I had a professor in New York who said each purchase that we make is a political statement—what we buy (what brand, what item, from what location, etc.), or don’t buy, is as much a political statement as voting. That always stuck with me, I think, because it’s a powerful idea: we make some of the strongest political statements with our pocketbooks, as consumers.
Many people have many, many reasons for not shopping at Wal-Mart. Some are related to Wal-Mart’s treatment of employees and its labor force, some are related to fair trade, and such. Personally, I don’t shop at Wal-Mart for two reasons, one of which is that Wal-Mart engages in some curious math where shoplifting is concerned and seems—against the laws of nature and of economics—to profit from shoplifting. (The other is related to surveillance: I once watched a Wal-Mart surveillance video on a case where there were SIX different camera angles of a single aisle. I could read the label on the box that the accused was holding. I prefer my shopping to be a bit more private than that.)
Early in 2014, I was appointed to represent a young woman who was on scholarship to a university. She came from a low-income household, and was the first member of her family to attend college. She briefly worked at Wal-Mart while in school. While employed there, she had allegedly taken three of four gift cards from the store, totaling about $1,000. She confessed, returned the cards having spent about $400 on groceries of the initial $1,000. She had never been arrested before, and had never even had a traffic ticket. She offered to pay back the $400 from her paycheck. Wal-Mart called the cops in, demanded a case be filed, and I was appointed to represent her. She was immediately hired by another company—who knew about the Wal-Mart theft charge—as a cashier. Personally, I trust her completely. It was a one-time slip-up, no more; a bad day that ended badly.
A note here: stealing is wrong. We, as a society, are morally opposed to stealing. Ideologically, stealing undermines the American ethos of working hard for what you want, and prospering through hard work, and only through hard work. We teach children not to steal. I get this, believe me.
But, we all have bad days. In fact, I would guess that, at least once in our lives, we have all taken something that wasn’t ours. And make no mistake: theft is theft. We all could have been prosecuted for theft, however small. But we weren’t. As I have said before: for most of us, our bad days end with us going to bed promising to do better and be better tomorrow; some people, however, are less lucky and bad days end in a jail cell. The only difference is luck.
Shortly after her arrest, Wal-Mart mailed her a letter saying that Wal-Mart will bring a civil suit against her unless she pays a $200 “restocking” fee. Yes, $200 for a Wal-Mart employee to hang the two unused gift cards back on the display—“restocking” complete. (As an aside, the threat in these civil letters from Wal-Mart is 100% bullshit. DO NOT pay if you or anyone you know receives one of these letters. It comes from a Florida based civil firm that prints up form letters for Wal-Mart and sends them out.) If you believe that any part of that $200 “restocking fee” is paid to Wal-Mart employees, instead of to the law firm or white-collar Wal-Mart management, I hope the world is kind to you. Having not had the chance to speak with me yet, my client paid the $200 “restocking fee” with money one of her friends lent her.
Because it was a first offense; because she confessed; because of her outstanding character for virtually every day, save the Wal-Mart offense day, she was offered a diversionary program. The only matter that remained was restitution. Restitution is money (generally) paid to put the injured party back in the same spot they were in before the loss; to restore the injured party, without unjustly enriching them. Wal-Mart demanded restitution. Neither she nor I was opposed to Wal-Mart being paid $400—the amount she spent on the gift cards she took. Fair is fair.
But…Wal-Mart demanded $1,000—the total value of the gift cards. To recap: $1,000 worth of gift cards are taken; $400 is spent from that $1,000; $600 is returned to Wal-Mart. The total loss to Wal-Mart, unless my math is off, is $400. Restitution should be $400; that amount would restore Wal-Mart back to the position it was in before the loss.
Conversely, paying Wal-Mart $1,000 would create a windfall for Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart would receive $1,000, plus the $600 that was already returned, plus the $200 it demanded in the letter; a grand total of $1,800 compensation for a total actual loss to Wal-Mart of $400—over 4 times the actual loss.
I immediately contacted the diversionary program, and explained the situation. To give credit where it is due, the diversionary program contacted Wal-Mart and asked them (at my insistence) to provide an accounting of how they arrived at the amount Wal-Mart sought. Wal-Mart provided no accounting whatsoever, dug in, and demanded $1,000 restitution.
I was more upset (pissed off beyond belief would be more accurate) by this than my client was. She agreed to pay it, but asked for more time to get the money together (ultimately, 8 months was needed—she worked part-time while in college.) I told her that we could, and should, fight this, demand an accounting, pay only what is fair, and such. She said she would pay the $1,000, because while it was not fair and didn’t accurately represent the loss to Wal-Mart, she feared Wal-Mart would block her entry into the diversionary program.
You may be inclined to say that a person who steals—even once in their life—deserves what they get. Maybe. But that misses the point: should Wal-Mart get a windfall in such cases? I think that even those people who say she got what she deserved would argue that fair is fair.
After all, the “fair is fair” argument is an extension of a person getting what they deserve: the accused deserves to pay because the accused shoplifted; and Wal-Mart deserves to be compensated for what was taken. The last part—“compensated for what was taken”—is the key here. There is a principal of contract law called “unjust enrichment.” Unjust enrichment arises where one party gets more than they should—gets more money than they should get in equity (fairness); gets more material or labor than they should get in terms of equity (fairness); etc. Paying Wal-Mart more than $400 unjustly enriches Wal-Mart, and is unfair. Demanding over 4 times the actual amount of proper restitution is damn near criminal.
I find it odd that, in all the theft cases that I have personally handled or have heard about from lawyer friends in Denton County, Wal-Mart is the only major store ever mentioned. We have, of course, a mall, Target, Best Buy, Walgreens, CVS, and tons of other stores in Denton. Yet, Wal-Mart is the only complainant in theft cases, apart from the odd mom-and-pop store. You’d have to believe that either (1) Wal-Mart is the only store that people shoplift from, or (2) Wal-Mart is the only store in Denton that zealously prosecutes shoplifters. One of these is an absurd proposition.
If Wal-Mart is the only major store in Denton that prosecutes shoplifting cases, there must be a reason why Wal-Mart does so. Normally, stores lose income by shoplifting—it’s called “shrink.” But, in Wal-Mart’s case, it appears to make a substantial profit from shoplifting. Even if only 60% of the people who get the $200 civil demand letter pay that amount, and the property is returned to Wal-Mart, this must amount to a substantial profit to Wal-Mart.
Odd.
We can accept, I think, that one who takes from another should not profit from doing so. This is obvious. But, I think we must also accept that the party who has had property taken from them should not unduly profit from the offense either.
Something to think about anyway. And perhaps, if this doesn’t sit well with you (as it does not sit well with me in the slightest), you might consider spending your hard-earned money elsewhere. Every purchase is a political statement, after all.