Workplace violence Legislation State laws Wholesale and retail trade

Bill would prohibit California retailers from making workers confront shoplifters

anti-theft.jpg
Photo: Михаил Руденко/iStockphoto

Sacramento, CA — The California Senate has approved legislation aimed at preventing workplace violence, particularly by banning employer policies that direct non-security personnel to confront shoplifters.

Sponsored by Sen. Dave Cortese (D-San Jose), S.B. 533 would also require all retail workers to be trained on how to respond to shoplifting incidents, employers to maintain a “violent incident log” of all incidents against employees – including details on post-incident investigations and response – and all non-health care employers to provide active shooter training.

Additional employer requirements in the bill include:

  • An assessment of staffing levels as a cause for workplace violence incidents, as part of an existing injury and illness prevention program.
  • Allowing an employee representative to be a petitioner for a workplace violence restraining order.
  • An evaluation of environmental risk factors, as part of a workplace violence prevention plan.
  • Referring workers to wellness centers.
Sign up for Safety+Health's free monthly email newsletters and get the news that's important to you. Subscribe now

According to an analysis published last year and cited by Cortese, assaults in grocery stores rose 63% from 2018 to 2020, while assaults in convenience stores rose 75%. OSHA data shows that workplace violence is the second leading cause of fatal injuries on the job.

“With growing awareness of workplace violence, California needs smarter guidelines to keep workers safe in the office or on the jobsite,” Cortese said in a press release. “Let’s take every reasonable step to prevent another workplace assault or shooting.”

The bill, passed by the Senate with a 29-8 vote on May 31, is now under consideration by the state Assembly’s Labor and Employment Committee.

Post a comment to this article

Safety+Health welcomes comments that promote respectful dialogue. Please stay on topic. Comments that contain personal attacks, profanity or abusive language – or those aggressively promoting products or services – will be removed. We reserve the right to determine which comments violate our comment policy. (Anonymous comments are welcome; merely skip the “name” field in the comment box. An email address is required but will not be included with your comment.)

Title

James Shaw
July 3, 2023
I see this action eliminating public sector security jobs and increasing the need for more certified peace officers needed as security. Pros and cons. I do not like the idea of people losing their jobs. Companies can easliy just make policy changes and do the same thing instead of wasting tax payers money. Or not make the policy changes and use their discretion on who they want to confront or not. Sounds like a lake of peace officers willing to their jobs or take reports.

Title

Gary Mikesh
July 22, 2023
Do you think this bill would have been necessary if San Francisco’s recalled district attorney hadn’t lowered the theft of $950 or less worth of merchandise to a misdemeanour? Talk about sending the wrong message to shoplifters! Where’s the common sense?

Title

mark h
August 19, 2023
I think this is a bad idea: 1) it will eliminate some private sector jobs (people need their jobs), 2) if police are hired to effectively do "private security", it will end up costing companies MORE, thus increasing the price of products. 3) It will encourage more crime....employees not being able to stop or even confront shop lifters only encourages more theft. More theft ultimately RAISES the costs of products. 4) Police will not be at every store all the time, and if the police have to stop someone trying to steal, there is no company discretion on whether or not to arrest said potential thieves. That means more arrests...more people in jail or prison...higher taxes on everyone to pay for this. This does not make people safer, it only makes people poorer and costs jobs. It potentially makes the situation more dangerous, by emboldening criminals who will feel they can do whatever they want and get away with it.

Title

Richard gonzalez
September 4, 2023
My son told me about this and I told him he was nuts. Apparently it is true. Excuse me while I vomit. Why not order merchants to publicize that all their goods are free for the taking.. this will give voters to vote Republican, the law and order party. As a life long Democrat, I believe it’s time for a change!

Title

Michael P. Nellis
September 5, 2023
An example of all that is bad for this state.