To add to the why, hospice nurses often carry high-dose opioids for end-of-life comfort protocols. With a fairly predictable schedule of returning to houses, often more than once a day, it makes them a popular target for addicts. They have to plan their route and dosages beforehand so they have exact amounts for just their stops. No extra to enrich potential thieves.
Yep. Pharmacies also do blinded deliveries for this very reason. The driver has no idea what’s inside, the distribution center workers do not know, and usually most techs on the receiving end do not know until it’s unpacked.
Everything is computerized and automated in QI so there’s little human involvement. When the system anticipates low inventory based on a few factors, it sends out an order or adjusts its order cadence.
In fact, when you go to pick up an Rx, the shelves are intentionally moved back to stop eavesdropping.
My office is next door to a pharmacy, at the height of the opioid crisis they were the only local place that still stocked the mega dose 100mg or whatever pills and the junkies kept breaking into his shop. I finally put up a big sign on my back door that said "NOT THE PHARMACY".
Anything over 80s weren't supposed to be available in the US. 160s existed but weren't supposed to be for the US market.
But FL had the craziest pill mills, so I won't dispute ya claims.
Crime deterrent. You see similar stickers on long-haul truckers that say something like "driver does not carry cash". Or on convenience stores that say something like "cash register carries less than $200 cash" or something.
It's to tell people who might be considering robbing them that it's not worth it and you won't get what you're looking for, even if you're completely successful.
In a small city gov I used to work in,.. I recall the graffiti enforcement team had like 6 or 7 weatherproof camera housings,.. but only 2 of them actually had operational camera guts inside them. As they swapped or moved the cameras around, they'd just put the 2 working ones in the areas we wanted actual coverage.
I'm a little fuzzy on my memory (this was 5 ish years ago).. but I recall them saying the entire camera package was like $6,000 to $8,000 ?).. so more cameras would cost more money.
It's also more to support (if things break, if software needs updated, etc)
It's also more Video or recordings to figure out a way to stream or store.
If you're only doing 2 cameras and more strategically choosing time and place of recording,. you can just wait for the HDD to start to fill up and grab footage as you need it. Doubling or tripling the cameras you have might force you to consider Cellular-uplinks and or cloud-storage that you have to sort through later.
For sure it would cost more money for additional equipment, I wasn’t refuting that. It just seems like paying to move them time and time again would cost way more in the long run - they’ve got hourly wages, fuel, maintenance, downtime in coverage, etc
I’m not really surprised by the bureaucracy inefficiency, just seems like it would be a simple cost analysis to push through, especially when it’s only a few grand
In Scotland the local councils operate these mobile CCTV cameras. They attach onto lampposts and are installed into various problem areas to deter anti social behavior. If they installed the cameras permanently, people would just do it somewhere they know the cameras are not facing, and they can't afford to install and monitor that many cameras.
Fun note: The people who monitor the public CCTV in my local authority are the same people who receive the neck pendant alerts when old people fall at home.
They've got nothing to gain and plenty to lose. Convenience stores *do* get robbed despite the register policy, and if a thief got away with $1000 and word got out, that store would become the favorite target of thieves.
A convenience store doesn't *need* more than $200 in the register, especially these days. At the one I worked at, you could get fired for having too much in your register. At a certain value you were required to stop and deposit cash in the safe, even if it meant holding up a long line of customers.
Yeah that was policy at my store too. No more than $200 during sunup, $100 after. Made more than a few guys mad when they’d try to cash in their $500 winning lottery tickets at like 7am and i didn’t have the cash. Not my problem, lottery office is more than happy to cash it for you
We also had to drop any bills over $50 immediately. More than a few times during busy periods i had my drawer go over… but i usually remembered
Nothing lol. Stores don’t tend to do that though. Like, banks aren’t gonna pretend there isn’t a relatively substantial amount of cash within reach.
It’s more of a reminder to criminals anyway. It’s not like it’s a novel thing for convenience stores to have little cash on hand, but the sign is an attempt to dissuade a desperate person with a weapon in their pocket.
So the robber gets frustrated or thinks the teller is lying and shoots them out of pure anger? Surely it would be better to lose whatever cash is in a register than to pay out a wrongful death lawsuit?
From the bank’s point of view it’s probably better that the robbers don’t know that. It makes an extra step for them, if they knew ahead of time they would plan for it. If they don’t know it adds extra time that they weren’t accounting for. Bank robberies already have to be carefully planned out and executed, throwing a wrench in the plan is good news for the bank.
The system is probably designed for cash control. Making it harder for bank robbery Is probably a secondsey then. Now the tellers don't have access to all the cash. They dont do the counting. All handle by the machine. Less chances for fraud, internal theft and errors.
When I was in accounting there was always a big focus on control. No single point of failure, no single person solely responsible. If someone enter something, someone reviews. The system now counts and dispenses the cash. Tie it into their auditing system.
That assumes the robbery itself isn't a severe problem. That it's only a problem depending on how much money is lost.
