Walgreen's pharmacy disgrace

[s8n 14]

Just thought this was interesting.

http://www.heraldpal...ews/4820927.txt

[kmbfire 0]

He should have recieved a promotion and a raise, not get fired!

[tony357 386]

Hmmm, looks like we need to shop rite aid, we have a new wallgreens in town too..

Any bad about rite aid hope not been going their for ever...

[vjf915 456]

He should have recieved a promotion and a raise, not get fired!

Why? He broke company policy, and he got the punishment that he deserved. I have reviewed my employers policy, and they have a strict "no weapons" policy. That means that if I am found with a weapon, I am susceptible to being fired. The same thing applies to this situation. Why should a company, that's sole purpose is to make money and prevent losses, promote actions like this? Do you know what would happen if Walgreen's PROMOTED actions like this? Next time an employee acted in the same fashion, and the employee got HURT, Walgreen's would get the pants sued off of them because they promoted this type of action, and the employee got hurt. Don't get me wrong, this man acted the way every man should. He did the RIGHT thing, he did the same exact thing that I would have done. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if I COULD have acted but didn't. However in this case, the employee doing the right thing is NOT what's in the best interest of the employer.

[Babaganoosh 192]

Why? He broke company policy, and he got the punishment that he deserved. I have reviewed my employers policy, and they have a strict "no weapons" policy. That means that if I am found with a weapon, I am susceptible to being fired. The same thing applies to this situation. Why should a company, that's sole purpose is to make money and prevent losses, promote actions like this? Do you know what would happen if Walgreen's PROMOTED actions like this? Next time an employee acted in the same fashion, and the employee got HURT, Walgreen's would get the pants sued off of them because they promoted this type of action, and the employee got hurt. Don't get me wrong, this man acted the way every man should. He did the RIGHT thing, he did the same exact thing that I would have done. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if I COULD have acted but didn't. However in this case, the employee doing the right thing is NOT what's in the best interest of the employer.

 

Did you read the part where he said that he doesn't think Walgreens has a policy against weapons?

 

Now if they didn't I would be surprised since I think every major corporation does, but if they don't then he should be rehired.

 

If they didn't I bet they have a nice revised handbook in place very shortly

[PeteF 1,044]

Why? He broke company policy, and he got the punishment that he deserved. I have reviewed my employers policy, and they have a strict "no weapons" policy. That means that if I am found with a weapon, I am susceptible to being fired. The same thing applies to this situation. Why should a company, that's sole purpose is to make money and prevent losses, promote actions like this? Do you know what would happen if Walgreen's PROMOTED actions like this? Next time an employee acted in the same fashion, and the employee got HURT, Walgreen's would get the pants sued off of them because they promoted this type of action, and the employee got hurt. Don't get me wrong, this man acted the way every man should. He did the RIGHT thing, he did the same exact thing that I would have done. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if I COULD have acted but didn't. However in this case, the employee doing the right thing is NOT what's in the best interest of the employer.

 

He said he knows of no specific Walgreens policy barring employees from carrying lawfully concealed weapons at work.

 

I guess Walgreens doesn't do a very good job of letting there employees know the policies.

 

Your comments go back to the "Criminals don't follow the rules".

I pretty sure Walgreens also has a policy about pointing guns at people also. Are the BG's going to be fired also?

 

Check your employee policy about hostile work environment. See how long you'd have a job if you started threatening other employees. See how quickly your company would be sued if a outside contractor started threatening employees and management did nothing. Walgreens did nothing to ensure the safety of there employees. Yes they may be able to legally fire him, but each and every employee there should sue Walgreens for Hostile workplace infractions.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

I guess Walgreens doesn't do a very good job of letting there employees know the policies.

 

Your comments go back to the "Criminals don't follow the rules".

I pretty sure Walgreens also has a policy about pointing guns at people also. Are the BG's going to be fired also?

