K.I.S.S. - Cumbersome Farms

Check out this story via Consumerist

I'm on the fence about the issue itself (though I don't think a firing is the right call in this situation unless if it is a repeat offense), but check out this post from a member of the article:


The policy is sound. It can deter robberies if the robbers learn/realize/see sign on wall that a minimal amount cash is in the till. Now it is possible that there will be more robberies because of this score.
Also, if the policy is $75 and lets say he had $80 then the firing would be stupid. But $150 is double what should have been in there.
For those that say Cumberland Farms only cares about money ... I doubt they care about a few hundred dollars. But they care about being a target for robberies in which they could have a larger liability, cash or human.
Next comes if was specifically told of the policy and not just "make sure you dump the register frequently"

Now this is what the Reactioneer is about!  This is perhaps the dumbest possible series of individual statements I can imagine, yet I don't believe it's trolling.  Let's get logical, shall we?

1) I shop repeatedly at certain locations; I'm one of those 'long-term, loyal customer' type of people.  I have ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE what their cash handling policy is.  How many would-be convenience store robbers are going to know this?  Also, isn't this a fairly standard practice?  If so, then wouldn't convenience store robberies be a shock and in all the papers because of their rarity?  This policy can only be good for reducing a loss due to a robbery, not robbery prevention.

As a side note: how many places do you think actually post their internal policy about cash handling?  That doesn't make sense to me.  The closest I can think of this situation are the many places advising they won't take or break bills of a certain denomination or greater.  Certainly not the same as what this poster is stating.

2) Now let's take their claim as is and move on to the part of the possible increase in criminal activity at this location.  WHAT?!  So other would-be robbers are going to read the story about the guy WHO WAS KEEPING TOO MUCH IN THE REGISTER FIRED AND A CLEAR STATEMENT OF THE POLICY IN PLACE and think to themselves "Surely this won't be a lesson to anyone else.  Surely they'll start keeping EVEN MORE in the register".  In fact, I think that the likelihood of this knowledge increasing the likelihood of a robbery is in direct conflict of his first sentence.

The rest of it is basic naivety.  OF COURSE it's about money.  If it were my business it would be about money.  Safety is a great calling card for making money saving policies.  It may not be ethical, but it's practical.  My favorite part is that the spokesperson has no idea what the drawer policy is specifically.  Didn't they think that question would come up?