Training to reduce employee theft – 4 WC Blog 468
Employee Theft-3
Managers Need To Be Tuned In To Employee Theft
Does your store have a process for marking out or store-using merchandise for store needs? The store I currently work for does and so have the prior three stores I worked in as a Loss Prevention Associate or Manager. In my current store if there is a need for let’s say trash bags and we have run out, someone on the store management team can permit the item to be “store-used” and removed from store shelves. The employee marks the sku number in a book and later the manager removes it from store inventory. The item is to be marked in some manner as store property so there is no question it has been processed properly. If a manager hasn’t gone through training to reduce employee theft they may not realize when someone is taking advantage of a process. Employee theft can also take place when managers are too trusting and don’t question what or why an associate is doing something.
You may not have even realized there was a need for training to reduce employee theft or you may not have known there was training available. Loss Prevention Systems Inc. has programs available that will educate retail owners and managers on why employee theft is such a big concern and how it affects stores. The training demonstrates the various methods that employees use to steal from their employer whether it is cash or merchandise. Bill Bregar, owner and President of Loss Prevention Systems Inc., draws on his education, training and years of upper level Retail Loss Prevention Management experience to educate others. He can show you how losses are occurring in your store without you realizing it until it is time to conduct an annual inventory. Since most smaller or independent retail owners can’t afford a Loss Prevention team of their own, managers HAVE to know how employee theft takes place and how they can prevent it. This training does that!
The reason I am talking about store using merchandise and employee theft is because I encountered such an issue during my time as a Loss Prevention for a big box retail store. I was going through our store’s requisition log verifying nothing seemed unusual or outlandish. Initially the records for the month were looking in order. The employee who had done the requisition was listed, the date was written, the item description was logged in and an approving manager’s initials were in place. As I was nearing the end I found one store use that seemed odd. Our maintenance person had requisitioned an expensive multiplier tool. He was not working so I went to his work area which was locked and could not locate it. I asked the manager who approved it if there was a reason for the requisition. The manager said the maintenance person said he needed it so he gave the okay. I reminded the manager that the maintenance department had a procedure for ordering the supplies and tools they needed and that this was not a required item. The manager had not considered that there was a possibility there could be an employee theft issue. This was a manager who HAD undergone training to reduce employee theft. He had been trained as a store associate by me and when promoted went through a detailed manager training program.
Ultimately I confronted the employee and asked about the tool. He showed me a cheap version of a multi-tool and I told him that was not the one he had requisitioned. He then said he had it at home and that he always took his tools home at the end of the day. I to writing him up for failure to follow procedures and warned him to leave store merchandise at the store.
While the requisition and the employee’s intention to steal the item (in my mind at least) were at issue, the bigger problem was the manager not being alert to a potential theft issue. How many other things was the manager not tuned in to? Managers can prevent shortage and theft but they must know there are employees in the ranks who are willing to steal even if they are likeable people. Training to reduce employee theft can bring awareness to your team and make your business more profitable.
Need information on employee theft? Give us a call at 1.770.426.0547 now.
Does your store have a process for marking out or store-using merchandise for store needs? The store I currently work for does and so have the prior three stores I worked in as a Loss Prevention Associate or Manager. In my current store if there is a need for let’s say trash bags and we have run out, someone on the store management team can permit the item to be “store-used” and removed from store shelves. The employee marks the sku number in a book and later the manager removes it from store inventory. The item is to be marked in some manner as store property so there is no question it has been processed properly. If a manager hasn’t gone through training to reduce employee theft they may not realize when someone is taking advantage of a process. Employee theft can also take place when managers are too trusting and don’t question what or why an associate is doing something.
You may not have even realized there was a need for training to reduce employee theft or you may not have known there was training available. Loss Prevention Systems Inc. has programs available that will educate retail owners and managers on why employee theft is such a big concern and how it affects stores. The training demonstrates the various methods that employees use to steal from their employer whether it is cash or merchandise. Bill Bregar, owner and President of Loss Prevention Systems Inc., draws on his education, training and years of upper level Retail Loss Prevention Management experience to educate others. He can show you how losses are occurring in your store without you realizing it until it is time to conduct an annual inventory. Since most smaller or independent retail owners can’t afford a Loss Prevention team of their own, managers HAVE to know how employee theft takes place and how they can prevent it. This training does that!
