Retail stores, according to The Wall Street Journal are in a panic about employee theft. One company, a shoe store called Famous Footwear, claimed that 60% of its losses to theft last year were internal. So, they installed some fancy security system which is kind of working, though all the corporate whiners in the article readily acknowledge that the employees are best equipped to get around such measures.

To combat this new trend, companies are using scare tactics ñ pursuing criminal charges rather than just firing people while trying to create an atmosphere of "being watched" in the work place. But nowhere in the article was the main cause of employee theft addressed ñ people should be paid well enough to buy what they sell. People should work decent day time hours and all over time should be voluntary. Perhaps the employee theft wasn't just an act of greed but an act of punishment.

There's a key statistic which backs this notion: Since the 1992 recession, growth in wages has outpaced growth in inflation by 7.62%. That sounds like good news. But, productivity has jumped 17.9%. If workers reap rewards which are less than the productivity gains enjoyed by companies, than we can fairly say that the workers are accomplishing more but getting less. 56% of workers polled by Business Week say they feel underpaid.

So, why shouldn't they steal? It's right our of Robin Hood. I worked at a chain music/video/book retailer during college for which I was paid less than $6 an hour most of the time. That was less than fast food wages but my employers bet (correctly) that I would accept a slimmer check in order to stay away from the grease vats of McDonald's. Now, I could only work part time since I was in school, so the slim paycheck was pretty slim.

So how could I boost my wages? By boosting merchandise. I didn't take a lot and I always had to have a reason. For example, I deserved a CD if I was closing the store and the alarm malfunctioned, thus keeping me there until 2 a.m. If I had to deal with a bitchy customer, I deserved a book purchased at a re-labeled price. I worked many scams because I had a lot of access at the store. I was allowed to price product, to move product, and to do the books at the end of the night.

So, why didn't I get a different job?

Get real! A guy living pay check to pay check can't quit and hope to find work in time to pay next month's rent. Besides, discounting for classes and the job, I didn't have a lot of free time. When I did, it came at odd hours and I had better things to fill it than to go McJob hunting.

I stole to even the score. I wouldn't have done so had they paid me around $10 an hour, which is the low end of what my work was actually worth.

But that's an issue they don't discuss in The Wall Street Journal. All theft isn't equal. Sometimes, its a small blow against exploitation. I remember the training video they showed me when I started my McJob all those years ago. "Remember," it said, "when you steal form the store, you're stealing from yourself." Then the voice tried to convince me that the lost merchandise was inhibiting management's ability to raise salaries and offer benefits.

But why would anyone believe that? After all, the company was profitable when I watched the video, which meant they could have diverted some of those profits towards raising salaries and offering benefits even at their current theft/loss level. They just didn't want to. Now, why would anyone believe that a drop in theft (which would increase profits) make management any more likely to share?

Employees may steal, but we shouldn't forget that employees make companies rich in the first place. There are no shoe stores, music stores, or electronics stores without sellers. If they're overworked and underpaid while management gets rich off their labor, you have to expect they'll compensate themselves the only way they can.

Michael Maiello stole this column.