Friday, May 31, 2024

Kroger Tightens the Noose on Poor Columbusites

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 ~ 4th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America 

In Columbus, Kroger grocery stores started a new policy of searching shoppers as they leave the stores. To my knowledge, they're not physically patting down people's bodies (yet), but they are inspecting receipts and carts, and, presumably, may be searching bags as well.

Sign at the entrance of the Kroger located at 3600 Soldano Blvd. stating that customers are required to have a receipt when exiting the store and suitcases, duffel bags and roller bags are not permitted inside.

They're not doing this at all their stores, though--just six. Which six? I made a map. Never mind the heart with the pink-and-purple sunset thing (I live there) or the heart a bit to the west of that (a Chinese restaurant I frequent.) Interestingly, when I opened Google Maps and put in "Kroger", it showed many locations, indicated by red markers with shopping carts (and, oddly, one Aldi location--not even the closest one), but did not show two of the locations where the searches are being conducted--namely, the Hilltop location on the far west side near 270 and Broad, and the South Side location near High and 270. 

Notably, that South Side one is right next to a Wal-Mart that's being shut down, and very near to what had been a riverside encampment of indigent people until Columbus Police evicted them last year. Also last year at that same Kroger, a shopper was beaten to death by teens who'd been ejected from the store by security.

Perhaps the reason Google didn't show me those two locations is because they're farther away from my home than all these others. Anyway, I've market with black diamonds the locations where the searches are being conducted. As a sidebar, note the lack of Kroger stores close to my home, contrasted against their relative density elsewhere. There used to be another, that we visited frequently, near the yellow circle with a white start that's partially covered up by the sunset icon, just northwest of my home. That was the Northern Lights Kroger on Cleveland Avenue, near Innis, just a few blocks north of North Broadway. That one and the old one on Morse Road were both closed down and replaced by a new, larger store on Morse Road, roughly across the street from the old location.


 Readers familiar with Columbus will look at this map and immediately see a pattern. Many who see that pattern will tell you that this policy is racist, as the neighborhoods where the searches are being conducted are largely occupied by black residents, while the locations that aren't violating their customers' Constitutional rights are in predominantly white neighborhoods. They would look at this and claim that this is a racism problem. 

As with most such claims in 2024, this is close, but misdirected. The management of Kroger isn't targeting people over their skin color. They're not stopping blacks at the suburban stores. This isn't about race. It's about class. Yes, many of the residents in the neighborhoods with the searches are black, but nearly everyone in those neighborhoods is poor. Many of the shoppers in the unsearched neighborhoods are white, but nearly all of them are of a level of affluence that affords them the opportunity to live outside the poor neighborhoods.

You might (rightly) say, "Hey, wait--they're doing this at the Bexley Kroger! Bexley isn't poor!" That's right. Bexley isn't black, either. (It's about a quarter Jewish.) But that store exists on the edge of Bexley, at the border of the Near East Side (Old Town East/King-Lincoln District). It's across the bridge from Bexley, as though Alum Creek is a moat protecting the rich people on the hill from the rabble below to the west. As such, despite its proximity to Bexley, it's one of the locations serving poor, inner-city residents.

The other Kroger stores that those unfamiliar with Columbus might see as serving "the inner-city" that aren't conducting searches are the ones serving Upper Arlington, Grandview, and Clintonville. The annual median household income in Upper Arlington is $144,705. In Grandview, it's $100,833. In Clintonville, it's $94,850. In Linden, where I am, by contrast, it's only $36,498. That's per household, not per individual.

My point here is that the population being bullied by Kroger is especially vulnerable to such harassment. They're the least able to take their business elsewhere because they're less likely to own a car, and because "elsewhere" is so much farther away for them. They're more likely to be walking, riding a bike, or traveling by bus to do their grocery shopping, which means they're also more likely to be transporting their groceries in large, durable bags they bring with them--the very sort of bags these Kroger stores are prohibiting. 

It may be the case that Kroger is actually losing product being smuggled out the door in large bags. If that's the case, they could easily resolve that issue by offering a bag check service at the door. They're not going to do that, though, because it would require hiring a person. And that brings us to the real issue, here. Walk into any Kroger store in Columbus, and you'll see many checkout lanes, all closed. They typically might have one or two registers--if that--staffed by a cashier. The only other points of sale open will be self-checkouts. Even then, half the self-checkout registers may be closed, because they don't employ sufficient staff to babysit all the machines. Depending on the time of day, it's not unusual to see shoppers lined up halfway through the store waiting to check out.

Presumably, customers using the self-checkout are, whether intentionally or by accident, failing to scan some of the items in their carts, and so the stores lose money when those customers wheel their carts out the door without paying for everything they're taking. 