The reason I am talking about store using merchandise and employee theft is because I encountered such an issue during my time as a Loss Prevention for a big box retail store. I was going through our store’s requisition log verifying nothing seemed unusual or outlandish. Initially the records for the month were looking in order. The employee who had done the requisition was listed, the date was written, the item description was logged in and an approving manager’s initials were in place. As I was nearing the end I found one store use that seemed odd. Our maintenance person had requisitioned an expensive multiplier tool. He was not working so I went to his work area which was locked and could not locate it. I asked the manager who approved it if there was a reason for the requisition. The manager said the maintenance person said he needed it so he gave the okay. I reminded the manager that the maintenance department had a procedure for ordering the supplies and tools they needed and that this was not a required item. The manager had not considered that there was a possibility there could be an employee theft issue. This was a manager who HAD undergone training to reduce employee theft. He had been trained as a store associate by me and when promoted went through a detailed manager training program.
Ultimately I confronted the employee and asked about the tool. He showed me a cheap version of a multi-tool and I told him that was not the one he had requisitioned. He then said he had it at home and that he always took his tools home at the end of the day. I to writing him up for failure to follow procedures and warned him to leave store merchandise at the store.
While the requisition and the employee’s intention to steal the item (in my mind at least) were at issue, the bigger problem was the manager not being alert to a potential theft issue. How many other things was the manager not tuned in to? Managers can prevent shortage and theft but they must know there are employees in the ranks who are willing to steal even if they are likeable people. Training to reduce employee theft can bring awareness to your team and make your business more profitable.
Need information on employee theft? Give us a call at 1.770.426.0547 now.
Return Fraud-5 WC Blog 393
Wardrobing-5
Online Clothing Rental Stores Are Not A Remedy To Return Fraud Caused By Wardrobing
For retailers clothing return fraud has been a problem for many years. Customers come in to find an outfit they like, purchase it and take it home. The customer removes or hides the tags and wears the garments out to an event or just to be seen in public. Often this is to impress their friends and give the appearance that they are purchasing new clothes on a regular basis. After they wear the clothes once or twice the purchaser puts the clothing tags back on the merchandise or if they had taped them up they allow the tags to hang loose again. The clothes are then returned to the store and the customer has the original receipt and seeks a full refund. This type of return fraud is known as wardrobing.
You may be wondering why a store would allow wardrobing to take place. Perhaps you own a small retail clothing shop yourself and can’t understand how someone could let this happen. It may surprise you but if you have been selling clothes for any length of time you have probably been the victim of a clothing return scam and didn’t realize it. Office supply stores and even online sites provide easy access to the purchase of ticketing guns that use the plastic hangers that hold manufacturer hang tags on clothing. It isn’t difficult to take off and replace tags in this fashion. The other trick is simply to tuck a tag up the sleeve of a shirt or jacket or down the neck and tape it against the material to avoid it falling out and being seen by others. Aside from possible stains or odors, when the tags are in place again it can be very hard to know the clothing had been worn. I have often joked that it would be better if stores just rented clothes and it wouldn’t matter if people wore the garments and returned them.
I bring this all up because the other day I saw a commercial for an online retailer that rents clothes out. For a moment I thought that it sounded like a good idea. Then I looked into a couple of similar websites that advertised services that closely resembled the advertisement I had watched on television. I did a little digging and found that what it looks like these retailers do is have customers sign up for subscriptions and then pay a monthly fee or they charge for an item to be rented and an additional charge if it is not returned on time. Some websites even give an option to rent the item for one price or purchase it outright for another price. While this does sound good and could provide opportunities for a person to wear a rented wardrobe I am not convinced it will do any good in preventing wardrobing among the swindlers who engage in the activity.
