June 8, 2023
Source: iStock | FinkAvenue
Should Lululemon Have Fired Employees For Confronting Thieves?
Lululemon CEO Calvin McDonald is vigorously defending the firing of two employees who tried to intervene during a theft at an Atlanta store.
“In this particular case, we have a zero-tolerance policy that we train our educators [associates] on around engaging during a theft. Why? Because we put the safety of our team and of our guests front and center,” Mr. McDonald told CNBC’s “Squawk on the Street.” “It’s only merchandise.”
Cellphone footage shows two men wearing hooded sweatshirts grabbing high-priced athletic wear from tables and displays. The employees were seen engaging with and following the robbers outside the store, yelling “get out” repeatedly.
The employees called the local police, who later tracked down and charged the thieves with felony robbery.
Mr. McDonald said the associates “knowingly broke the policy,” including following the thieves out of the store. “They’re trained to step back, let the theft occur, know that there’s technology and there’s cameras and we’re working with law enforcement,” he said.
Store associates or security staff getting injured or killed during attempts to intervene in robberies have become familiar news stories, including a recent stabbing of an employee at a Chicago Target and an associate shot to death at a Home Depot in California.
“We take that policy seriously because we have had instances — and we have seen with other retailers, instances — where employees step in and are hurt, or worse, killed. And the policy is to protect them,” Mr. McDonald said.
The two employees, Jennifer Ferguson and Rachel Rogers, told local news outlet 1 Alive that Lululemon fired them without severance for calling the police. Lululemon said employees are able and instructed to call 911 when needed. The associates were aware of the policy against engaging looters.
People on Twitter slammed Lululemon for firing the staff members and accused the company of being”woke.”
“I suppose Lululemon has a ‘woke’ store policy of offering the smash and grabbers a free gift wrap?” one person tweeted with the hashtag #BoycottLululemon.
The Lululemon incident comes as lawmakers in California are attempting to pass a bill that would ban retail staff from stopping thieves stealing from their stores.
BrainTrust
DeAnn Campbell
Head of Retail Insights, AAG Consulting Group
Mark Ryski
Founder, CEO & Author, HeadCount Corporation
Paula Rosenblum
Co-founder, RSR Research
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: Do you support Lululemon’s move to fire associates for interacting with thieves? Is such a “zero-tolerance policy” necessary or overly harsh?
Poll
Loading …
I see both sides of the argument, but I believe the employees were dealt with too harshly. Having strict policies for dealing with robberies and shoplifting is the right approach, but to summarily fire employees who appeared to be well-intended, and may not have been exposed to the training should be considered.
Spot on Mark! The company’s training program for educating store staff on proper procedures for dealing with robberies and shoplifting apparently wasn’t effective if these employees weren’t aware of the policy. Maybe a warning to the employees would be a more appropriate measure for these people that were trying to do “the right thing.”
Mark,
I agree here. In my past lives, I was that employee/manager who stopped shoplifters and our policy was that we had to wait until they reached the door to approach them. Approaching them outside the store was forbidden. My guess is they we were trying to do the right thing (unbeknownst of the policy or not).
I was aghast when I first heard that these employees had been fired. But after reading this account and other articles it does appear that they ignored some very specific training and company policy. I wanted to applaud their bravery, but when considering that “it’s only merchandise”, and that there are other mitigation efforts at hand, and most especially the risk for serious injury, then I have to agree with their termination. Now, hopefully the criminal justice system will treat the crooks accordingly. It would be stupidly ironic if the crooks were let off with a mere slap on the hand.
So company policy is in stone and never ever to be altered within various situations? This is America Jeff! 🙂 🙂 We celebrate individual heroics here, self determination and all that!
Are all contingencies accounted for in said policies? Certainly we know that is hardly ever the case-if you could “decision tree” every possible outcome that a policy is designed for, then we are one step closer to machines doing all the work. Anyone who has tried to wade through phone prompts to get an answer that is not on the web site knows we are a long way from perfectly modeled policies and workflows. These employees…wait for it…made a decision…and acted on their instincts, not bothering to “go back to the manual”…and they got fired for it.
