company in question will do one of two things. They will either find a solution to the problem or they will pull it from the shelves. And likewise, Walmart will do what it must to remain profitable and within its business plan. They certainly don't want to spend the money for locking, closed display cases unless it makes sense based upon past experience.
Ms. Allred is driven by a different drummer and as one who gets paid for success, the actions she take usually have nothing to do with the law. They are really about public opinion and its impact on the organization she attacks. She is well aware that big businesses will often pay to resolve a nuisance suit to avoid the high costs and time involved in court actions. It's usually just easier and cheaper, but sometimes they need to hold their ground to send a message. This is one of those cases.
Walmart serves an important niche in retail, offering lower cost items based upon their high volume for people who can't afford the supposed upscale stores. Without such an option, costs would skyrocket everywhere. Think about that before you swallow the weak arguments of the likes of Ms. Allred. She has her rights to do whatever she wants within the letter of the law but we, the people also have the right to reject them.
Another h/t to the Daily Caller.
Enter Gloria Allred, the headline hungry California attorney who has attempted to make herself out as the hero of victims everywhere, yet so often fails miserable. And in her latest attempt, she is leading the charge for Essie Grundy, a black American woman who is suing the huge discount store chain for........wait for it........racial discrimination. Why? Because apparently Ms. Grundy found a number of inexpensive black specialty cosmetics and related grooming products under lock and key in her neighborhood Southern California Walmart even though they had not been locked under glass at a different store. Gee, I wonder why she didn't buy the products at the other store? That, of course, isn't addressed in the story.
A couple of things are worth note. First, Walmart, as a regular cost containment measure, routinely evaluates their products for likelihood of theft. High ticket items are, of course, the usual culprits and are found locked everywhere or displayed where they can't be just picked up and moved. But they also use the automated numbers review to look at all products lines and if they find a serious issue, they take action such as putting them under lock and key. They are clearly marked concerning how to get help in purchasing them and no one with the ability to pay is turned away from making a purchase. They are merely applying good security rules to try and eliminate theft, a major problem in any retail establishment.
Secondly, many of the product displays, stocking and control are left to the selling vendor, meaning that they have the responsibility for eliminating pilferage of their own product lines. You can bet that the company in question will do one of two things. They will either find a solution to the problem or they will pull it from the shelves. And likewise, Walmart will do what it must to remain profitable and within its business plan. They certainly don't want to spend the money for locking, closed display cases unless it makes sense based upon past experience.
Ms. Allred is driven by a different drummer and as one who gets paid for success, the actions she take usually have nothing to do with the law. They are really about public opinion and its impact on the organization she attacks. She is well aware that big businesses will often pay to resolve a nuisance suit to avoid the high costs and time involved in court actions. It's usually just easier and cheaper, but sometimes they need to hold their ground to send a message. This is one of those cases.
Walmart serves an important niche in retail, offering lower cost items based upon their high volume for people who can't afford the supposed upscale stores. Without such an option, costs would skyrocket everywhere. Think about that before you swallow the weak arguments of the likes of Ms. Allred. She has her rights to do whatever she wants within the letter of the law but we, the people also have the right to reject them.
Another h/t to the Daily Caller.
RSS Feed