Thread: Stupid return policy to hide employee theft?

Originally Posted by CT_MANAGER

You have quite the imagination. Perhaps you should try putting that to better use; making movies.

I wish all this banter was fiction. The facts are that CT has been going down hill for a good number of years now and more and more long time shoppers ( seniors like myself) are moving on to other stores.

It doesn't surprise me one bit that there's more in store shenanigans going on. We all know the auto side's poor reputation, my grandson who worked there can attest to duping seniors of replacing perfectly good parts. Now you refuse legitimate refunds and exchanges and hassle law abiding citizens.

Your stores are lacking good service, products and a good moral compass. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Absolutely. According to the National Retail Federation in 2007

employee theft accounted for 48%
shoplifting accounted for 32%
administrative errors 14%
vendor fraud 6%

What's interesting is that for 2008 and 2009 in a recession shoplifting actually went down. Employee theft, administrative errors, vendor fraud went up. The dirty little secret is that retail is blaming all the other losses on shoplifting alone. The trend is more and more in-store surveillance cameras are now tracking employees rather than shoppers.

This is only an aggregate of national retail data. I would imagine that some stores have even more employee theft. Wouldn't it be nice if they had a truthful sign that read " We don't know where 80% of our stuff disappears to and our employees are responsible for most of it. So we need to mark everything up

2008
employee theft accounted for 52%
shoplifting accounted for 25%
administrative errors 16%
vendor fraud 7 %

2009
employee theft accounted for 57%
shoplifting accounted for 18%
administrative errors 17%
vendor fraud 8 %

It's not just the employees who steal, it's the employer too.

The Brantford CT owner was criminally charged. He plead guilty and was fined 160K.

Now before all you arm chair, minimum wage hicks try to sweat your brain over "you can't steal from yourself", let's look at it.

When the store owner was frequently charging his personal expenses to the store ( vacations, luxury renos for his home, to his benz etc.) it has the effect of lowering the stores profit, the same effect as stealing.

And we all know how management will point the finger elsewhere and we can guess how they make up those "losses" right!? So it's not uncommon for them to start cutting back on hours, blaming shitty, lazy employees, to raising prices on some things and, you guessed it! Coming up with policies to screw the customers over.

One more thing. Is your privacy really that safe when you give them your drivers license for an exchange or refund? Is that really a smart thing to do? It's one more thing for them to steal and one more way to screw the customer over.

Nice one! While we're on the subject of CT the employer, I see that employees have sued CT and won for various labour no no's. Strong arming employees to either quit or be fired, firing and then threatening legal action to make a young female pay for a mistake and withholding her wages and vacation pay. The squirreliest one yet, trying to get out of paying rent to the property owner. So it's not just the customers they try to screw over, it's the employees and landlords.

I would be interested in some PROOF of these claims about the Brantford owner pleading guilty, and the lawsuits of employees to stores. I've heard and seen a few and been involved in two myself, all of which were sided in favour of the owner of the store.


In regards to your claims of owners not paying rent to property owners, clearly you are either making up stories, or have been provided false information and chosen to believe it. Why? Because Canadian Tire store owners do NOT pay rent to property owners. In most cases Canadian Tire Corporation owns the land and the building. In some cases, like major power centers, the land is owned by whoever (smart center etc....) and the building owned by CT. Canadian Tire pays the land owner and there is a financial contract between stores and CT corporation where owners pay a straight percentage rate to the corporation.

I love falsified claims and exagerated information.

Originally Posted by CT Me

I would be interested in some PROOF of these claims about the Brantford owner pleading guilty, and the lawsuits of employees to stores. I've heard and seen a few and been involved in two myself, all of which were sided in favour of the owner of the store.


In regards to your claims of owners not paying rent to property owners, clearly you are either making up stories, or have been provided false information and chosen to believe it. Why? Because Canadian Tire store owners do NOT pay rent to property owners. In most cases Canadian Tire Corporation owns the land and the building. In some cases, like major power centers, the land is owned by whoever (smart center etc....) and the building owned by CT. Canadian Tire pays the land owner and there is a financial contract between stores and CT corporation where owners pay a straight percentage rate to the corporation.

I love falsified claims and exagerated information.

