@Enthusiast all it takes is someone from the store to pass an item or leave it somewhere to pick up, and split the proceeds later, it happens a lot. I've seen many people caught who in theory were never anywhere near the cash or items. I've had to sign similar agreements just as a consultant. At the airport I'm searched and a metal detector walkthrough going in and out. Not even allowed my car in most parts. But I'm just maintaining equipment.

You mean, someone from the store walkintg over to HQ or where the developers sit and deposit the item there? This is about a SOFTWARE ENGINEER. He will quite likely NOT have ANY contact with the stores. Not as in "separate room", but as in "not at the same address".

@TomTom: there can be traffic between the two, even if they are in separate buildings. And that is by no means guaranteed—retail and HQ typically at least start out in the same building, only getting more space when they are larger.

There's any number of potential ways. People can be quite inventive. Vulnerable businesses try and mitigate against it

To be honest, I don't think they age being overly cautious, they are just being lazy and have a single set of policies for all employees.

@GregoryCurrie maybe, but it's bad practice to separate core security policies. I have been involved with an investigation that ended with 7 people in jail, 3 of them managers. They had an operation ranging from changing stock lists, financial records, to the actual thefts. All long time employees. Recovered several hundred thousand in assets.... real amount and duration unknown.

@Kilisi I really know nothing of the situation you speak, but I'm going to guess the people in the syndicate had different roles. I'm GUESSING that the managers changed the stock list and financial records, while the others performs the thefts. So I am wondering if physically searching the managers in that situation would have been useful.

@Kilisi If the only thing you care about is mitigating stock theft, then i agree, for sure, you can put every employee under the most draconian measures to prevent a single item from being stolen. But I think businesses have quite a few factors they should care about (this question is an example of this).

@GregoryCurrie they're not draconian, they're rarely enforced, most people forget they exist, but the option exists, which is the point. It's part deterrent, part useful. Like security cameras, you can review footage when needed, but not necessarily analyse everything all the time.

@Kilisi I would not permit myself to be filmed in the restroom for instance, no matter how "rarely" they say they will look at the footage. Just as an example. Self-respecting people don't subject themselves to needless invasions of privacy.

@GregoryCurrie I've never heard of cameras in toilets. Shop floors it's pretty normal to have cameras, even stockrooms it's not unusual, carparks etc,.Not just to deter shoplifters, cameras over tills are standard. People don't shoplift from tills.

They're just parts of an overall security strategy. The more open ended and all encompassing the better for the company as a deterrent and investigation toolset. Some companies even have internal auditing teams.

@Kilisi If the only thing you care about is preventing theft, you can go extreme with security policies. I think it's a bit of a balancing act personally. Obviously if you go too far you're going to have problems justifying it. Which I think is the case here.

@GregoryCurrie security and investigations have been a large part of my work, so I probably have a different take on things

The problem with this theory is that there are thousands of companies a software engineer can go to work for that are NOT associated with retail, and will NOT ask them to agree to these kinds of things. So if you blindly apply these rules to your software engineers -- who have NO contact with valuables, for whom the application of this policy is pointless bureaucracy -- the good ones (who have choices) will go work somewhere else, and you will end up hiring the ones who couldn't manage to get hired somewhere that would treat them better.

When I worked in financial services I never came anywhere near the retail side of the business but I was still required to agree not to participate in IPOs or make certain investments even though there was little chance I would have direct access to inside information. It’s not that weird that all employees are subject to the same rules for legal reasons even though particular rules may not make sense for individual employees. I’m certain if the company is having too hard a time recruiting qualified people, the rules will be adjusted.

@TomTom This is a retail business. If a software engineer wants to have contact with the stores, they can just walk in as if they were a potential customer.

If it is a jewelry store, I can understand workplace and car searches because the employer worries about theft. but why does a cell phone have anything to do with it? Anyone can come to the store then take a picture, right?

You've made a critical point in the comments, and I think it could be added to the answer explicitly. These rules exist and are universal not so you will search everybody every day, but so you can search anybody on any day. Since the risk here is common theft, I wouldn't expect these rules to be strictly enforced all the time, because doing so is probably more expensive than worth. But in the event you want to check the new IT guy from corporate isn't swiping a PS5 on their way out, those rules allow you to do so.

@AmiralPatate good point, I've added to the answer verbatim.

I work as a software engineer for a national retailer. We are encouraged to spend a day or two working in store each year to help out at busy times and get to know the "other" side of the business. Such rules are there to cover such situations.

@Dezza good point, and I've seen annual stocktakes where the whole office went to assist in big operations.

@GlennWillen, ...a company can need to pay a premium for engineering staff for lots of reasons. Look at Wal-Mart's middle-of-nowhere HQ location -- they're saving money on property taxes, but they need to either pay above-market wages or accept worse-than-average staff. These are tradeoffs companies make; as long as they're made deliberately, so be it.