Perhaps they can be cast as extras in the next Top Gun movie, helping Maverick throw away the operating guide, etc. !
Right…they acted on their instincts and made a decision. A bad decision in light of being told specifically not to engage in this kind of situation. Was it loyalty, or bravery? Or was it reckless and irresponsible? I have a tough time faulting Lululemon for saying that employee and customer safety is more important than a couple of yoga pants. I do applaud the early instincts of the employees, but their role ended with the phone call to the police. A zero-tolerance policy is specifically intended to prevent people from following ‘good intentions’ that have high risk outcomes. I can only imagine how this column would read today if the policy said “stop them at the door” and some kind of serious injury had been the result.
It’s not a movie and it’s not a set up for a TikTok video. It’s real life. And choosing employee and customer safety over yoga pants does not strike me as a tough call.
And it’s not an invitation for bad guys everywhere to prey on Lululemon, or any other retailer. The bad guys got caught, and charged with a felony.
Jeff-I respect your point of view-where I strongly divert from it is in the firing. Two associates (bravely? stupidly? who knows we were not there) tried to “do something” and lost their jobs..this warrants a conversation about policy, sure, but firing them? In my view that sends the wrong message, especially since (depending on how much “doom scrolling” you do on your news feed) right now we seem to be inundated with Wal Mart leaving Chicago, Whole Foods/Nordstom/Walgreens leaving San Francisco, etc., all due to crime.
Just to be clear, I am not stating that Store associates become mini “Harry Callahan’s” or “Jack Reacher’s”. These two reacted to something that they saw as wrong. Against the rules. A firing offense? Not to this reviewer.
I hear ya. But neither one of us wrote the LL rule book. Zero tolerance policies don’t usually have a lot of wiggle room. If they did indeed receive the training and still broke the rules, they are history. The whole point is total clarity on the rules. If they didn’t receive the training, a store manager or a training manager gets fired. Or it’s not a zero tolerance policy and everybody is confused. “What should I do if…………???”. Right now, I don’t think anybody is confused. Angry, frustrated maybe. But not confused.
Two points strike me on this story, one cannot condone breaking company policy or putting them selves at risk but they were acting for the good of the company. However, had the company simply disciplined the employees for a first time offence they would not have had the bad publicity this is now attracting, it would not have hit the news and been better for staff morale. But secondly, they have now very publicly given thieves a clear and very public message that they can go into one of the stores without being challenged!! This action was way too strong and has created a public situation they could easily have avoided.
“Thanks for your loyalty. You’re fired.”
Great message.
I think there were other, better ways to handle this, and as someone said below, likely the criminals will suffer lesser penalties. This isn’t about woke / not woke. It’s about gratitude, even if the act itself was misplaced.
OK I shouldn’t have but I laughed out loud at your first sentence. Spot on
While it seems paradoxical to instruct employees to allow theft to happen, the safety risk of intervening is too high. Associates were explicitly told to step back and let tech solutions and trained law enforcement handle looters.
Lululemon’s zero-tolerance policy is clear: stay out of it. This blunt message is necessary to protect store associates and customers as brazen in-store theft soars.
I understand the policy but to summarily fire well-intended, loyal employees who were trying to do the right thing is a bit overboard. A first offence warning and a requirement to take training again is more appropriate and sends a better message.
Tough one. I suppose Lulu could have given the employees a warning on a first offense, No question engaging with a shoplifter could also be engaging with an unsteady, unwell, drug use, and could have had a different ending. Retailers and local police need to be working together to make it more likely that organized shop lifting gangs are put out of business, which will reduce the entire problem to a more manageable level.
“They’re trained to step back, let the theft occur, know that there’s technology and there are cameras and we’re working with law enforcement,” Mr. McDonald said.
There is a massive epidemic of retail theft. Are technology and law enforcement stopping it? Apparently not. I don’t have an answer. Ultimately, the “It’s only merchandise,” attitude is not helpful.
I advise Lululemon to double down on whatever security they have. This incident (the firing) is an open invitation for the shoplifters.
