this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2023
634 points (95.3% liked)

A Boring Dystopia

9717 readers
550 users here now

Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.

Rules (Subject to Change)

--Be a Decent Human Being

--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title

--Posts must have something to do with the topic

--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.

--No NSFW content

--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Never trust the corporations excuses.

PS: I wasn't sure if this was a good fit for this community, but I couldn't think of another. Any suggestions?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Tronn4@lemmy.world 98 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Walmart in Pico Rivera California closed the store for 9 months for "plumbing problems" after the workers started to organize a union a few years back.

Rite aid always claiming theft in all their stores for loss but also part of the reason they claim for their bankruptcy.

[–] GreenMario@lemm.ee 60 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Walmart shuts down immediately if a store tried to unionize.

If we ever got every store to try to unionize simultaneously Walmart would just shut themselves down and cash out. Hint hint if you wanna destroy a large Corpo.

[–] adrian783@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

the unfortunate reality is that many stores cannot even afford to unionize. the existence of Walmart had already destroy the local markets and no strings attached terms offered from the local government would crater the economy if Walmart just take the ball and go home.

Walmart preys on these towns and offers them deals they cannot refuse, because they can always open one up next town instead.

ever wondered why the techy bay area has only 1 Walmart while there are at least 5 across the bay? it's because the bay area is rich enough to not agree to Walmarts bullshit terms.

when the end result of unionization is plunging the entire town into economic hardship I wouldn't do it either.

[–] expatriado@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

The Great Unionization at Unison of the United States.

[–] TwoGems@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

So you're saying that I should go to corporations with flyers and give them to employees so they'll unionize? I'm just asking questions!

[–] teamevil@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Grab that car union guy and make a push.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Krudler@lemmy.world 87 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Our city's most profitable Rotten Ronny's closed down with the public excuse that it's not profitable.

This location was in the heart of downtown, directly across the street from a University with a daily population of about 30,000

The location was so busy they had two kitchens - one upstairs and one in the basement where they fed orders up on a conveyor system.

If you made the mistake of going there from 11am-1pm you were going to wait a minimum of 10 minutes just to get into the door (pre app days), another 10 in line, and 10 more for your order.

The real problem was that they were unionizing. Uh oh!! A new Rotten Ron's was opened next door 18 months later. Weird how they'd open again in such an unprofitable location!!!

[–] Jackcooper@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is rotten ronnys a real name for a chain? Or is this a British/Aussie nickname?

[–] jpreston2005@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

think it's slang for mcdonalds

[–] Jackcooper@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

I love commonwealth slang lmao

[–] punkwalrus@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're probably right, however, you can also be not profitable because of shitty business decisions, ineffective management, embezzlement, and inventory waste. It could have been the two kitchens and various levies and taxes in that location. If they had lines, it also means they had a finite cap of serving customers per hour, and if cost or any other of the things I mentioned could still outweigh what they made per night.

The unionization could have been a scapegoat, when they secretly declared bankruptcy, sold the assets and name to another owner, and reformed in a second location. That happens in nightclubs a lot in popular districts.

[–] Krudler@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (6 children)

What is with the zeal to step up and find some scenario you think might apply here? Is this some kind of tacit effort to excuse what they did?

You can read right in my comment that a union was forming and magically the most profitable location in our city closed under the public guise of not being profitable. And then opening up as soon as the wind blew over, right next door to the original?

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not trolling and you're just trying to have a lively discussion, but it couldn't be more inappropriate for the situation.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] a4ng3l@lemmy.world 83 points 1 year ago (6 children)

As an outsider I fail to understand why the reason to close shops is so critical. Can’t they just say « fuck it we’re done here » at any point in time? What’s the point on pinning the closure on fictional crime level?

[–] Sunforged@lemmy.ml 136 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

They are generating political action on an issue that is undeserving of resources. It is also about covering bad choices so investors don't lose faith.

Also Seattle’s local satire news called it.

[–] slurpeesoforion@startrek.website 34 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

covering bad choices so investors doing lose faith

That's a bingo.