Is this only a problem at the six stores I marked with black diamonds? Are we to believe that the shoppers at these stores are uniquely incompetent at ringing up their purchases? Or uniquely dishonest? Or is it simply that Kroger would do this at all stores if they thought they could get away with it, but won't dare try it in the neighborhoods where lawyers live?

"So what," you may be saying, "Costco and Wal-Mart have been doing this for years. They're not violating anyone's rights. They have a right to keep their stuff from being stolen."

First off, Wal-Mart doesn't require a receipt for exit. They just want you to think they do, and hope that you don't know your rights. They place a "door greeter" by the exits and have them request to see your receipt, but they generally don't try to stop every single shopper, especially when it's busy. It's kind of random. But more importantly, though some of the receipt checkers can be quite assertive, they don't actually have a right to stop you. The things you purchased are your property every bit as much as the clothes you wore into the store are. You don't have to provide documentation to prove the ownership of the socks on your feet, and legally, you're no more obligated to provide documentation of ownership of the merchandise in your bags. 

Rather, if the store security ("Loss Prevention Officers") want to stop you on suspicion of shoplifting, they have to have probable cause. That is, someone has to have seen you stealing something, and you have to have actually taken it out the door for it to count as theft. Then they can stop you and detain you for the police. Until then, all they can do is watch and follow you. They have no right to accost you and demand that you submit to a search. 

The reason Costco and Sam's Club can get away with this is because they're private clubs. When you sign up for a membership, you sign a contract agreeing to allow them to search. You don't have to sign this, but they don't have to let you be a member, either. In a place that's open to the public--like a grocery store that's not a private, member's-only club--shoppers have the same 4th Amendment rights they could expect if they were walking down the street. Private companies don't get to act like police, stopping you and conducting non-consent searches, and all without a warrant. 

Kroger's way of getting around this is to put up a sign by the front door claiming that they "reserve the right" to search. You can't "reserve" a right you don't have in the first place, and Kroger appears to be relying on the people in these poorer neighborhoods to not know any better, or at least to be less willing to put up a fight. When this does inevitably wind up in court, I expect that Kroger's lawyers will argue that when customers entered, they were knowingly agreeing to the conditions set forth by Kroger when it placed a sign by the door. The sign might as well say, "By walking through this door, you agree to waive your Constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure, unlawful detention, and self-incrimination."

I used to shop at the Morse Road Kroger regularly. It's close to my kids' schools, so it was convenient to stop there in the morning after dropping them off. But I won't be returning to this store while this policy remains in place. Furthermore, I don't think I'll be going to the bougie Krogers in the suburbs, either, because I don't want to financially support the company while they're treating my neighbors this way. I'll go to Sav-a-Lot and Costco.

"But Costco does this, too! What's the difference?"

The difference is that Costco actually offers me something in exchange for suffering this indignity. They give me steep discounts on gasoline and prescription medicines, discounts that I've calculated more than pay for the membership. We buy $4.99 rotisserie chickens there, seasoned and cooked, for less than it would cost me to raise a chicken. They're so cheap, we use them as cat food and keep a couple in the fridge as a staple to use when planning quick meals. They have big hot dogs and a refillable soda, together, for $1.50. (And you don't even have to be a member to buy them.) They sell huge slices of pizza for $1.99. You could sit there all day sipping your refillable soda for something like 69 cents without even being a member. And members can browse through the store grazing on samples of everything from lobster-stuffed pasta to veggie burger patties. You can have a light lunch just from Costco samples if you're open to trying a variety of new things.

But Kroger? Naw. Kroger's offering the same shitty service, the same do-it-yourself everything with long lines (now longer just to get out the building), and they want to treat me like a criminal? No thanks. Oh, I forgot to add--these aren't geriatric door greeters checking the receipts at Kroger like at Costco and Wal-Mart. They're armed, uniformed security guards, making the whole encounter feel even more like being stopped by the police. I'm not faulting Kroger for having armed security. In recent years, their rent-a-cops have been involved in a number of shootings fighting robbers and other violent people, usually in the parking lots. What I have a problem with is them using these guards to bully lawful shoppers who have no choice but to comply if they want to eat.

Sunday, May 26, 2024

Equality within Inequality

 I recently saw on Quora that someone had shared this image (from Twitter, I guess):

 

 

 

 

 

The person sharing this on Quora remarked, "A little too passionate but he has a point."

I responded:

Too passionate? Society literally disposes of low-achieving men--on the battlefield in wartime and through homelessness during peacetime--and you think it's inappropriate for him to have feelings about that? Then you're the problem he's talking about.