And THIS is why you see a lot of these, hundreds it seems, a day. It’s an open invitation for free merch for the people committing the acts, they know they are getting a hand slap as a reprimand , so it continues. There has to be a better way.
Two messages here.
Internal: these two employees were made an example of what you (other employees) must do. Follow our guidelines to minimize our insurance liability.
External: rest assured, we are woke and will facilitate your criminality. WELCOME!
Please don’t bandy “woke” around. Evolving issues on race, class, and gender has nothing to do with policies protecting employees.
Are you banning words Bob? Are you the arbiter of the definition of woke? Why did you select only me to target with your word policing?
It is related. It’s part of the new WOKE morality to effectively encourage or at least accept what until recently was an immoral act called stealing. It’s also not by chance that this is happening. There are laws that are not being enforced and the problems feeding upon themselves and as a result growing because there is an intentional WOKE agenda to denounce unlimited aspects of society under a pretense of inclusion of anything without question.
Wait… did I misuse “inclusion” according to your standards?
Do a Google Search. I stand by my comment. Anything one doesn’t like isn’t Woke and it becoming a catch-all isn’t helpful.
Right, a Google search proves the reality of everything Bob. Google is the arbiter now and you will attest that Google isn’t heavily filtered and doesn’t ban content that doesn’t suite it’s agenda and/or interests.
OK, thanks for sharing your world view today.
I am 1000% with Bob. We don’t need that nonsense here, or maybe your responses indicate some re-training is necessary.
Thanks Paula, I appreciate the support.
I do not support Lululemon. Stealing from stores is morally and legally wrong. Intervening may be misguided, for a whole variety of reasons, but it understandable and morally valid. Lululemon, whether intended or not, appears to be siding with immorality. Ultimately, sacking employees who were trying to do right is an extremely harsh response – from a company that plasters its stores with messages of kindness. Not a good look.
” Lululemon, whether intended or not, appears to be siding with immorality.”
Neil, that is the strongest statement I have ever read from you. I agree with you all the way.
And having an employee run out into the street to claw back $500 worth of merch and potentially be attacked or killed is somehow moral? I don’t see this as a black-and-white issue.
A retailer forcing them to do that is not moral. People doing it by their own volition – which is the case here – is certainly not immoral. It’s a pretty natural reaction to the frustration that comes of watching criminals come in and blatantly take what doesn’t belong to them. What is black and white here is that two people are out of jobs, with all of the stresses and problems that causes.
I agree with a lot of the other BrainTrust members in saying that while I understand the need for the strict policy, it’s just a bad look in this particular instance to proceed with zero tolerance. There are many policies for store associates that deserve zero tolerance, but in this act of good intention and protecting their store, a greater message of tolerance should have been made by Lululemon management.
Lululemon, as with every retailer challenged by increasing theft, is in a lose-lose situation. Training employees to step back and resist engaging with thieves is indeed, though contrarian to majority thinking, the right policy. The firing of these two associates as a result of their actions does feel harsh. However, if Lululemon’s policy was that of expecting their associates to intervene with looters, and as has happened elsewhere, they or customers are injured or killed, the public and social media uproar would be exponentially magnified as would Lululemon’s exposure and liability.
Not an easy ‘look’ for Lululemon, but certainly understandable. The risk of intervening / chasing thieves isn’t just to those employees. It’s to other customers and bystanders when the situation possibly escalates. At some point, in this crazy world, you have to draw the line and make a stand. While firing the employees seems harsh, I can understand and support the decision made.
The press they receive from this firing will do more harm than good, and only serves to make customers less sympathetic for the real losses incurred by theft. I completely agree that retailers need a firm policy to prevent employees from putting their lives at risk, and possibly endangering customers in the process. Walmart suffered a hefty law suit settlement for this very thing. But at the same time, the employees’ reacted on instinct, with the intent of protecting their employer. Was firing really necessary, or would a reprimand and retraining be more in line, especially since good help is hard to find.
I understand maintaining corporate policy and the desire to safeguard employees, but, honestly, I don’t agree with the firing. We are building a community of “safe to steal” practices and it needs to stop. The industry needs to find ways to deter thieves and not punish employees.
