by Sarah B.
[Introduction: This excellent post by Sarah B, who has a history of them, posed a dilemma. It was originally posted in this week’s Open Forum, but the comment easily could have been a Comment of the Day on two recent posts, “Irony: The Washington Post Telling CVS How To Handle Rampant Shoplifting,” and “Technology Ethics Fail: Self-Checkout.”
In the end, I decided to publish it as a guest post, as Sarah herself told us up front what she was commenting on, writing, “This article, about a woman who wrote a piece for the newspaper anonymously about how and why she shoplifts, is worth discussing,” referring to “I’m a middle-class shoplifter – and here’s why I’m happy to confess it” in the UK’s Independent. Proving once again that valuable insights can be obtained from idiotic essays, Sarah’s post is far, far, FAR superior to the article that apparently spawned it. The explanation of “anonymous” about why she’s apparently “happy” about being a shoplifter was so devoid of either logic or ethics comprehension that it made my phantom hair hurt. Among her fatuous excuses and rationalizations were “It’s easy, so it’s the stores’ fault,” “I don’t even see it as shoplifting” (#64 on the rationalizations list, “It isn’t what it is”), “I’m owed it,” and #22, the worst rationalization of all, “It’s not the worst thing,” because she “would only do this in a supermarket chain, rather than any family-run small business.” People like the author make me want to chuck my business and profession and become a pimp or something. Why do I spend so much time on ethics when so many people think like this? Fortunately, Sarah had a different and more constructive reaction.—JM.]
***
First, there is no doubt that her actions are unethical, and while we could just analyze this as a “name the rationalizations”, I also think that a deep dive into the article can show many things about our society and make for a good discussion. There are options for discussing how she doesn’t shoplift because she has to, but does it to decrease the prices of expensive alternatives instead of paying for what she wants. However, I want to look at how I think we could combat her “how-to guide”.
This seems to me to be a great case study in “locks keep an honest man honest.” The author admits that much of her stealing is predicated on the app-shopping and self-checkout philosophy of big stores. My main proposal, after looking at this, is to somehow return to the “good old days” of customer service.
Customer service in grocery shopping seems to be dead. I recently had to run to a Giant Eagle for a few specialty items that my normal store does not carry. I like the extra variety, but dislike the higher prices, so I don’t go very often. While I was there, there were three checkers operating, and fourteen people in those lines. There were self-checkouts, but I hate using them as they screw up regularly. Only two “Register Open” lights were on, but they commonly tell you to ignore the lights because something isn’t working, so I got into the shortest line, with only four people ahead of me. The woman immediately stopped serving her current customer to yell at me and tell me that she deserves her break that should have started five minutes ago, as well as to call me names for getting into her line. As I left that line with my kids asking why the lady was so mean, she then made a crude joke about me to another customer and laughed about how I am so stupid. As more and more customers piled up, someone pled with her to open her line, since we now had eight people in each open line, and one of those two turned off her light, too. This woman then told the lady that she is overdue for her break and we need to stop being such bitches to her. All of this in front of my children. By the time I had gotten through the line, she was gone, another cashier had gone, and there were a lot of people in line to see the single cashier that checked me out (who was also very rude). The customer service desk was overrun, so I just gathered my small children and left the store, with no intention of returning.
When I grew up, my dad was an assistant manager of a grocery store that prized its customer service reputation. We, the minimum wage staff (yep, nepotism got me a job to pay for college), were trained in serving the customer and not demanding our “due.” We carried groceries to cars and rarely got or expected tips. We delayed our breaks until someone could cover us so that the customers would never be inconvenienced more than slightly because there were less people to serve them for a few minutes. Customer service was the name of the game and how we kept people from driving 30 miles to the Walmart across state lines where you didn’t have to pay taxes on groceries. We weren’t cheaper, but we were closer, knew your face, and usually remembered how you liked your groceries bagged.