Here is what I am saying, if someone wardrobes, the perpetrator does not want to pay anything for the clothing they are purchasing. Their mindset is to appear to be buying the clothes and then return them for a full refund. The act of wardrobing is to avoid paying anything at all for the clothing. Therefore, renting clothes online or purchasing a subscription is not going to appeal to people who commit return fraud.
I did find it interesting that at least one of the clothing rental companies I looked up appears to use wardrobing tags on their merchandise. In their FAQ section they remind a client not to remove the “security tag” until they have tried on the merchandise to ensure it fits. If it is removed the client is charged the rental fee when it is returned. This sounds much like Alpha Shark Tags which are one- time use tags that are to be cut off by a customer, not the store. Once cut off it prevents the item from being able to be returned whether it is to a traditional brick and mortar store or an online retailer.
Return fraud is a drain on retailers. From the amount of time a salesperson spends helping the fraudster to the determination of what to do with the merchandise when it is returned. Is the garment serviceable? Are there stains or odors? Does it have to be cleaned or marked out of stock and destroyed? All of these things can cost the store more money. Don’t allow return fraud to hurt your profit line, use Alpha Shark Tags and don’t worry if you have or have not been a victim in the past, you won’t be again.
Need information on return fraud? Give us a call at 1.770.426.0547 now.
For retailers clothing return fraud has been a problem for many years. Customers come in to find an outfit they like, purchase it and take it home. The customer removes or hides the tags and wears the garments out to an event or just to be seen in public. Often this is to impress their friends and give the appearance that they are purchasing new clothes on a regular basis. After they wear the clothes once or twice the purchaser puts the clothing tags back on the merchandise or if they had taped them up they allow the tags to hang loose again. The clothes are then returned to the store and the customer has the original receipt and seeks a full refund. This type of return fraud is known as wardrobing.
You may be wondering why a store would allow wardrobing to take place. Perhaps you own a small retail clothing shop yourself and can’t understand how someone could let this happen. It may surprise you but if you have been selling clothes for any length of time you have probably been the victim of a clothing return scam and didn’t realize it. Office supply stores and even online sites provide easy access to the purchase of ticketing guns that use the plastic hangers that hold manufacturer hang tags on clothing. It isn’t difficult to take off and replace tags in this fashion. The other trick is simply to tuck a tag up the sleeve of a shirt or jacket or down the neck and tape it against the material to avoid it falling out and being seen by others. Aside from possible stains or odors, when the tags are in place again it can be very hard to know the clothing had been worn. I have often joked that it would be better if stores just rented clothes and it wouldn’t matter if people wore the garments and returned them.
I bring this all up because the other day I saw a commercial for an online retailer that rents clothes out. For a moment I thought that it sounded like a good idea. Then I looked into a couple of similar websites that advertised services that closely resembled the advertisement I had watched on television. I did a little digging and found that what it looks like these retailers do is have customers sign up for subscriptions and then pay a monthly fee or they charge for an item to be rented and an additional charge if it is not returned on time. Some websites even give an option to rent the item for one price or purchase it outright for another price. While this does sound good and could provide opportunities for a person to wear a rented wardrobe I am not convinced it will do any good in preventing wardrobing among the swindlers who engage in the activity.
Here is what I am saying, if someone wardrobes, the perpetrator does not want to pay anything for the clothing they are purchasing. Their mindset is to appear to be buying the clothes and then return them for a full refund. The act of wardrobing is to avoid paying anything at all for the clothing. Therefore, renting clothes online or purchasing a subscription is not going to appeal to people who commit return fraud.
I did find it interesting that at least one of the clothing rental companies I looked up appears to use wardrobing tags on their merchandise. In their FAQ section they remind a client not to remove the “security tag” until they have tried on the merchandise to ensure it fits. If it is removed the client is charged the rental fee when it is returned. This sounds much like Alpha Shark Tags which are one- time use tags that are to be cut off by a customer, not the store. Once cut off it prevents the item from being able to be returned whether it is to a traditional brick and mortar store or an online retailer.