Oh no, if it isn't stockboy CT Manager or another lame version of him, coming to the rescue and serving up some CT retail justice. Yawn. Is there not anyone else out there who can offer a different perspective from the retail side?

What was posted was specific about the owner, not owners as you've claimed. Learn to read.

So you're claiming that what was posted was "falsified claims and exagerated information" right? Ok, I'm game. CT Me, care to back that one up? As it were I can easily bring proof to the table. What do you bring?

I just did bring you the proof. LEARN TO READ

CT store owners DO NOT PAY RENT TO LANDOWNERS or BUILDING OWNERS.
So your claim of owners not paying rent to landlords is FALSE, WRONG, INCORRECT... call it what you want.

Originally Posted by CT Me

I just did bring you the proof. LEARN TO READ

CT store owners DO NOT PAY RENT TO LANDOWNERS or BUILDING OWNERS.
So your claim of owners not paying rent to landlords is FALSE, WRONG, INCORRECT... call it what you want.

Shit for brains, you for real?

You confused my post with someone else's and capitalizing a few words and arguing "NO" isn't proof. Only a moron would think that. No, you need to read and reread to 'get it'. I'll let that other person defend their post on CT labour troubles and the property rent issue.

What are you bringing to the table again? Remember you're the one who called me out and said my post was "exagerated and false".

If you feel that strongly about my post then how about backing it up with a little cash wager? I'll support my post that the CT owner was criminally charged, plead guilty and fined. Trust me, what I bring to the table will be undeniable. And if I can't I'll pay you. It should be easy money for you. I'll let my daughter handle this one. You'll have to wait till she gets back from grade school. I'll even ask her not to use the bigger words so as not to confuse you.

First of all, keep your cheap internet insults to yourself. I'm not interested in a discussion with a foul mouth jerk! Your inability to be reasonable without swearing is a reflection of you and how you are. it has nothing to do with me


Having said that;
1) i didn't say your claim that an owner was charged and guilty was false. I said I wanted to see some proof. If you've got it as you claim, show it. Your "wager" is ridiculous. Keep your wallet in your pocket

2) the claim i did say was absolutely false was not paying rent to the landlord. that is not possible, as I have stated before, given that no owners pay rent to a landlord. i am quite familiar with the details of the financial contracts that all owners are bound to. I suspect, you are not!

So, if you can manage to post a reasonable thought, question or response without being an ignorant a$$... i will be interested to see who was charged and guilty of what.

Originally Posted by CT me

First of all, keep your cheap internet insults to yourself. I'm not interested in a discussion with a foul mouth jerk! Your inability to be reasonable without swearing is a reflection of you and how you are. it has nothing to do with me


Having said that;
1) i didn't say your claim that an owner was charged and guilty was false. I said I wanted to see some proof. If you've got it as you claim, show it. Your "wager" is ridiculous. Keep your wallet in your pocket

2) the claim i did say was absolutely false was not paying rent to the landlord. that is not possible, as I have stated before, given that no owners pay rent to a landlord. i am quite familiar with the details of the financial contracts that all owners are bound to. I suspect, you are not!

So, if you can manage to post a reasonable thought, question or response without being an ignorant a$$... i will be interested to see who was charged and guilty of what.

CT me, back pedal much!?!? Why am I not surprised as you're so typical of a CT. Not anyone's fault you're a retard who can't string two thoughts together and then trip over your own posts. You run your mouth and when somebody calls you on it you run and hide because YOU HAVE NOTHING.

Actually, should we be surprised by this? I'm not, when you do the same with your refund policy and crap products.

CTC don't pay rent to land/ building owners you claim? So what, they're just going to occupy some one else's property and not pay anything? Sound "reasonable" to everyone else? Well shit for brains, they tried to do exactly that.

Since you were so adamant about it I had my little girl do some checking on a few more things for me. So now I have two things to bring to the table What are you bringing besides running your mouth? Tell you what, throw down some hard cash in trust to KPMG or some other big 4 auditor who can render a fair and impartial decision. You'll have to take out a 2nd mortgage on your trailer/ house because I don't deal in small change. Loser pays costs. Since you're such an expert on "details of the financial contracts that all owners are bound to" it should be a very very easy win for you. Or are you that full of shit!?!?!?