Bag checks are fairly common, usually occurring at ends of shift or closing. Pat downs are less so, mostly because it's generally not a good idea to require employees to touch each other.
Retail internal theft really is a serious problem, though. According to the National Retail Security Survey at UF, it costs retailers (read: consumers) $14.9 billion annually [1].
What you may find surprising is that most major retailers do, in fact, have quite extensive controls in place to prevent and detect internal theft -- exception reporting, inventory tracking, etc. That these massive losses still occur should give you an idea of how complex the problem is.
The reason the store requires two employees to take out the trash has nothing to do with watching for thieves or "armed intruders." It's actually a simple and surprisingly effective deterrent to internal theft. Diverting merchandise through non-public exits is a common theft strategy.
Also, Ike was not "fired because [he] got a promotion." He was fired for lying on his job application about a previous conviction for theft. Ike's conviction strongly suggests a tendency to act dishonestly, which is further reinforced by his attempt to cover it up when applying for the job. This is precisely the type of individual that the background check is intended to screen.
Lastly, the author says it happened when Ike was a teenager, so it could only have happened when Ike was either 18 or 19. Juvenile court records are not available to background check services.
I have heard that, for most retailers, most of their losses are due to internal theft. Hence lots of video cameras, and background checks to a degree that seem a little absurd, plus loss prevention investigations, record keeping, and lots of internal audits. What really sounds odd are the bag checks and pat-downs. Pat-downs especially, at least partly since they seem likely to lead to sexual harassment suits. I can't think of a solid legal reason not to do bag checks, but it sounds so demeaning and pointless, unless you work somewhere where tens of thousands in inventory could legitimately be snuck out through somebody's backpack. If you're selling diamonds or gold jewelry, I could see it, but sporting goods? What are they supposedly stealing that can be snuck out in a backpack and will lead to a meaningful loss before somebody figures it out?
Ike's situation is what bothers me about the current criminal justice system, though. If you get a conviction on your record for anything moderately serious, you're just done. He could tell the truth, and get locked out right off the bat, or lie, and maybe get caught later. We've probably all done dumb stuff when we were young. If you happen to get busted for something at the wrong time, well, good luck ever getting a semi-professional job again. Years and years of dedicated service are nothing against some dumb mistake a decade ago.
I'll admit that I tend to think that a lot of petty thieves are doing it for the thrills rather than desperation for survival. But what do we really expect them to do after they get caught? Even if they do some time and learn their lesson, it looks like they have damn few options for making a clean living, no matter how skilled and dedicated they are. I don't have any idea how many ex-cons are making a legit effort to live a clean life after they do their time, but we sure don't seem to be making it easy for them. And we're surprised that most of them go back to crime and get busted again? I'm not sure exactly how to solve it, but it surely needs some work.
The problem is that whatever punishment the justice system metes is supposed to be considered sufficient repayment to society for the damage caused. Yet, these things remain on publicly-available record for the rest of your life. The solution is to close the records to the public after the person's time is served. There is no beneficial reason to continue their punishment beyond that time, which is what open records effectively does.
That would solve the employer discrimination problem, but it creates a whole host of other problems that sound much worse. Our whole legal system rests on the foundation of public access to everything. Anybody can find out: who has been arrested by the police, what they've been charged with, where they're being held, what the outcome of the arraignment and trial is, what evidence and arguments were presented at the trial if there was one, what they were sentenced with, where they are serving their sentence, and how much time they've served.
You can't prevent people from knowing who's an ex-con without making all of that stuff secret. But if all of that stuff is secret, then anyone who the police arrest would essentially disappear. Nobody would be able to find out if they were even arrested in the first place, much less what they've been charged with, what the evidence is to substantiate that charge, where they're being held and in what conditions, etc. So nothing prevents the police from arresting anybody they feel like on no evidence, and keeping them anywhere they want for as long as they want, because nobody would know about it in the first place. Even the much maligned Guantanamo Bay prison isn't that secret, and it's still widely considered an outrage. We've seen a lot of abuse of existing law enforcement powers lately; I'm not willing to essentially give them a massive level of new powers for the sake of giving ex-cons better opportunities.
> Ike's conviction strongly suggests a tendency to act dishonestly, which is further reinforced by his attempt to cover it up when applying for the job.
I wouldn't make it out to be such a personal moral failing. Given the job climate described in the article, I wouldn't expect him to be able to get a job by telling the truth about his conviction. If they were actually concerned about producing profit instead of covering their butts, Corporate would sweep it under the rug with the realization that he is effectively required to lie about it in order to participate in society.
Retail internal theft really is a serious problem, though. According to the National Retail Security Survey at UF, it costs retailers (read: consumers) $14.9 billion annually [1].
What you may find surprising is that most major retailers do, in fact, have quite extensive controls in place to prevent and detect internal theft -- exception reporting, inventory tracking, etc. That these massive losses still occur should give you an idea of how complex the problem is.
The reason the store requires two employees to take out the trash has nothing to do with watching for thieves or "armed intruders." It's actually a simple and surprisingly effective deterrent to internal theft. Diverting merchandise through non-public exits is a common theft strategy.
Also, Ike was not "fired because [he] got a promotion." He was fired for lying on his job application about a previous conviction for theft. Ike's conviction strongly suggests a tendency to act dishonestly, which is further reinforced by his attempt to cover it up when applying for the job. This is precisely the type of individual that the background check is intended to screen.
Lastly, the author says it happened when Ike was a teenager, so it could only have happened when Ike was either 18 or 19. Juvenile court records are not available to background check services.
[1] http://investors.tyco.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=112348&p=irol-news...