Return fraud is a drain on retailers. From the amount of time a salesperson spends helping the fraudster to the determination of what to do with the merchandise when it is returned. Is the garment serviceable? Are there stains or odors? Does it have to be cleaned or marked out of stock and destroyed? All of these things can cost the store more money. Don’t allow return fraud to hurt your profit line, use Alpha Shark Tags and don’t worry if you have or have not been a victim in the past, you won’t be again.
Need information on return fraud? Give us a call at 1.770.426.0547 now.
Pre-employment screening – 3 WC Blog 403
Background Check Company -3
Don’t Be Fooled By Applicants Who Aren’t Who They Say They Are; Pre-employment Screening Keeps Things Real
I LOVE listening to my favorite oldies while I’m writing. Who doesn’t love the Ventures, The Beach Boys or The Beatles? How about Chuck Berry? Don’t forget Elvis Presley, Clarence “Frogman” Henry or Doo Wop with Gene Chandler and “The Duke Earl”? It becomes a little discouraging when, as I browse through online sites like YouTube, to watch some of the videos of these groups that I see commenters arguing about who stole who’s notes or lyrics. For example I was listening to “Surfin’ U.S.A.” by the Beach Boys and then the nasty little comments by a few of the Chuck Berry fans pointed to the Beach Boys lyrics being played to a Chuck Berry tune. Okay, they have a point, but it turns out to be only part of the truth. The WHOLE story is that the song was done as a tribute to Mr. Berry’s song “Sweet Little Sixteen” but according to the website Songfacts, the Beach Boys failed to get his permission first and Mr. Berry did threaten to sue the group but they wound up paying him royalties. How about other music controversies? Elvis Presley did not first sing “Hound Dog”, that actually was first sung by blues singer Willie Mae “Big Mamma” Thornton in 1952. Presley recorded his rock and roll version in 1956. For some readers who may not be quite as old as me, or enjoy the oldies, a somewhat more recent controversy took place when 80’s rapper “Vanilla Ice” “…sampled the base line to the 1981 Queen/Bowie collaboration “Under Pressure” (Rolling Stone, “Songs On Trial: 10 Landmark Music Copyright Cases”, by Jordon Runtagh, June 8, 2016). Now before you go ballistic wondering what in the world ANY of this has to do with Retail Loss Prevention hear me out. If you didn’t know any different and you took them at face value, you would assume the artists who recorded the music were the originals unless their album cover (or CD cover) stated otherwise. The same applies to job applicants. Unless you conduct a pre-employment screening you assume what the applicant says about themselves is true. How do you learn fact from fiction and avoid a problem down the road?
Pre-employment screening is a process in which a background check company receives the personal information on a job applicant and the information is verified. For example, if a social security number is provided the company can ensure the applicant is the person to whom the number actually belongs. The background check company can look at credit histories for applicants to determine if they might pose some risk of financial fraud to your business. And how about a person’s work history? You are looking for someone with a specific skill set and an applicant says they have work experience that qualifies them for the job you need to fill. Are they who they say they are or are they taking someone else’s work history and passing it off as their own? See? Much like my music analogy, “You don’t always get what you want” (to steal a line from a Rolling Stones song) unless you get a company to validate a candidate’s credentials.
I would also like to point out that there are ramifications when a band or artist is found guilty of using music or lyrics that “belong” to someone else. According to fuse.tv Johnny Cash used the lyrics from “Crescent City Blues” by Gordon Jenkins for his hit song “Folsom Prison Blues” and had to pay the composer $75,000 for the lyrics and the tune (this was disappointing to me since I have been a big Cash fan since I was a young boy). From the NME music website, George Harrison was found guilty of “subconscious plagiarism” with his song “My Sweet Lord” copying the music of The Chiffons hit “He’s So Fine”. According to the article, while the term means he unintentionally plagiarized he, “Still had to pay 1.6 m in damages, though.” What costs might you incur if you don’t take care to look at a candidate’s history? You may end of firing him or her and going through the hiring process again. You could end up with someone stealing from you. It is possible you could hire someone who has a criminal history that is not compatible with your business. There are a number of bad things that could result from not conducting pre-employment screening. Sing a happy tune when you use a background check company to hire people who are who they say they are.
