JB Hi Fi draconian door security policy

Forums › Off topic › JB Hi Fi draconian door security policy

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

271 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 2

#317922 13-Apr-2010 17:18

corksta:
Seriously, if something this trivial has caused you to no longer want to shop there, then that is pathetic. I highly doubt you'd be on here ranting about the same nonsense if the person in front of you was checked instead of you, so stop being so precious and get over it - bag searches are a fact of life.

Would you take the same attitude if we were to replace the word bag with cavity? That may be a bit extreme but maybe you can see how some people might feel about this. I know the facebook generation doesn't value their privacy but some people do. And that privacy extends to what is in my bag.

corksta

2405 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 382

Trusted

Subscriber

#317923 13-Apr-2010 17:21

friedCrumpet:
corksta:
Seriously, if something this trivial has caused you to no longer want to shop there, then that is pathetic. I highly doubt you'd be on here ranting about the same nonsense if the person in front of you was checked instead of you, so stop being so precious and get over it - bag searches are a fact of life.

Would you take the same attitude if we were to replace the word bag with cavity? That may be a bit extreme but maybe you can see how some people might feel about this. I know the facebook generation doesn't value their privacy but some people do. And that privacy extends to what is in my bag.

Sorry, there is no way in hell you can equate a cavity search to a bag search, that is a ridiculous analogy.

pageweon

393 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 8

#317927 13-Apr-2010 17:26

and again, there is a difference between search and inspect

they arnt allowed to fondle your belongings or even open a closed bag, only glance into an allready opened bag

huge difference between that and telling you to bend over and think relaxing thoughts

this is where a signature goes

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#317939 13-Apr-2010 17:46

Quidam:
I find some of the apologists for this form of security quite remarkable. I fully appreciate there are a lot of rationalisations for running your security this way, I just don't happen to like it, and I wont be shopping at JB again because of it. That's not an overreaction at all, as I have plenty of other ways to purchase what I want so why on earth would I choose a method I find offensive? I mean, it's a great shopping experience to have a bunch of people all looking at you wondering if you might have shoplifted and I'm looking forward to repeating the experience.

i must suggest then you are very very lucky not to be a foreign traveller to NZ/Oz in the 90s - they used to spray the entire passenger cabin with bug killing perfume on landing Down Under - would've made you feel worse than the worms that eat the $%^&

i must also advise you not to go travelling very soon because you'd be scanned by a show-all body scanner in some parts of the world! yes, replace bag with cavity.

Quidam

291 posts

Ultimate Geek

#317941 13-Apr-2010 17:48

All

it occurs to me (almost painfully obviously) that my strong reaction to what at the end of the day was a pretty trivial event is no doubt related to the fact that my Sister passed away less than 3 weeks ago.

My mood is volatile right now and dumb needless sh!t like that is going to set me off.

I actually stand by my basic view that the system lacks customer focus and risks insulting (albeit in trivial fashion) the very customers who make the business work.

I don't support such an approach because in a competitive market it is my view that you do everything you can to earn customer loyalty and that isn't the way to do it.

I won't personally be shopping at jb again and to be honest that's of little consequence to me, and in my view of more significant consequence to jb. After all I'll still get the products I want but they won't be getting my money for it. Maybe they should consider that however justifiable it may be to randomly bag search customers (which I don't think is that random) that they risk hitting someone like me, who's just lost a loved one; had a crap day at work; argued with the wife etc and really isn't in the mood for taking crap.

"There is no way to Peace -Peace is the Way" (A. J. Muste)

bazzer

3438 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 267

Trusted

#317949 13-Apr-2010 17:58

I'd better get to JB quick to buy the things I want at their cheap prices before they shut down as a consequence of you no longer being their customer!

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

Quidam

291 posts

Ultimate Geek

#317957 13-Apr-2010 18:04

bazzer: I'd better get to JB quick to buy the things I want at their cheap prices before they shut down as a consequence of you no longer being their customer!

Yeah Bazza, I'm expecting them to foreclose tomorrow. Bet it must have taken you at least 5 minutes to think that up

"There is no way to Peace -Peace is the Way" (A. J. Muste)

Ragnor

8279 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 585

Trusted

#317964 13-Apr-2010 18:21

I think this sums up my opinion...

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#317975 13-Apr-2010 18:48

friedCrumpet:
Maybe JB should design their stores differently, in a way that discourages casual theft. They could start by security tagging all of their stock like other retailers do. Keep the discs out of their packets like a music store does. And maybe they could put their checkout next to the exit like at Harvey Norman, so they don't have to insist on looking at your receipt and your bag of legitimately purchased goods.

Tagging of stock isn't the solution. Most people are fully aware of what RF or AM tags/stickers look like on products and easily remove them. If you try and plant them internally people rip open packaging.

kingjj

1730 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 450

ID Verified

Trusted

#317981 13-Apr-2010 19:05

vinnieg:

That is correct, you can have a security guard up for assault if they attempt to obtain you against your will, through force or threats. The correct procedure which isn't followed that well, is to match a description of the offender and follow them, till the police catch up.