It does seem harsh but Lululemon’s policy protects its people over product and that is admirable.
I ran a store in downtown Chicago at a time when professionals intent on shoplifting visited every week. We were told by corporate to stop them. Let me tell you, policy or not, after being thrown into a Sensomatic tower I learned to hold the door open when they left the store.
Yesterday, I read that California Senate passed a bill to stop employees from confronting shoplifters. That’s how bad it is on the frontline. Maybe Lululemon is on to something.
Just to be clear, The California Senate passed legislation that prevents employers from requiring workers to confront active shooters or shoplifters. Passed May 31, Senate Bill 553 contains provisions prohibiting employers from maintaining such policies
Thanks, Bob!
I hate to be a contrarian here, but a zero tolerance policy — especially one designed to protect employees and customers — is a zero tolerance policy. Punta. Period. End of story. Several folks here have spoken about the employees’ good intentions, bringing to mind that old saw about what the road to Hell is paved with. No amount of property is worth risking a human life for. The policy is clear. As to whether or not it’s overly harsh, as this incident demonstrates, even a zero tolerance policy doesn’t stop some people from reacting emotionally rather than intellectually.
Fire them? Wrong! For goodness sake, train associates to see the theft occurring and immediately call the police. How can you justify firing great staff members who believe in you so much that they would sacrifice their own safety? Reinforce the training to back off and call the police for help.
Okay. Wow, this story did not hit my news feed. I can (kind of) understand the policy (let technology and the police do their jobs, it is safer), however you stand up for your company, and you call the police, and for that you get fired??????? With no severance????
Not only is the policy dimwitted, but the firing is tone deaf at best and idiotic at worst. If Mr. McDonald wanted to send a message about his policy he could have done so many other things (praise, but reminding employees how this could have gone wrong, etc. etc.).
And to top it off we read that California is going to make stopping thieves illegal? So let’s make any attempt to enforce the law…illegal. And while everyone is at it, maybe we can put up a sign on all stores to come in and take what you want, nothing will happen to you. Sarcasm intended.
Theft is a HUGE deal nationally for the retail industry. I would love to hear how the NRF and other lobbyists are trying to influence thinking about this with our elected representatives. It sounds like a huge fail in California so far.
Just to be clear, The California Senate passed legislation that prevents employers from requiring workers to confront active shooters or shoplifters. Passed May 31, Senate Bill 553 contains provisions prohibiting employers from maintaining such policies
Thanks Bob: confronting mis-information is one kind of intervention I can get behind 100%!
Translation from California government: “For all you would be thieves, we’re removing obstacles, deterrents, and all remaining mystery. Help yourself! Retailers can and should absorb higher losses.”
Because thieves care about laws. No, the law says you can’t require employees to do something
I would have done the same thing the fired associates did, and if I were a customer there I’d have taken action. I understand Lululemon’s policy but this brazen theft is out of control and very dangerous.
Why in the He** are we still discussing this topic??
It’s management’s prerogative , indeed their responsibility, to set policies to protect a company’s “assets” – both merchandise and employees.
“we put the safety of our team and of our guests front and center,”…it couldn’t be any clearer.
Policies in place are usually well-known by every employee. And they must include accountability to be real. But for every leader who needs to lay out accountability, there also needs to be consideration and common sense.
In this case, the employees should be acknowledged for wanting to do right by the company, even thanked. Smart to chase after criminals? Probably not. But they were acting as if they were the owners of the company. Hard to find team members who take this much initiative.
It is important to prioritize the safety of store associates and customers’ safety and follow company policies and guidelines. Understandably, Lululemon has a zero-tolerance policy for employee interaction during theft incidents, which can pose a significant risk to individuals’ safety. However, it is also important to consider the circumstances of each situation and ensure that employees are aware of the policies and trained accordingly. Firing the employees, in this case, without a severance, is very harsh. I imagine in their mind. They are trying to do the right thing.
Employee conduct and discipline depend on policies, laws, and incident circumstances.
