Quote:
Originally Posted by Barcey
It's not about fault at all. It's about a company trying to implement loss mitigation processes and who pays. It's assuming that the majority of the lost inventory is walking out with employees and then putting a process in place to screen the employees. I believe it should be incumbent on the company to pay for that and since they are paying making it as efficient as possible. Another option would be to increase the number of security cameras and security staff that monitors them. Should the employees pay for that? Another option would be to increase security staff who search garbage bins and shipping bays. Should the employees pay for that? Trying to make it about fault is not logical.
|
Yes it is logical. The employees that have to suffer because of some (many?) should get their pitchforks ready to burn the dumb people that ruined it for everybody. And I am not talking about Amazon, but those that chose to steal. It could have been dealt with quite differently if the honest workers would have stuck together and tell on the dishonest ones. For example random checks could have been implemented first - say 10% of all employees gets checked every day. And if anything is found then you get fired on the spot. Where I work we occasionally have a problem with workers staying at work. They simply walk out during a break never to be seen again. Once it gets out of hand , the company switches temp agencies - especially if that agency fails to get replacements in.
I also believe that there should be mandatory drug screenings for people that receice unemployment or welfare benefits. It doesn't make sense that those doing drugs on welfare get protected because the others would cry wolf if they get inconvenienced.