 

Check your employee policy about hostile work environment. See how long you'd have a job if you started threatening other employees. See how quickly your company would be sued if a outside contractor started threatening employees and management did nothing. Walgreens did nothing to ensure the safety of there employees. Yes they may be able to legally fire him, but each and every employee there should sue Walgreens for Hostile workplace infractions.

This is a very mute point, if you don't like or even know the policies of the company your working for.. then u shouldn't be working for them, or act surprised when u get fired for breaking company policy.. Every company has a contract and handbook which you agree upon, if you dont read it then you cant blame the company.

 

Company policy is not law, you will not go to jail for breaking it but u will probably be fired. This in fact happens all the time and it's in the news quite a bit. If companies didn't tell there employees that they cannot do this, then they would be held liable for any damages caught in the gun fire. A drawer full of money is nothing compared to a multi-million dollar lawsuit from a customer who gets shot by an employee, or an empoyee getting shot because he tried to do the right thing. Companies have and will always watch there own assess... Company policies makes the employees responsible for their own actions.

 

If you could explain this suing for hostile workplace infraction? I'm a bit confused how this would even apply since a company can only enforce policy on its employees.

[e80hydro 120]

I would have let them have the money instead of trying to foil the robbery. Not my money, F Walgreens.

[vjf915 456]

This is a very mute point, if you don't like or even know the policies of the company your working for.. then u shouldn't be working for them, or act surprised when u get fired for breaking company policy.. Every company has a contract and handbook which you agree upon, if you dont read it then you cant blame the company.

Huge +1 for this! This is completely right, and it's about time someone else actually sees how things are. How many times do we sit here and say "Ignorance is not an excuse"? Then turn around and justify ignorance of company policy and getting fired for it.

Company policy is not law, you will not go to jail for breaking it but u will probably be fired. This in fact happens all the time and it's in the news quite a bit. If companies didn't tell there employees that they cannot do this, then they would be held liable for any damages caught in the gun fire. A drawer full of money is nothing compared to a multi-million dollar lawsuit from a customer who gets shot by an employee, or an empoyee getting shot because he tried to do the right thing. Companies have and will always watch there own assess... Company policies makes the employees responsible for their own actions.

Again, 100% correct. If the company supports the action by promoting the employee and giving him a raise, then the next employee who tries this and gets injured is going to sue the crap out of the company.

I would have let them have the money instead of trying to foil the robbery. Not my money, F Walgreens.

I work at a bank, and have anywhere from $12k to $50k in cash at my disposal at any time. Some guy walks in with just a note, not even displaying a gun, that says "This is a robbery, give me all the money in your drawer." .....You can bet your a** I'm going to give him every single dollar I have access to. There's no way that up to %50k is worth my life. However, the man in question said that he felt as if it could potentially turn into a hostage situation. If this is true, and he legitimately protected the safety of innocent people, then he made the right move. If he was trying to protect the cash drawer, then he made the wrong move.

[vladtepes 1,060]

just because the "rules" say have a weapon get fired.. doesn't mean that is the right policy (I have no interest debating this).. and the more and more people are exposed to stories of "good citizen foiling this or that.. with a gun".. the more likely it is that the moderate people of the nation may notice that guns save lives.. and are not all bad..

 

not trying debate the issue.. just stating how I feel..

[JackDaWack 2,895]

just because the "rules" say have a weapon get fired.. doesn't mean that is the right policy.. and the more and more people are exposed to stories of "good citizen foiling this or that.. with a gun".. the more likely it is that the moderate people of the nation may notice that guns save lives.. and are not all bad..

I think most people would agree with this, i dont think the policy is right, unfortunately the way companies get sued these days because people think they can make a quick buck forces them into these positions. People will sue for almost anything, even if they slip on a wet floor with a sign that clearly states floor is wet. We live in an F'ed up place where people cannot recognize intent and logistics. People only care about themselves and in turn companies need to protect themselves.

[Maksim 1,504]

Didnt we have the same thing with the Dominos thread not too long ago? Or was it best buy? or Walmart?

 

In any case, in a law happy society... easier to take the loss for everyone. You did not hire trained mercs to work as cashiers, you have joe smoe.