This had a certain effect of reducing shoplifting. It had nothing to do with us being a Mom-and-Pop store (which the article’s author says she’d never shoplift from), but had a lot to do with us not letting people get fed up with fighting the stupid machines, or granting them unfettered access to the front door with a cart load that no employee looked at. Psychologically, it is harder to steal when you know that you’ll have to get through the register. A screenshot will not save you when someone took the time to interact with you as a human. Interacting with a self-checkout, or the “scan and go” app helps us forget that we are not stealing from a faceless organization, but reminds us who we are hurting. This woman’s “honesty goes into overdrive” because she wants the little guys to do well, and if she had to deal routinely with people who usually smiled at her, she would remember that every store has little guys that need to do well.
Another tactic this woman employs is abusing the “my kids threw it in the cart without my realizing it” excuse. There is chaos with kids, and certainly it is easy to leave something under the car seat in the basket, or miss something when your kids are throwing a fit in the store. I have been in that situation too, though never intentionally, and have gone back into stores to pay for what I accidentally walked out with.
My dad’s store took that into consideration as well. A grocery cart was never allowed out the doors of the store. There was never the worry of running into a grocery cart not properly stowed in a cart repository or having to take up parking space with a cart repository. Instead, the employees had special carts that they took your groceries out in. They bagged your groceries, under your eye, but not your hands, and loaded the groceries on special carts that they hauled to your car and loaded into your trunk. We were trained to be efficient, and to interact with the customers. This saved the store money on the cost of grocery carts and dropped the possibility of shoplifting to very small. You couldn’t leave something in your cart and sneak it out. Your cart was politely taken from you and put away properly at the end of your visit as a store employee hauled your groceries out and even loaded your car so that you could take care of your children and not worry about anything. We were sternly lectured on proper egg, bread, chip, and produce care. Of course, we also interacted with our customers, so that when they were in the store, we knew who to watch for shoplifting, and who to help because they were unable to get through without trouble.
Much of this woman’s “here’s how I shoplift” can, I believe, be fixed by the old-fashioned ideals of customer service. Having actual checkers and baggers, much less carry-outs could drastically decrease shrinkage. There were, of course, ways to shoplift back then. However, we managed to keep shrinkage very low. We do have a problem that, in our society, we have to encourage people to work that hard for minimum wage, and at the current minimum wage, is the decrease in shrinkage worth it? I would think so, but I haven’t run the numbers.
Of course, there is the concern raised that self-checkouts and “scan and go” apps are becoming so prevalent, not because it is too expensive to hire people at these obscenely high minimum wages, but because people won’t work for minimum wage, no matter how high it gets. That is a whole other can of worms that would require a much longer comment. However, if this woman is not atypical – and given the presence and tone of the article, I think she is not – then we have a serious societal problem, and it needs to be addressed soon.
Ethics Alarms 
Heroic work Sarah. Congrats.
Great piece! I am in despair because the last family-owned grocery chain (three stores) in my town has just closed, and they still had the kind of customer service you describe (except for the inside-only carts). We are now left with Walmart, Publix, Aldis and Food City. Food City will now be my go-to because their customer service is the best remaining, but not nearly so good as the family-owned stores.
Thank you, Jack.
Yeah, this was excellent…like pretty much every “Sarah B” comment.
I wonder if the Marxist philosophy of grouping people into oppressor/oppressed categories figures largely into the supermarket mom’s thinking. The “I’m owed it” rationalization screams of being oppressed. After all, if I’m owed something that I have to pay for, then I’m in an oppressed state. Also, her claim of robbing only supermarket chains – and who really believes she actually restricts herself in a such a manner – speaks to the idea of “sticking it to the man”. She is pushing back on her oppressor.