For most of human history, we lived like all animals live. We made our homes and gathered food and other resources from our environment. Our only responsibilities were to our loved ones--our children, wives, parents, siblings and their children, maybe others whom we took in out of pity or relied on for mutual care. The only “achievement” was keeping everyone safe and fed.

The greatest advance in this was agriculture. Now instead of endlessly roaming to find food, we could make a cozy home and have the food grow right outside our door and produce a surplus. But that also meant people started getting possessive about land. Eventually, all the land was claimed, so now we had some wealthy people who owned land, and other people who had none. The landless people's only options for survival were to violate the claims of the landowners (stealing, poaching, squatting, war) or to go begging. The landowners exploited the desperation of the beggars and made them work to make the landowners richer.

From that point on, we've had an ethical double-standard. We see the wealthy as being entitled to idleness because they “earned” it somehow, even if that's just by being born or “chosen by God.” Everyone else--at least all the non-landowning men-- are seen as being born into debt, owing the world their best effort. “Pull your weight,” we're told. “Contribute to society.” We're assigned that role, and if we don't fill it, we're literally just garbage to be buried. Even then, the men tasked with burying us resent that we didn't arrange to have it done ourselves.

The reason “hitting the wall"--losing one's youthful, feminine beauty at around the age of 35–40--is such an existential crisis for a woman is because at that point, if she hasn't already claimed a role as a mother or won the attachment of a husband who will always love her and see her as being his to care for, all that's left for her is the life of a man. Up to a point, she could rely on neotony (the resemblance to a child) to cause people to involuntarily feel protective of her. And once she reached a certain age, she was also seen as having utility as a sex partner and a mother. But once she hits the wall and nobody wants to have sex with her anymore, if she hasn't cemented her position as wife or mother, all she has left is business, just like the men.

If, like the men, she spent her youth pursuing achievements at work, then she'll be able to support herself into old age just like a man, but will likely feel an instinctive yearning, a regret for never having had children. If, though, like so many women, she took her privilege for granted and failed to plan ahead--if she just partied and hopped from man to man through her 20's and 30's without ever having children or settling down into a committed relationship--she's going to be unprepared to support herself for the rest of her life.

This is why women used to be treated as property. Girls' parents felt a duty to ensure that their daughters would be provided for even after the parents had died. They'd arrange to marry her off to a man who would take good care of her so she wouldn't be fated to end up as a 60-year-old washer woman someday. It's why ancient Hebrew scriptures command a man to marry his deceased brother's widow and for a rapist to marry his victim. It was all about making sure that women and children were provided for in an age before the welfare state and child support enforcement.

-------------

First- and Second-Wave feminists felt that the height of achievement in the realm of sexual equality was to open all of men's jobs and spaces to women--to enable women to live as men. This is the goal of a spoiled girl who has no idea what it means to be a man, or the goal of a lonely, middle-aged woman who finds herself suddenly having to support herself in a system of restricted options. Now they're pushing affirmative action, trying to propel girls and women into STEM fields that most of them don't even want to work in, just because men still dominate those fields.

This is short-sighted. As the Twitter poster said, it only focuses on the winners among men. Trying to make the male experience the new default for women ignores what awaits men who don't succeed. These feminists see themselves as expanding opportunities for women, when what they're really doing is throwing them out of the frying pan and into the fire.

And really, there's a new milestone down that road that most women aren't interested in reaching--the equality of a woman fulfilling the role of family breadwinner and supporting her stay-at-home husband. Providing men with the privilege that women are tossing away isn't something most feminists show any interest in. It was thought, during feminism's Second Wave, that this would be the natural result--that there would be less class division because there'd be no reason for women to have to "marry up." They could marry purely for love, without regard to a man's level of achievement or wealth. It didn't happen, though. Instead, it appears that hypergamy is hardwired into women's instincts. A high-achieving woman sees her pool of eligible partners as consisting only of men more accomplished than herself. A woman who becomes an acclaimed neurosurgeon will look up the social hierarchy at the chief surgeon or a Surgeon General or some other person who "outranks" her. She won't consider the advances of someone she sees as her inferior. The higher up the ladder she climbs, the more people who get tossed into that bin labeled "inferior."

Rather than trying to hack our way through short-sighted attempts at sexual equality within a system of class inequality, it seems to me that it makes more sense to get to the root of the problem with the goal of getting back to the equality we enjoyed before people started owning land. If we determine that that's a genie that simply cannot be placed back in the bottle, and finite global wealth for which we all must compete is a reality that's here to stay with us forever, then we need to devise a system that eliminates inequalities among men, instead of just ushering women into that same cage match and calling it Utopia.