In situations where employees confront thieves, there can be and are potential risks involved, such as personal safety, escalating the situation, or violating company policies or local laws. My retail experience involved companies prioritizing employee safety and discouraging direct confrontation with thieves to minimize harm and liability.
Catching someone that took $50, in exchange with loss of an employee due to a broken leg and $100K+ in worker’s compensation expenses…or worse, hurting an innocent bystander – is it really worth it? Their harsh move…a response to crazier times with higher stings and so much more to lose. They set a precedent.
Two thoughts – 1) Regrettable that good data, in person training, merchandising, guarding, etc were unable to prevent and 2) Store associates according to our ECR research hate no approach policies, they feel ownership for the stores assets, worry about their jobs if losses are not under control, etc, it is thus natural or instinct that they would approach customers. To fire them strikes me as an over reaction. The more time the C suite can spend in stores, especially the toughest stores, the better. Link to our new research on fortress stores. https://www.ecrloss.com/research/fortress-stores-keeping-the-most-at-risk-grocery-stores-trading
More Discussions
Will In-Store Media Fly For WHSmith?
Is WHSmith’s gamble a wise one? Will broader in-store retail show growth moving forward?What Lessons Can Be Learned From Eddie Bauer’s Retail Exit?
What can be learned from the Eddie Bauer story?Is High Exec Turnover Hurting Retailers?
Is the high degree of executive turnover in retail hurting business?
I see both sides of the argument, but I believe the employees were dealt with too harshly. Having strict policies for dealing with robberies and shoplifting is the right approach, but to summarily fire employees who appeared to be well-intended, and may not have been exposed to the training should be considered.
Spot on Mark! The company’s training program for educating store staff on proper procedures for dealing with robberies and shoplifting apparently wasn’t effective if these employees weren’t aware of the policy. Maybe a warning to the employees would be a more appropriate measure for these people that were trying to do “the right thing.”
Mark,
I agree here. In my past lives, I was that employee/manager who stopped shoplifters and our policy was that we had to wait until they reached the door to approach them. Approaching them outside the store was forbidden. My guess is they we were trying to do the right thing (unbeknownst of the policy or not).
I was aghast when I first heard that these employees had been fired. But after reading this account and other articles it does appear that they ignored some very specific training and company policy. I wanted to applaud their bravery, but when considering that “it’s only merchandise”, and that there are other mitigation efforts at hand, and most especially the risk for serious injury, then I have to agree with their termination. Now, hopefully the criminal justice system will treat the crooks accordingly. It would be stupidly ironic if the crooks were let off with a mere slap on the hand.
So company policy is in stone and never ever to be altered within various situations? This is America Jeff! 🙂 🙂 We celebrate individual heroics here, self determination and all that!
Are all contingencies accounted for in said policies? Certainly we know that is hardly ever the case-if you could “decision tree” every possible outcome that a policy is designed for, then we are one step closer to machines doing all the work. Anyone who has tried to wade through phone prompts to get an answer that is not on the web site knows we are a long way from perfectly modeled policies and workflows. These employees…wait for it…made a decision…and acted on their instincts, not bothering to “go back to the manual”…and they got fired for it.
Perhaps they can be cast as extras in the next Top Gun movie, helping Maverick throw away the operating guide, etc. !
Right…they acted on their instincts and made a decision. A bad decision in light of being told specifically not to engage in this kind of situation. Was it loyalty, or bravery? Or was it reckless and irresponsible? I have a tough time faulting Lululemon for saying that employee and customer safety is more important than a couple of yoga pants. I do applaud the early instincts of the employees, but their role ended with the phone call to the police. A zero-tolerance policy is specifically intended to prevent people from following ‘good intentions’ that have high risk outcomes. I can only imagine how this column would read today if the policy said “stop them at the door” and some kind of serious injury had been the result.
It’s not a movie and it’s not a set up for a TikTok video. It’s real life. And choosing employee and customer safety over yoga pants does not strike me as a tough call.
And it’s not an invitation for bad guys everywhere to prey on Lululemon, or any other retailer. The bad guys got caught, and charged with a felony.