To further comment on this as someone who actually works in the industry, Security Personnel can use Reasonable Force (as detailed in the Crimes Act) to hold you if you have A) property that belongs to the store, B) committed a breach of the peace or C) they believe you are about to commit a breach of the peace. In five years in a senior security/loss prevention role I have yet to see a successful conviction of a retail security officer or staff member for assault. I know of one case where the officer grabbed a womans arm to stop her leaving with a handbag full of stock (several $$$). The Police refused to prosecute so the woman and her corrupt lawyer husband (well known for this) took out a private prosecution, the judge ruled that it was reasonable force and dismissed the case. The couple have tried this several times in the hope that the store will request that the Police drop the charges against the wife (yet to happen). The store in this case did drop its civil suit against the offender, she was subsequently found guilty of theft and assaulting the security officer (whom she barged first).

The procedure you mention vinnieg is followed by most contract security firms now for safety reasons, however some internal security staff (and normal staff) would rather get physical, their choice. Our company follows the observe and report rule with educated personal preference on physical stops.

--

As for the bag search from the OP, you are fully within your rights to deny their request to look in your bag and they are fully within their rights to ask you to leave the property and to trespass you from the property (Under section 4 of the Trespass Act 1980). They don't need suspicion to stop someone either. We tell our security officers to stop random people every X minutes, they are trained in how to politely ask and how to deal with any issues that arise. Every bag check is recorded on CCTV and can be reviewed at the request of the Police or a lawyer. The purpose of bag checks is to create a visual deterrence to potential thieves, its rare to actually find stolen stock and be able to prove it belongs to the retailer.

Retail shrinkage costs over $900 million per annum in NZ, customer theft accounts for around 35% of this (with the rest of shrinkage being staff(40%)/admin/contractor/delivery). It is estimated that the average families grocery bill is $500 extra per year to account for theft.

--

OP if you did not like being stopped and searched I suggest you contact a manager at JB and ask for them to elaborate on their procedures. Glad to see your not taking it out on the security officer though, its a poorly paid thankless job that cops a lot of abuse but needs to be done.

kingjj

1730 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 450

ID Verified

Trusted

#317984 13-Apr-2010 19:09

sbiddle:
friedCrumpet:
Maybe JB should design their stores differently, in a way that discourages casual theft. They could start by security tagging all of their stock like other retailers do. Keep the discs out of their packets like a music store does. And maybe they could put their checkout next to the exit like at Harvey Norman, so they don't have to insist on looking at your receipt and your bag of legitimately purchased goods.

Tagging of stock isn't the solution. Most people are fully aware of what RF or AM tags/stickers look like on products and easily remove them. If you try and plant them internally people rip open packaging.

Good call sbiddle, which is why EAS systems have little effect on theft. They do however deter the casual/opportunistic thief as well as provide a visual deterrent, which is actually quite powerful. Most stores need a mixture of EAS, good environmental design, camera coverage and professional loss prevention to actually have an impact on shrinkage.

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

lxsw20

3689 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2174

Subscriber

#318011 13-Apr-2010 20:03

When I worked in retail years ago they would search all the staff's bags on their way out. No big deal really.

sleemanj

1514 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 315

#318117 13-Apr-2010 22:13

I haven't been bag searched since at University.

For some reason, still unknown, I think something in the crusty old motorcycle tank bag I had at the time triggered the exit gate alarm in the Physical Sciences Library at Canterbury, somewhat randomly but with reasonable frequency.

---
James Sleeman
I sell lots of stuff for electronic enthusiasts...

friedCrumpet

271 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 2

#318123 13-Apr-2010 22:36

corksta:
Sorry, there is no way in hell you can equate a cavity search to a bag search, that is a ridiculous analogy.

It was never implied as being equal. I was simply using an extreme to hopefully make people think a bit about the opposing argument. I guess you didn't.

You know I'm probably not going to say much more on this. It looks like Quidam and I may be the sole objectors to such policies, which to me is a sad state of affairs. There is an obvious trade off over the way you can treat your customers vs the amount of effort you put in to loss prevention. It seems that while the majority are happy to accept bag searches they will cut their losses with the few who are aggrieved by such actions.

kingjj

1730 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 450

ID Verified

Trusted

#318143 13-Apr-2010 23:52

friedCrumpet:
corksta:
Sorry, there is no way in hell you can equate a cavity search to a bag search, that is a ridiculous analogy.

It was never implied as being equal. I was simply using an extreme to hopefully make people think a bit about the opposing argument. I guess you didn't.

You know I'm probably not going to say much more on this. It looks like Quidam and I may be the sole objectors to such policies, which to me is a sad state of affairs. There is an obvious trade off over the way you can treat your customers vs the amount of effort you put in to loss prevention. It seems that while the majority are happy to accept bag searches they will cut their losses with the few who are aggrieved by such actions.

Unfortunately you are not incorrect, but I'm afraid you are going to have to get used to it as these policies are becoming more widespread. Across the ditch its now common place. To put it this way, a trained experienced loss prevention officer with cameras etc will still only catch one in 10 shoplifters, the other 9 will get away with the stock. For every dollar an LPO saves, nine more walks out the door. Unless people want store policies to go backwards, ie everything expensive/desirable/small locked away behind a counter, they need to get used to increased scrutiny. Its not popular in the security industry either as they're the ones that cop the flack from both the customers and the management.

However I do support anyone who feels aggrieved or mistreated during a stop check to contact a manager and discuss it, most stores will try their best to make a mends.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7