You are the ‘hands-on’ management of a nationwide American retailer. You are given statistics proving that the most stolen/ pinched/ thieved/ shoplifted items across the store, and indeed across a fair proportion of the stores nationwide; are hair-care products and other items popular with; and aimed almost exclusively at: the African-American section of the customers entering your stores.
So, you take steps, on an individual store basis, across all items which are the targets of this larcenous behaviour, and place them behind locked glass doors.
A black woman claims that this is ‘racist’ behaviour on the part of the store, and goes to court to force the retailer to remove the lockable-glass doors, and allow everyone access to the products, as was before the lock-down policy was employed.
Ignore, if you will, the sheer lunacy of a customer attempting to enforce the removal of a very successful anti-shoplifting policy, and discuss the options available to the retailer.
- a) stick with the lock-away policy, and just repeat, ‘The items are no longer being stolen, now that they are unavailable to the casual removal by prospective thieves’?: or
- b) Bow down before the great goddess which is Black-Ruled-America, place the tantalising gear back on the shelves, but spray every item with RFID materials which will show if an unscanned item is allowed past the checkouts, and incidentally increase the price of all this ephemera to cover the cost of the technology?; or
- c) Remove all the dross which is being stolen from the shelves,; stop stocking the items altogether, and let someone else take the heat and the resultant losses?