Jeff-I respect your point of view-where I strongly divert from it is in the firing. Two associates (bravely? stupidly? who knows we were not there) tried to “do something” and lost their jobs..this warrants a conversation about policy, sure, but firing them? In my view that sends the wrong message, especially since (depending on how much “doom scrolling” you do on your news feed) right now we seem to be inundated with Wal Mart leaving Chicago, Whole Foods/Nordstom/Walgreens leaving San Francisco, etc., all due to crime.
Just to be clear, I am not stating that Store associates become mini “Harry Callahan’s” or “Jack Reacher’s”. These two reacted to something that they saw as wrong. Against the rules. A firing offense? Not to this reviewer.
I hear ya. But neither one of us wrote the LL rule book. Zero tolerance policies don’t usually have a lot of wiggle room. If they did indeed receive the training and still broke the rules, they are history. The whole point is total clarity on the rules. If they didn’t receive the training, a store manager or a training manager gets fired. Or it’s not a zero tolerance policy and everybody is confused. “What should I do if…………???”. Right now, I don’t think anybody is confused. Angry, frustrated maybe. But not confused.
Two points strike me on this story, one cannot condone breaking company policy or putting them selves at risk but they were acting for the good of the company. However, had the company simply disciplined the employees for a first time offence they would not have had the bad publicity this is now attracting, it would not have hit the news and been better for staff morale. But secondly, they have now very publicly given thieves a clear and very public message that they can go into one of the stores without being challenged!! This action was way too strong and has created a public situation they could easily have avoided.
“Thanks for your loyalty. You’re fired.”
Great message.
I think there were other, better ways to handle this, and as someone said below, likely the criminals will suffer lesser penalties. This isn’t about woke / not woke. It’s about gratitude, even if the act itself was misplaced.
OK I shouldn’t have but I laughed out loud at your first sentence. Spot on
While it seems paradoxical to instruct employees to allow theft to happen, the safety risk of intervening is too high. Associates were explicitly told to step back and let tech solutions and trained law enforcement handle looters.
Lululemon’s zero-tolerance policy is clear: stay out of it. This blunt message is necessary to protect store associates and customers as brazen in-store theft soars.
I understand the policy but to summarily fire well-intended, loyal employees who were trying to do the right thing is a bit overboard. A first offence warning and a requirement to take training again is more appropriate and sends a better message.
Tough one. I suppose Lulu could have given the employees a warning on a first offense, No question engaging with a shoplifter could also be engaging with an unsteady, unwell, drug use, and could have had a different ending. Retailers and local police need to be working together to make it more likely that organized shop lifting gangs are put out of business, which will reduce the entire problem to a more manageable level.
“They’re trained to step back, let the theft occur, know that there’s technology and there are cameras and we’re working with law enforcement,” Mr. McDonald said.
There is a massive epidemic of retail theft. Are technology and law enforcement stopping it? Apparently not. I don’t have an answer. Ultimately, the “It’s only merchandise,” attitude is not helpful.
I advise Lululemon to double down on whatever security they have. This incident (the firing) is an open invitation for the shoplifters.
And THIS is why you see a lot of these, hundreds it seems, a day. It’s an open invitation for free merch for the people committing the acts, they know they are getting a hand slap as a reprimand , so it continues. There has to be a better way.
Two messages here.
Internal: these two employees were made an example of what you (other employees) must do. Follow our guidelines to minimize our insurance liability.
External: rest assured, we are woke and will facilitate your criminality. WELCOME!
Please don’t bandy “woke” around. Evolving issues on race, class, and gender has nothing to do with policies protecting employees.
Are you banning words Bob? Are you the arbiter of the definition of woke? Why did you select only me to target with your word policing?
It is related. It’s part of the new WOKE morality to effectively encourage or at least accept what until recently was an immoral act called stealing. It’s also not by chance that this is happening. There are laws that are not being enforced and the problems feeding upon themselves and as a result growing because there is an intentional WOKE agenda to denounce unlimited aspects of society under a pretense of inclusion of anything without question.
Wait… did I misuse “inclusion” according to your standards?