 

At my office, if CCW was legal, I would not care one bit if my employees carried, I would encourage it. Why? Because we have clients, not customers, and most of the time, just employees. If I owned a mcdonalds, or any place like that? Where there are 10 to 1 customers to employees, I would have the same no gun policy as others do.

 

Odds are, the person carrying is not trained with the gun, it is their first situation with a gun, and they are more likely to get hurt themselves or hurt another customer. Then... that same employee would sue the company because he got hurt on the job, and then expect to get lifelong payments because he played commando to try to save $500.

 

 

Until we drop the law happy mentality, we will have these types of anti gun policies in the workplace. If you want to show me a certificate that you successfully completed a CCW course, and can use it under stress, I would absolutely be glad you are armed in the workplace. As long as I (as the employer) am providing you a job, you have to abide by my rules, if you think they are stupid, or don't like them, quit, leave, start your own business. For every stupid rule... there is a reason. =) ie... why I no longer hire clinically depressed smokers.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

I think it was best buy, something involving a laptop?

[Ray Ray 3,566]

I would have let them have the money instead of trying to foil the robbery. Not my money, F Walgreens.

 

Yup, unless they start to get touchy feely with me then we'll have some issues that I'd have to address.

[PeteF 1,044]

This is a very mute point, if you don't like or even know the policies of the company your working for.. then u shouldn't be working for them, or act surprised when u get fired for breaking company policy.. Every company has a contract and handbook which you agree upon, if you dont read it then you cant blame the company.

 

"He said he knows of no specific Walgreens policy barring employees from carrying lawfully concealed weapons at work."

Based on his statement, it wasn't in the policy they gave him or it didn't exist.

 

 

If you could explain this suing for hostile workplace infraction? I'm a bit confused how this would even apply since a company can only enforce policy on its employees.

 

You are so wrong on this.

A company is responsible for everything that takes place in its facility.

If a company makes no effort to rectify a problem within its facility, they are in Deep DOO DOO.

 

"The store was robbed by four neighborhood residents, one carrying a gun, in December 2007.

Afterward, Hoven said, he and other workers complained verbally to managers about the store's security shortcomings. He said nothing was done."

 

 

Example:

 

Electrician is hired to do work in a building. He is wearing a shirt that says "Hey baby want to sleep with me".

This is seen by a female employee who makes a complaint to HR.

Head of HR thinks this is a funny shirt and does nothing to rectify the situation.

Sexual discrimination lawsuit follows HR guy is canned and company settles for big bucks.

 

When the Walgreens was robbed previously and management did nothing to rectify the situation (ie a Guard) they opened themselves

up for lawsuits for not providing a safe place of employment.

[Anselmo 87]

"He said he knows of no specific Walgreens policy barring employees from carrying lawfully concealed weapons at work."

Based on his statement, it wasn't in the policy they gave him or it didn't exist.

 

 

 

Or he didn't read the policy or he read it and forgot about the weapons section.

 

My workplace says no weapons at work (for the safety of everyone).

[PeteF 1,044]

My workplace says no weapons at work (for the safety of everyone).

 

Mine also, its posted at every entrance to my building makes it kind of hard to miss.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

"He said he knows of no specific Walgreens policy barring employees from carrying lawfully concealed weapons at work."

Based on his statement, it wasn't in the policy they gave him or it didn't exist.

 

 

 

 

You are so wrong on this.

A company is responsible for everything that takes place in its facility.

If a company makes no effort to rectify a problem within its facility, they are in Deep DOO DOO.

 

"The store was robbed by four neighborhood residents, one carrying a gun, in December 2007.

Afterward, Hoven said, he and other workers complained verbally to managers about the store's security shortcomings. He said nothing was done."

 

 

Example:

 

Electrician is hired to do work in a building. He is wearing a shirt that says "Hey baby want to sleep with me".

This is seen by a female employee who makes a complaint to HR.

Head of HR thinks this is a funny shirt and does nothing to rectify the situation.

