It is definitely inconvenient and highly noticeable. For instance, I had to call a worker to let me get batteries.
The headline "entire inventory" isn't quite right. The locked cabinets included all electronics, health and beauty, and soap (probably a higher overall fraction of the store than I've ever seen in any other store), but not office supplies, clothing, housewares, hardware, food, kitchenware, or non-soap cleaning supplies.
There's not a single quote in the article from anyone who works at Target blaming this on shoplifting.
How many times do these headlines need to be proven false before we finally accept that retailers are not taking these actions because of a "shoplifting crisis"? It's not why Walgreens closed [1], it's not why Whole Foods closed [2] and when the dust settles it won't be why Target did this either.
Did you actually read the links that you posted? The snopes article pretty plainly explains that it refuted that the store was closed due to “angry transgender customers”, but that the reasons for closure were high rates of shoplifting and difficulty keeping employees safe.
> While "high theft" was cited as a reason the store cut its hours in October 2022, it wasn't cited as a reason for the temporary closure in April 2023.
> The publication also wrote that "deteriorating street conditions around drug use," as well as "crime near the grocery store," were the cited reasons for its temporary closure.
So you’re arguing that “high theft”, while being the stated reason that the store cut its hours last October, wasn’t specifically mentioned using those exact words in this store closing, and so that’s a victory? Even tho the stated reasons were “deteriorating street conditions around drug use” and “crime near the grocery store”?
I was at that store the other week and initially wondered why so much was locked up, but then I encountered the performance artists responsible and learned they have it down to a science.
They pick fights with other customers, often involving allegations of racism (which I saw first-hand were completely untrue). And the security doesn't want to have anything to do with it, so they let the perpetrator leave the store unmolested.
It was an interesting experience but I couldn't imagine working there or shopping there regularly!
11 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 28.6 ms ] threadIt is definitely inconvenient and highly noticeable. For instance, I had to call a worker to let me get batteries.
The headline "entire inventory" isn't quite right. The locked cabinets included all electronics, health and beauty, and soap (probably a higher overall fraction of the store than I've ever seen in any other store), but not office supplies, clothing, housewares, hardware, food, kitchenware, or non-soap cleaning supplies.
How many times do these headlines need to be proven false before we finally accept that retailers are not taking these actions because of a "shoplifting crisis"? It's not why Walgreens closed [1], it's not why Whole Foods closed [2] and when the dust settles it won't be why Target did this either.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/06/business/walgreens-shopli...
[2] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/whole-foods-close-transgen...
> While "high theft" was cited as a reason the store cut its hours in October 2022, it wasn't cited as a reason for the temporary closure in April 2023.
> The publication also wrote that "deteriorating street conditions around drug use," as well as "crime near the grocery store," were the cited reasons for its temporary closure.
So you’re arguing that “high theft”, while being the stated reason that the store cut its hours last October, wasn’t specifically mentioned using those exact words in this store closing, and so that’s a victory? Even tho the stated reasons were “deteriorating street conditions around drug use” and “crime near the grocery store”?
Lmao guess you showed those SF haters!
But merchandise being closed off behind locked doors? That is definitely due to shoplifting.
They pick fights with other customers, often involving allegations of racism (which I saw first-hand were completely untrue). And the security doesn't want to have anything to do with it, so they let the perpetrator leave the store unmolested.
It was an interesting experience but I couldn't imagine working there or shopping there regularly!