Do a Google Search. I stand by my comment. Anything one doesn’t like isn’t Woke and it becoming a catch-all isn’t helpful.
Right, a Google search proves the reality of everything Bob. Google is the arbiter now and you will attest that Google isn’t heavily filtered and doesn’t ban content that doesn’t suite it’s agenda and/or interests.
OK, thanks for sharing your world view today.
I am 1000% with Bob. We don’t need that nonsense here, or maybe your responses indicate some re-training is necessary.
Thanks Paula, I appreciate the support.
I do not support Lululemon. Stealing from stores is morally and legally wrong. Intervening may be misguided, for a whole variety of reasons, but it understandable and morally valid. Lululemon, whether intended or not, appears to be siding with immorality. Ultimately, sacking employees who were trying to do right is an extremely harsh response – from a company that plasters its stores with messages of kindness. Not a good look.
” Lululemon, whether intended or not, appears to be siding with immorality.”
Neil, that is the strongest statement I have ever read from you. I agree with you all the way.
And having an employee run out into the street to claw back $500 worth of merch and potentially be attacked or killed is somehow moral? I don’t see this as a black-and-white issue.
A retailer forcing them to do that is not moral. People doing it by their own volition – which is the case here – is certainly not immoral. It’s a pretty natural reaction to the frustration that comes of watching criminals come in and blatantly take what doesn’t belong to them. What is black and white here is that two people are out of jobs, with all of the stresses and problems that causes.
I agree with a lot of the other BrainTrust members in saying that while I understand the need for the strict policy, it’s just a bad look in this particular instance to proceed with zero tolerance. There are many policies for store associates that deserve zero tolerance, but in this act of good intention and protecting their store, a greater message of tolerance should have been made by Lululemon management.
Lululemon, as with every retailer challenged by increasing theft, is in a lose-lose situation. Training employees to step back and resist engaging with thieves is indeed, though contrarian to majority thinking, the right policy. The firing of these two associates as a result of their actions does feel harsh. However, if Lululemon’s policy was that of expecting their associates to intervene with looters, and as has happened elsewhere, they or customers are injured or killed, the public and social media uproar would be exponentially magnified as would Lululemon’s exposure and liability.
Not an easy ‘look’ for Lululemon, but certainly understandable. The risk of intervening / chasing thieves isn’t just to those employees. It’s to other customers and bystanders when the situation possibly escalates. At some point, in this crazy world, you have to draw the line and make a stand. While firing the employees seems harsh, I can understand and support the decision made.
The press they receive from this firing will do more harm than good, and only serves to make customers less sympathetic for the real losses incurred by theft. I completely agree that retailers need a firm policy to prevent employees from putting their lives at risk, and possibly endangering customers in the process. Walmart suffered a hefty law suit settlement for this very thing. But at the same time, the employees’ reacted on instinct, with the intent of protecting their employer. Was firing really necessary, or would a reprimand and retraining be more in line, especially since good help is hard to find.
I understand maintaining corporate policy and the desire to safeguard employees, but, honestly, I don’t agree with the firing. We are building a community of “safe to steal” practices and it needs to stop. The industry needs to find ways to deter thieves and not punish employees.
It does seem harsh but Lululemon’s policy protects its people over product and that is admirable.
I ran a store in downtown Chicago at a time when professionals intent on shoplifting visited every week. We were told by corporate to stop them. Let me tell you, policy or not, after being thrown into a Sensomatic tower I learned to hold the door open when they left the store.
Yesterday, I read that California Senate passed a bill to stop employees from confronting shoplifters. That’s how bad it is on the frontline. Maybe Lululemon is on to something.
Just to be clear, The California Senate passed legislation that prevents employers from requiring workers to confront active shooters or shoplifters. Passed May 31, Senate Bill 553 contains provisions prohibiting employers from maintaining such policies
Thanks, Bob!
I hate to be a contrarian here, but a zero tolerance policy — especially one designed to protect employees and customers — is a zero tolerance policy. Punta. Period. End of story. Several folks here have spoken about the employees’ good intentions, bringing to mind that old saw about what the road to Hell is paved with. No amount of property is worth risking a human life for. The policy is clear. As to whether or not it’s overly harsh, as this incident demonstrates, even a zero tolerance policy doesn’t stop some people from reacting emotionally rather than intellectually.