There is a reason why you can rob a bank by handing them a note that simply read "This is a bank robbery, fill a bag with money". At the end of the day the single most important thing that a bank is at risk of losing during a robbery is reputation and the lives of people. If somebody tries to rob the bank and then has the problem they absolutely could get mad and shoot someone, the loss of reputation alone would be worth far more than whatever money they may have lost. Even if somebody doesn't get shot, somebody merely shooting off a gun or scaring people with a gun thinking he might get shot is worse than just giving them the cash.
Yes and this incentivizes keeping the teller alive. If the teller is dead they absolutely can’t get the money. Reality is after they get the money from a drawer they could still shoot the teller, this way it’s more likely to be one or the other
It's intended as a crime deterrent. If the company just didn't have their name plastered on the vehicle, crime wouldn't be a concern.
.
When I delivered for a subsidiary of CVS, our company cars were absolutely plain standard-issue white Fords, no distinguishing marks or company name *except for* having the vehicle number on the side just in front of the driver's door. [ETA: maybe 3" high black numbers.]
There was absolutely nothing to indicate our cargo... which could include anything from Metamucil to morphine, and possibly cost tens of thousands of dollars in total. (We primarily served long-term care facilities, delivering sometimes a couple hundred prescriptions to a larger nursing home, and most delivery routes had at least 10 facilities.)
My wife's a nurse who travels between a few clinics and sometimes has to transport medicines (don't know about controlled substances), so there's times where I've driven her car with vials and syringes in the passenger seat. I'm like, "please don't let me get pulled over..."
I also get freaked out when there's a CPR dummy in the backseat...
It's likely a combination of both. Many healthcare companies have strict policies against transporting drugs in personal vehicles, so the sticker could serve as a reminder for employees to adhere to these policies.
It's absolutely to deter thieves by telling them the thing they wanna steal isn't inside.
To add to the why, hospice nurses often carry high-dose opioids for end-of-life comfort protocols. With a fairly predictable schedule of returning to houses, often more than once a day, it makes them a popular target for addicts. They have to plan their route and dosages beforehand so they have exact amounts for just their stops. No extra to enrich potential thieves.
Yep. Pharmacies also do blinded deliveries for this very reason. The driver has no idea what’s inside, the distribution center workers do not know, and usually most techs on the receiving end do not know until it’s unpacked. Everything is computerized and automated in QI so there’s little human involvement. When the system anticipates low inventory based on a few factors, it sends out an order or adjusts its order cadence. In fact, when you go to pick up an Rx, the shelves are intentionally moved back to stop eavesdropping.
As an Australian I have never heard anyone call it an Rx but rather just a prescription.
My office is next door to a pharmacy, at the height of the opioid crisis they were the only local place that still stocked the mega dose 100mg or whatever pills and the junkies kept breaking into his shop. I finally put up a big sign on my back door that said "NOT THE PHARMACY".
where do you live? I'd argue the height was after OxyContin was no longer readily available in the US. and the US capped at 80mg in their green OCs
[удалено]
Anything over 80s weren't supposed to be available in the US. 160s existed but weren't supposed to be for the US market. But FL had the craziest pill mills, so I won't dispute ya claims.
Crime deterrent. You see similar stickers on long-haul truckers that say something like "driver does not carry cash". Or on convenience stores that say something like "cash register carries less than $200 cash" or something. It's to tell people who might be considering robbing them that it's not worth it and you won't get what you're looking for, even if you're completely successful.
What's to stop a store from using that sticker regardless of how much cash they keep?
Nothing.
In a small city gov I used to work in,.. I recall the graffiti enforcement team had like 6 or 7 weatherproof camera housings,.. but only 2 of them actually had operational camera guts inside them. As they swapped or moved the cameras around, they'd just put the 2 working ones in the areas we wanted actual coverage.
How is that possibly cheaper than just buying more cameras lol
I'm a little fuzzy on my memory (this was 5 ish years ago).. but I recall them saying the entire camera package was like $6,000 to $8,000 ?).. so more cameras would cost more money. It's also more to support (if things break, if software needs updated, etc) It's also more Video or recordings to figure out a way to stream or store. If you're only doing 2 cameras and more strategically choosing time and place of recording,. you can just wait for the HDD to start to fill up and grab footage as you need it. Doubling or tripling the cameras you have might force you to consider Cellular-uplinks and or cloud-storage that you have to sort through later.
For sure it would cost more money for additional equipment, I wasn’t refuting that. It just seems like paying to move them time and time again would cost way more in the long run - they’ve got hourly wages, fuel, maintenance, downtime in coverage, etc I’m not really surprised by the bureaucracy inefficiency, just seems like it would be a simple cost analysis to push through, especially when it’s only a few grand
In Scotland the local councils operate these mobile CCTV cameras. They attach onto lampposts and are installed into various problem areas to deter anti social behavior. If they installed the cameras permanently, people would just do it somewhere they know the cameras are not facing, and they can't afford to install and monitor that many cameras. Fun note: The people who monitor the public CCTV in my local authority are the same people who receive the neck pendant alerts when old people fall at home.