This kind of thinking is everywhere and it’s rotting everything. As another example…
I was going to save this for Friday’s Open Forum, but Sarah B. started it. And if I wait until Friday, I will forget. It’s only slightly off-topic from her work…
Saturday I saw a commercial online for Hasbro’s Monopoly (my old version is a Parker Brothers game, which means I probably missed a merger somewhere). It was a woman – acting as the banker – stealing money from the bank and hiding it in her shirt sleeve. As the commercial fades, the woman’s voice summarizes that “all is fair in Monopoly”.
What I saw was a shortened version of this 30-second clip, but the substance is the same…
So…
Robbery is alright if I believe I’m owed something.
Robbery is alright if the store creates a mechanism that makes it easier.
Robbery is alright if I don’t consider it robbery.
Robbery is alright if it’s a chain store.
Robbery is alright if it’s just a classic game involving money.
The stench you smell is the decomposition of our culture.
I’ll finish with an anecdote.
When I was seven or eight years, dad took my little brother and I to the five-and-dime to buy some paint for our model cars. I picked out two colors I needed – they were probably twenty-five cents apiece – then roamed the store while the others did their thing. When I got to the counter to pay, I realized I had set the jars down somewhere in the store, so I ran back, grabbed two more jars, paid for them, and left.
When I got home, I took my jacket off and one of the initial jars of paint I had picked up fell out of the pocket. Upon inspection, the second jar was also in the pocket. It was totally innocent – I had simply forgotten I put them in my pockets – but it was my first shoplifting experience, though I had never heard that word. I told dad what had happened, and he and I put our coats back on and drove back to the five-and-dime. I was so scared, because the man at the store was going to be very mad. I vividly remember asking dad if I would go to jail. I’m guessing he was pretty sure I wouldn’t, but regardless, he reminded me that “even on accident”, we can’t take things without paying for them.
I walked up to the man at the counter, pretty much shaking in my boots, explained what happened, told him I was sorry, and handed him the two jars of paint. I did not go to jail, and as I recall, the man smiled and thanked me for being so honest.
The details of that incident are fuzzier now after nearly half a century, but the lesson has remained crystal clear: thou shalt not steal.
And we have tried to live by that in everything. If an item at the store rings up wrong, we take it to customer service, point it out, and offer to make it right. Not doing so is a form of stealing. If a restaurant billed is mis-tallied in our favor or something is missing, we point it out. Not doing so is a form of stealing. If someone gives us too much change back (even at the drive-up window), we return the extra. Not doing so is a form of stealing. Most of the time, the people on the other side of the transaction are stunned. They shouldn’t be stunned, and we want zero praise for our actions. We don’t deserve praise for them, because they should be the default behavior in an ethical society.
The recent Monopoly ads are strange indeed, but they sort of make sense given the origins of the game as an indictment of capitalism, specifically as related to property. As the name of the game suggests, you win, not by accumulating lots of money, but by bankrupting everyone else.
Were I a socialist (which I’m not, but I’m about the closest thing to one among regular commenters on this blog) I might suggest that the very essence of the game is narcissism, predation, and avarice.
The ads downplay this element but (in the example you posted, Joel, at least) substitute dishonesty as an acceptable if not admirable trait. Ultimately, I think it’s best to ignore the implications about economic philosophy and just play the game if you enjoy doing so.
But I stray even further from Sarah B.’s excellent commentary, so I’ll stop now. (There’s some possibility I’ll rant about this further on my own blog…)
Always include the link to your blog, Curmie. It’s one of my missions to increase your readership. (Here its is again, not for you, obviously; I assume you know it…) https://manjushri924.blogspot.com/:
Curmie
I never associated the game with the idea that it was a slam against capitalism. How would a board game be created if one cannot win? Sure, the goal is to eliminate the other players to win but how is that different than scoring more runs in baseball or beating your opponent in Candyland? Monopoly is no different than Poker because the game is played until all but one are broke or give up and go home.
All games are based on winners and losers. Even Socialism has winners and losers. In that game the players that get the most for doing the least win while those who pay the most lose.