Pre-employment screening is important and we can help you with it. Call 1.770.426.0547 and let’s talk.
I LOVE listening to my favorite oldies while I’m writing. Who doesn’t love the Ventures, The Beach Boys or The Beatles? How about Chuck Berry? Don’t forget Elvis Presley, Clarence “Frogman” Henry or Doo Wop with Gene Chandler and “The Duke Earl”? It becomes a little discouraging when, as I browse through online sites like YouTube, to watch some of the videos of these groups that I see commenters arguing about who stole who’s notes or lyrics. For example I was listening to “Surfin’ U.S.A.” by the Beach Boys and then the nasty little comments by a few of the Chuck Berry fans pointed to the Beach Boys lyrics being played to a Chuck Berry tune. Okay, they have a point, but it turns out to be only part of the truth. The WHOLE story is that the song was done as a tribute to Mr. Berry’s song “Sweet Little Sixteen” but according to the website Songfacts, the Beach Boys failed to get his permission first and Mr. Berry did threaten to sue the group but they wound up paying him royalties. How about other music controversies? Elvis Presley did not first sing “Hound Dog”, that actually was first sung by blues singer Willie Mae “Big Mamma” Thornton in 1952. Presley recorded his rock and roll version in 1956. For some readers who may not be quite as old as me, or enjoy the oldies, a somewhat more recent controversy took place when 80’s rapper “Vanilla Ice” “…sampled the base line to the 1981 Queen/Bowie collaboration “Under Pressure” (Rolling Stone, “Songs On Trial: 10 Landmark Music Copyright Cases”, by Jordon Runtagh, June 8, 2016). Now before you go ballistic wondering what in the world ANY of this has to do with Retail Loss Prevention hear me out. If you didn’t know any different and you took them at face value, you would assume the artists who recorded the music were the originals unless their album cover (or CD cover) stated otherwise. The same applies to job applicants. Unless you conduct a pre-employment screening you assume what the applicant says about themselves is true. How do you learn fact from fiction and avoid a problem down the road?
Pre-employment screening is a process in which a background check company receives the personal information on a job applicant and the information is verified. For example, if a social security number is provided the company can ensure the applicant is the person to whom the number actually belongs. The background check company can look at credit histories for applicants to determine if they might pose some risk of financial fraud to your business. And how about a person’s work history? You are looking for someone with a specific skill set and an applicant says they have work experience that qualifies them for the job you need to fill. Are they who they say they are or are they taking someone else’s work history and passing it off as their own? See? Much like my music analogy, “You don’t always get what you want” (to steal a line from a Rolling Stones song) unless you get a company to validate a candidate’s credentials.
I would also like to point out that there are ramifications when a band or artist is found guilty of using music or lyrics that “belong” to someone else. According to fuse.tv Johnny Cash used the lyrics from “Crescent City Blues” by Gordon Jenkins for his hit song “Folsom Prison Blues” and had to pay the composer $75,000 for the lyrics and the tune (this was disappointing to me since I have been a big Cash fan since I was a young boy). From the NME music website, George Harrison was found guilty of “subconscious plagiarism” with his song “My Sweet Lord” copying the music of The Chiffons hit “He’s So Fine”. According to the article, while the term means he unintentionally plagiarized he, “Still had to pay 1.6 m in damages, though.” What costs might you incur if you don’t take care to look at a candidate’s history? You may end of firing him or her and going through the hiring process again. You could end up with someone stealing from you. It is possible you could hire someone who has a criminal history that is not compatible with your business. There are a number of bad things that could result from not conducting pre-employment screening. Sing a happy tune when you use a background check company to hire people who are who they say they are.
Pre-employment screening is important and we can help you with it. Call 1.770.426.0547 and let’s talk.