[–] a4ng3l@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The consequence I can see it happening and being concerning. The investors thingy I don’t think it’s sound ; as an investor I would be all in for closing underperforming stores. No need to cover it for them they surely don’t give a shit beyond « money would be better invested elsewhere ».

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I would agree on this point, generally businesses lie to the public for political reasons, to gin up political favor for their desired outcomes.

Most rich CEOs are out of touch and think crime just comes from "undesirables" and the only way to fix it is to massively increase police presence. In other words, they're authoritarians. This has more to do with creating a narrative about crime and intent to get political support for further instituting a police state and taking the required effort for security off the businesses. It's really about passing the bill for keeping their stores "secure" onto the taxpayer, so they can rely more on local police and on private security less.

The article in question even covers how there are already attempts to write bills targeting this problem at the Federal level. (A bipartisan bill, I might add.)

They are usually pretty honest with their investors. I would expect their investor presentations are a lot more honest, but because that's "economics news" it usually gets fewer headlines or people reporting on it. It would be interesting to contrast Target's investor calls compared to what they're saying publicly. Same with other businesses like Walgreens leaning on the same story.

[–] Sunforged@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They would have to spend time analyzing why they failed to make sure investors knew they wouldn't do this again. Cheaper and easier to blame the poors.

[–] a4ng3l@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Given the amount of analytics and reporting ongoing in retail I have no doubt they have all the info at hand. And they could still directly blame the poor for the poor sales performances and call to invest in better locations. More money from investors and trust is maintained.

[–] Sunforged@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't know if you've ever been in one of these stores but they were terrible. Like if the merchandising was a complete train wreck, it would require multiple people at multiple levels to admit they fucked up. Plenty of retailers in the immediate area are doing just fine, they can't even blame the location. They just aren't setup to provide what people need if it isn't a big box store.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Orbituary@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The Ballard Target is such a pile of shit. I never went to the u-district one and haven't visited the City Target downtown in years.

Why the fuck go to any of them with Fred Myer just a few blocks away?

[–] Sunforged@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The downtown Target was literally 100 feet from Pike Place. Why would they even try to stock produce 😑

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] GreenMario@lemm.ee 23 points 1 year ago

Because the immediate thought from the plebs is "the blacks shut down my favorite store by robbing it all the time" and they go vote GOP harder so that Target gets lower corporate/wealth taxes etc.

I know this because I live in a red state and anytime the locals hear about a store closing "due to theft" a sea of slurs gets echoed at full force.

[–] Drinvictus@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 1 year ago

In order to keep investors basically so that they don't look like they are failing. Just shift the blame

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 year ago

It’s kinda like waking up late for work because you didn’t set your alarm, then telling your boss and everyone who will listen that the reason you’re late is because there was a shooting on your street.

[–] NoneSoVile@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Why would a megacorporation spread a lie that feeds into right wing propaganda?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] clearedtoland@lemmy.world 64 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

Known as the Combating Organized Retail Crime Act, the bill seeks to create an “Organized Retail Crime Coordination Center” under the Department of Homeland Security. The authors of the bill claim that “organized retail crime…has been a growing concern to retailers, industry, and law enforcement.” The center, the bill says, will oversee “federal law enforcement efforts related to organized retail crime” and align these activities with state and local investigations. Its director would be appointed by the head of ICE.

This sounds eerily similar to the creation of TSA and the federalization of air security.

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It also sounds like the creation of the DEA. Special crime-specific law enforcement subdivisions di not actually reduce crime but get people killed and fill up impacted prisons.

No one should ever take Target public relations at their word. DHS either.

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

It’s overstepping far more than the TSA, since at least air travel IS a matter of national security. Retail theft absolutely is not.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] JewGoblin@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

corporations lie? GTFO 🤯

[–] Seraph@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago

If I were an investor I think I'd prefer the truth of "these stores aren't profitable so we're bailing" instead of "we didn't like these stores so we made up some bullshit."