I could analogize the elderly woman’s comments to those demanding we trust scientists, academics and government officials to create the illusion of trust. This is an appeal to authority. The fact is, once trust is lost by an individual then that person will have a hard time repairing his or her reputation. The same is true of groups and assessments of group behavior. Unfortunately, it only takes a relative small minority of those in a group to condemn the entire group to enhanced scrutiny. Is it equally as wrong to label all conservatives extremists because some are whack jobs as it is to label young blacks as potential shoplifters when video evidence shows how some are greedy, narcissistic predators?
I wonder if that ad was carefully designed by someone to create the impression in the target audience that older people cannot be trusted.
Yeah, its a game, and not a political statement. It’s also a simulation. In chess, the idea is to win a war; that’s not an indictment of war. Risk and Diplomacy are ruthless games, with the latter allowing, indeed requiring treachery and betrayal.
Chris, I say the game has its origins as an indictment of capitalism because <i>that’s what its inventor intended it to be</i>. There’s been a fair amount written about that; the Wikipedia article (yeah, I know, Wikipedia) is actually pretty good. It doesn’t require a lot of imagination to view the game as one in which acquisitive landlords win by charging rents that regular people can’t afford.
I’d say there are significant differences between monopoly and baseball or poker, but I’ll try to articulate them in a longer post on my own blog. I’m not ready to write that at this moment, but assuming I do in the near future, I’ll post the link as a comment on this post.
As promised…
https://manjushri924.blogspot.com/2023/11/about-those-monopoly-ads.html
Wonderful essay!!!!!
One lesson Monopoly teaches well is that success in life is at least as driven by luck as skill. “Life” is all luck. I preferred Careers, which was about values, goals and planning, but the original game has been polluted by making it “relevant.”
Frankly, I was just surprised – and a little miffed – that a company would present stealing as an acceptable strategy because “all is fair in Monopoly”. In other words, the ends justifies the means.
In addition to the fact that all isn’t fair in “Monopoly.” There are rules, and breaking the rules is cheating.
It is an interesting idea, that with better customer service, this person wouldn’t shoplift. However, I don’t think this would actually work with this particular woman. Her rationalizations have made shoplifting right, not wrong. She is justifying her actions. You could compare this to attitudes about abortion, first it was regrettable, but now it is a positive virtue. You aren’t going to easily change the minds of abortion supporters because they have so much of their self-worth and identity wrapped up into supporting this act. This woman has transformed shoplifting from embarrassing and regrettable to almost celebrated. You could easily get into a shouting match with her over whether shoplifting is wrong or not.
Unfortunately, for the bigger chains, the push is even further away from the customer service ideal you describe, and toward getting as many people to use their apps as possible. They have made the calculation that the savings in reduced staffing coupled with the high value of the data they can gather about you and then sell is worth the added risk of shrinkage. This latter point is something that most people miss. Why do places like Taco Bell and McDonald’s care so much that you use their app to order, so much so that they give you free stuff if you do so? Because the price they can get by selling all the data they can glean from your cell phone is worth far more than a small order of French fries or a free drink.
Another part of their equation is that this period of increased shoplifting opportunities is transitory, as they work toward the ultimate goal, all shopping is done from your phone and you just pick it up or have it delivered. Only employees in the store means virtually zero shrinkage, and it can be set up as an efficient warehouse, not as an appealing retail outlet.
Mom and Pop stores won’t be able to compete with this once the Boomers and older folks die off. Subsequent generations are more comfortable with the technology required and willing to go along. Most of those cohorts will not value the customer service that independent stores can bring to the table, and will prefer the “convenience” of online shopping. The future of retail is bleak indeed.
I never use self checkouts. If that is the only choice I call the manager and return my goods to him, personally. This s one way I protest automation of society. Never use kiosks to order at fast food joints. My favorite lunch place employs a young man with Down’s syndrome. I allways go to his line. automation is killing society. I believe all of us of a maturer age have experienced the perp walk back to some local establishment !