The Chronicle article does mention that Walgreens had "ramped up investments in security for San Francisco locations “to 46 times our chain average.”". The number of reported incidences of shoplifting is only a small fraction of the additional cost of shoplifting. As the article mentions, it is expensive to install all those "locked cases" and to hire security guards. The locked cases are not only costly to install but to maintain. Every time a shopper wants an item, they have to go find an employee to open it, costing additional employee staffing costs. Not to mention, many shoppers probably don't bother or don't like dealing with those cases (I don't!), so they decide not to shop at a Walgreens in the first place. The stores experience 1) increased staffing costs 2) decreased retail sales and 3) expensive security and finally 4) the cost of stolen goods. The article doesn't mention that the City allows Walgreens to hire off-duty police officers to be security guards. How much does that cost per hour? Does that go through an agency? Are they paid overtime rates? Is it $100 per hour? More? That could be $1200 a day in security costs for a store open 8am-8pm, or $36,000 a month. That could be over $3M a year in security costs. Maybe it is even half of that, or $1.5M. The security itself could eat up much of the store profit. Why doesn't the Chronicle look into the security costs? I'm no fan of Walgreens, but the Chronicle should look at the issue objectively instead of repeating both what Walgreens and City officials say. This isn't a complicated issue to consider, but it does take some independent thought.
I am getting so disillusioned with the press when I feel that reporting on the issues of crime and homelessness is so one-sided and citizens have to turn into investigative reporters themselves to get to the truth! Thank you for sharing this Erica.
The Chronicle article does mention that Walgreens had "ramped up investments in security for San Francisco locations “to 46 times our chain average.”". The number of reported incidences of shoplifting is only a small fraction of the additional cost of shoplifting. As the article mentions, it is expensive to install all those "locked cases" and to hire security guards. The locked cases are not only costly to install but to maintain. Every time a shopper wants an item, they have to go find an employee to open it, costing additional employee staffing costs. Not to mention, many shoppers probably don't bother or don't like dealing with those cases (I don't!), so they decide not to shop at a Walgreens in the first place. The stores experience 1) increased staffing costs 2) decreased retail sales and 3) expensive security and finally 4) the cost of stolen goods. The article doesn't mention that the City allows Walgreens to hire off-duty police officers to be security guards. How much does that cost per hour? Does that go through an agency? Are they paid overtime rates? Is it $100 per hour? More? That could be $1200 a day in security costs for a store open 8am-8pm, or $36,000 a month. That could be over $3M a year in security costs. Maybe it is even half of that, or $1.5M. The security itself could eat up much of the store profit. Why doesn't the Chronicle look into the security costs? I'm no fan of Walgreens, but the Chronicle should look at the issue objectively instead of repeating both what Walgreens and City officials say. This isn't a complicated issue to consider, but it does take some independent thought.
I am getting so disillusioned with the press when I feel that reporting on the issues of crime and homelessness is so one-sided and citizens have to turn into investigative reporters themselves to get to the truth! Thank you for sharing this Erica.
I saw a thief attack and assault a Chinese assistant manager and another Chinese employee one evening.
I had to call 911.
I spoke with the managers at several Walgreens stores, including Chinatown, Market Street, and North Beach.
They all say that shoplifting is a serious and significant problem.
Brown’s columns were inane.