[–] MrZee@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I’ve read a few articles on this over the last few days. I feel like this one (and it’s well cited references) finally gets me to the point of being confident that Target is full of shit.

The articles I read before this tended to be vague and focusing on data that is at least a year old if not from 2020 which, while helpful context, doesn’t do much to counter the claim of rapidly growing theft. Additionally, they often focused on national trends instead of store or store-area specific analysis. A particular store or area can have a big problem even if regional or national numbers don’t show the same issue.

This didn’t mean that I thought target was telling the truth—just that there was still room for doubt about the article’s conclusions.

I really like the crime data analysis linked in the article, which is looking at very recent crime data for a couple of the specific stores cited by Target. That analysis is very strong evidence that Target was full of shit… along with Targets continued failure to actually produce any of their own data supporting their claim.

[–] draneceusrex@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I have a friend that is a DM of a rapidly expanding gas station/restaurant chain here in southeast. They just opened self-checkout lanes in their stores. I asked about theft/shrink and he said it's a tiny part of their bottom line at this point in a GAS STATION, and with the traffic they are getting, the convenience/cost of labor makes up for it in spades. Target, Walmart and the like are full of shit.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Veraxus@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Well, yeah. It's same the lie that publishers use to justify the use of unethical, anti-consumer, customer-punishing DRM.

Make some bad business decisions? Make a bad game? Sales not meeting projections? Need a scapegoat so the investors don't rebel? You just need to blame something other than your own incompetence. It's the same thing conservatives do.

[–] wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

I'm shocked, shocked I say!

[–] DaCrazyJamez@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I have a close friend who used to work loss-prevention for Target. They ABSOLUTLEY closed stores due to excess theft. Anti-union may be icing on the cake for them, but I am certain they legitimately have a problem with organized retail crime.

[–] piecat@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

But think how much money was saved by implementing self checkout! Some executives got a cushy bonus.

And now some different executives are going to get a cushy bonus by proposing that employee checkout could save money.

These executive decisions only ever save money!

[–] jeanofthedead@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Pasta4u@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You only report a crime when it's happening. If someone successfully takes a lipstick without getting caught then it would take until the next inventory for them to catch that it's missing. The inventory discrepancies are sent in to insurance. Cops wouldn't be involved because no one is going to sit through dozens of camera feeds woth hundreds of not thousands of hours of footage between inventories to figure out who stole it.

[–] jeanofthedead@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

Every big box store experiences petty theft, though. The real reason the 3 Target stores in Portland closed is because they were all in absolutely horrific locations. One was in a reclaimed bowling alley. Another was off a freeway and took ages to actually get to a parking lot. Just super inaccessible.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Sarmyth@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They seem to be having theft issues in the San Francisco region at least. All the stores in the area are locking up various areas of the store they never have before.

Target detergent aisle.

Do these corps pull shady stuff around unions? I'm sure. Are they also seeing extreme theft at the moment? Looks like it. Because those security boxes really tank your sales on anything in them as people refuse to wait. You don't do that unless you think you are losing significantly more than you are selling, and it's not a practice that really has anything to do with unions.

[–] MycoBro@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Where I live most stores like target and Walmart and Kmart lock up all the black people hair and body stuff. It’s insane. The worst part is I’m white but have black grandkids so now even I’m affected! Disgusting. (The last sentence was sarcasm. All true but not really the issue that pisses me off. So no one trip on me, fuck)

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 year ago

Many of "the stores closed by Target are smaller format locations, a concept the company started rolling out more in 2018." The report notes that "after making a big push into smaller format, Target has not discussed the initiative since 2020." According to the report, Target may be blaming increases in theft to "mask other issues." Walmart, the report notes, closed four smaller stores in Chicago in April 2023 and "did not blame crime or theft and rather acknowledged strategies like downsizing it (sic) footprint…underperformed expectations."

Apple opened something like five "mini" Apple Stores in the early-to-mid aughts. Those went away when they realized it was a bad strategy. Can't help thinking of that.

[–] FartsWithAnAccent@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Of course it was

load more comments
view more: next ›