If untrained staff intervene in a theft, they could die. Valuing human life over a tiny amount of corporate profit is not "bean-counter logic".
If community impact is a concern, then the company should dip into their profits to properly staff their stores. They shouldn't be able to demand their employees to get shot or stabbed.
> If untrained staff intervene in a theft, they could die. Valuing human life over a tiny amount of corporate profit is not "bean-counter logic".
1. “Trained” staff can also die.
2. What are the chances they will die?
> If community impact is a concern, then the company should dip into their profits to properly staff their stores. They shouldn't be able to demand their employees to get shot or stabbed.
This is a strawman. The topic is about employees intervening on their own and getting fired for it, not the company demanding that they intervene.
Nobody here is saying a business has the right to tell regular employees to intervene.
So why do companies let any staff intervene? Because with traning, the risk is reduced to the point where it is worth it. Also, there might be fewer liabilities. You might be able to insure against harm to a trained employee.
> 2. What are the chances they will die?
Obviously high enough that companies don't want to risk it. They could be injured as well.
> Nobody here is saying a business has the right to tell regular employees to intervene.
If companies do not have to accept liability for loss prevention mishaps, they will compel untrained employees to intervene. There will be an obvious gain (less theft) and no cost (liability gone).
These companies run on "bean-counter logic". They're going to make the numbers go up if they can.
How do you quantify the value of a neighborhood that is intolerant of theft vs one that is tolerant?