Fire them? Wrong! For goodness sake, train associates to see the theft occurring and immediately call the police. How can you justify firing great staff members who believe in you so much that they would sacrifice their own safety? Reinforce the training to back off and call the police for help.
Okay. Wow, this story did not hit my news feed. I can (kind of) understand the policy (let technology and the police do their jobs, it is safer), however you stand up for your company, and you call the police, and for that you get fired??????? With no severance????
Not only is the policy dimwitted, but the firing is tone deaf at best and idiotic at worst. If Mr. McDonald wanted to send a message about his policy he could have done so many other things (praise, but reminding employees how this could have gone wrong, etc. etc.).
And to top it off we read that California is going to make stopping thieves illegal? So let’s make any attempt to enforce the law…illegal. And while everyone is at it, maybe we can put up a sign on all stores to come in and take what you want, nothing will happen to you. Sarcasm intended.
Theft is a HUGE deal nationally for the retail industry. I would love to hear how the NRF and other lobbyists are trying to influence thinking about this with our elected representatives. It sounds like a huge fail in California so far.
Just to be clear, The California Senate passed legislation that prevents employers from requiring workers to confront active shooters or shoplifters. Passed May 31, Senate Bill 553 contains provisions prohibiting employers from maintaining such policies
Thanks Bob: confronting mis-information is one kind of intervention I can get behind 100%!
Translation from California government: “For all you would be thieves, we’re removing obstacles, deterrents, and all remaining mystery. Help yourself! Retailers can and should absorb higher losses.”
Because thieves care about laws. No, the law says you can’t require employees to do something
I would have done the same thing the fired associates did, and if I were a customer there I’d have taken action. I understand Lululemon’s policy but this brazen theft is out of control and very dangerous.
Why in the He** are we still discussing this topic??
It’s management’s prerogative , indeed their responsibility, to set policies to protect a company’s “assets” – both merchandise and employees.
“we put the safety of our team and of our guests front and center,”…it couldn’t be any clearer.
Policies in place are usually well-known by every employee. And they must include accountability to be real. But for every leader who needs to lay out accountability, there also needs to be consideration and common sense.
In this case, the employees should be acknowledged for wanting to do right by the company, even thanked. Smart to chase after criminals? Probably not. But they were acting as if they were the owners of the company. Hard to find team members who take this much initiative.
It is important to prioritize the safety of store associates and customers’ safety and follow company policies and guidelines. Understandably, Lululemon has a zero-tolerance policy for employee interaction during theft incidents, which can pose a significant risk to individuals’ safety. However, it is also important to consider the circumstances of each situation and ensure that employees are aware of the policies and trained accordingly. Firing the employees, in this case, without a severance, is very harsh. I imagine in their mind. They are trying to do the right thing.
Employee conduct and discipline depend on policies, laws, and incident circumstances.
In situations where employees confront thieves, there can be and are potential risks involved, such as personal safety, escalating the situation, or violating company policies or local laws. My retail experience involved companies prioritizing employee safety and discouraging direct confrontation with thieves to minimize harm and liability.
Catching someone that took $50, in exchange with loss of an employee due to a broken leg and $100K+ in worker’s compensation expenses…or worse, hurting an innocent bystander – is it really worth it? Their harsh move…a response to crazier times with higher stings and so much more to lose. They set a precedent.
Two thoughts – 1) Regrettable that good data, in person training, merchandising, guarding, etc were unable to prevent and 2) Store associates according to our ECR research hate no approach policies, they feel ownership for the stores assets, worry about their jobs if losses are not under control, etc, it is thus natural or instinct that they would approach customers. To fire them strikes me as an over reaction. The more time the C suite can spend in stores, especially the toughest stores, the better. Link to our new research on fortress stores. https://www.ecrloss.com/research/fortress-stores-keeping-the-most-at-risk-grocery-stores-trading