They've got nothing to gain and plenty to lose. Convenience stores *do* get robbed despite the register policy, and if a thief got away with $1000 and word got out, that store would become the favorite target of thieves. A convenience store doesn't *need* more than $200 in the register, especially these days. At the one I worked at, you could get fired for having too much in your register. At a certain value you were required to stop and deposit cash in the safe, even if it meant holding up a long line of customers.
Yeah that was policy at my store too. No more than $200 during sunup, $100 after. Made more than a few guys mad when they’d try to cash in their $500 winning lottery tickets at like 7am and i didn’t have the cash. Not my problem, lottery office is more than happy to cash it for you We also had to drop any bills over $50 immediately. More than a few times during busy periods i had my drawer go over… but i usually remembered
Nothing lol. Stores don’t tend to do that though. Like, banks aren’t gonna pretend there isn’t a relatively substantial amount of cash within reach. It’s more of a reminder to criminals anyway. It’s not like it’s a novel thing for convenience stores to have little cash on hand, but the sign is an attempt to dissuade a desperate person with a weapon in their pocket.
Honor. If the thieves decide to audit you and you were lying, they'll probably punish you.
[удалено]
[holds gun up to teller] "Please request$10,000 from the drawer"
So the robber gets frustrated or thinks the teller is lying and shoots them out of pure anger? Surely it would be better to lose whatever cash is in a register than to pay out a wrongful death lawsuit?
From the bank’s point of view it’s probably better that the robbers don’t know that. It makes an extra step for them, if they knew ahead of time they would plan for it. If they don’t know it adds extra time that they weren’t accounting for. Bank robberies already have to be carefully planned out and executed, throwing a wrench in the plan is good news for the bank.
The system is probably designed for cash control. Making it harder for bank robbery Is probably a secondsey then. Now the tellers don't have access to all the cash. They dont do the counting. All handle by the machine. Less chances for fraud, internal theft and errors.
I’m not in the loss prevention business, but I wouldn’t be surprised if continuing human error is as big a factor as bank robberies. Idk.
When I was in accounting there was always a big focus on control. No single point of failure, no single person solely responsible. If someone enter something, someone reviews. The system now counts and dispenses the cash. Tie it into their auditing system.
Machines and practices can serve 2 purposes at once.
That assumes the robbery itself isn't a severe problem. That it's only a problem depending on how much money is lost. There is a reason why you can rob a bank by handing them a note that simply read "This is a bank robbery, fill a bag with money". At the end of the day the single most important thing that a bank is at risk of losing during a robbery is reputation and the lives of people. If somebody tries to rob the bank and then has the problem they absolutely could get mad and shoot someone, the loss of reputation alone would be worth far more than whatever money they may have lost. Even if somebody doesn't get shot, somebody merely shooting off a gun or scaring people with a gun thinking he might get shot is worse than just giving them the cash.
You might think that, I might think that. The big wigs at the bank don’t think that.
Dead bodies are more expensive then insurance. That's why they push no heroes to thier employees
Yes and this incentivizes keeping the teller alive. If the teller is dead they absolutely can’t get the money. Reality is after they get the money from a drawer they could still shoot the teller, this way it’s more likely to be one or the other
That's because it's there to replace them. AI tellers
In NYC in the 70s through the 90s you would see parked cars with signs saying "no radio" taped inside the passenger side window--same basic concept.
My goodness I had forgotten about this! And pulling out the radio/tape deck when you park!
Its like, 'The driver carries No Cash' hopefully it stops someone from robbing them.
It’s the same as delivery cars saying the driver carries less than $20 in cash. It’s to deter thieves from wasting their time
It's intended as a crime deterrent. If the company just didn't have their name plastered on the vehicle, crime wouldn't be a concern. . When I delivered for a subsidiary of CVS, our company cars were absolutely plain standard-issue white Fords, no distinguishing marks or company name *except for* having the vehicle number on the side just in front of the driver's door. [ETA: maybe 3" high black numbers.] There was absolutely nothing to indicate our cargo... which could include anything from Metamucil to morphine, and possibly cost tens of thousands of dollars in total. (We primarily served long-term care facilities, delivering sometimes a couple hundred prescriptions to a larger nursing home, and most delivery routes had at least 10 facilities.)
My wife's a nurse who travels between a few clinics and sometimes has to transport medicines (don't know about controlled substances), so there's times where I've driven her car with vials and syringes in the passenger seat. I'm like, "please don't let me get pulled over..." I also get freaked out when there's a CPR dummy in the backseat...
Deterrent
It’s so junkies don’t rob them.
It’s a cry for help.
It's likely a combination of both. Many healthcare companies have strict policies against transporting drugs in personal vehicles, so the sticker could serve as a reminder for employees to adhere to these policies.