Sexual discrimination lawsuit follows HR guy is canned and company settles for big bucks.

 

When the Walgreens was robbed previously and management did nothing to rectify the situation (ie a Guard) they opened themselves

up for lawsuits for not providing a safe place of employment.

I still think its a stretch, a guard would just be another employee who cannot do anything who must follow the same policies... I'm not sure what the security shortcomings are but a guard is not a solution to burglaries. Add the fact that burglaries cannot be controlled by an employer, no matter how much security is put in place.

A company can however control who they hire and fire and respectable behavior in a work environment.

[djg0770 481]

Where companies have guards, they are often employed by private security firms, not by the "store".

[JackDaWack 2,895]

Where companies have guards, they are often employed by private security firms, not by the "store".

At which point do stores have to have private security? Places like best buy have in house security who follow store policy.If a store gets hit every 4 years can a they argue that security isn't necessary? Inherent dangers come with working night shifts, just like working at gas stations at night and so on who have no security, by Pete's standards they could all claim hazardous working conditions, but are these conditions actually part of the job?

[Melgamatic 66]

This is a very mute point

 

Moot

[vjf915 456]

"He said he knows of no specific Walgreens policy barring employees from carrying lawfully concealed weapons at work."

Based on his statement, it wasn't in the policy they gave him or it didn't exist.

He KNOWS of no specific policy. Just because he doesn't know of the policy does NOT mean that the policy doesn't exist.

Example:

 

Electrician is hired to do work in a building. He is wearing a shirt that says "Hey baby want to sleep with me".

This is seen by a female employee who makes a complaint to HR.

Head of HR thinks this is a funny shirt and does nothing to rectify the situation.

Sexual discrimination lawsuit follows HR guy is canned and company settles for big bucks.

Dude you are way off base with this. An electrician is HIRED to do WORK. Employees must follow policy. The company can only do so much, there will always be uncontrollable situations. My bank isn't tornado proof, does that mean I should sue my employer for not providing a "safe" working environment? Where does it stop then? You know there's a lot of dirt involved with money, and it makes me sneeze a lot. Should I complain and sue the company for not providing a clean working environment? There is only SO MUCH that a company can do.

[Maksim 1,504]

At which point do stores have to have private security? Places like best buy have in house security who follow store policy.If a store gets hit every 4 years can a they argue that security isn't necessary? Inherent dangers come with working night shifts, just like working at gas stations at night and so on who have no security, by Pete's standards they could all claim hazardous working conditions, but are these conditions actually part of the job?

 

 

Best buy and others have Loss Prevention, not Store Security.

 

LP's job is to minimize theft (internal & external), but under no circumstances confront someone with a gun.

[vladtepes 1,060]

At the end of the day the situation is pretty simple.. the employer should hold all of the rights.. from disarming you.. to the socks that you wear.. and everything in between.... they own the business and they are hiring people to represent them.. and while on the clock you represent them and therefore have to abide by whatever rules are in place.. you have the option to end employment.. you are not forced to be there.. at the end of the day.. if I worked for someone who had a no weapons policy and could legally carry.. I would just CCW... and I would accept the following... if someone robs the store... or does some other nonsense.. it is on the store.. if I ever feel my life is in danger? I will bite the bullet and use the gun I am not supposed to have...

 

unemployed > dead

[vladtepes 1,060]

Best buy and others have Loss Prevention, not Store Security.

 

LP's job is to minimize theft (internal & external), but under no circumstances confront someone with a gun.

 

 

ha I have seen those guys.. and for the most part I could not imagine ANY of them even thinking about going after anyone pointing a gun around.. lol

[vladtepes 1,060]

He KNOWS of no specific policy. Just because he doesn't know of the policy does NOT mean that the policy doesn't exist

 

I'll agree with you.. but in all fairness it could have been the other way as well.. it is obviously in their policies.. but they have a right to properly disclose things in a reasonable way..

 

listed within a simple handbook.. clearly marked on the window (as some businesses do in states with CCW laws).... yes.. I agree...

 

line 18 section 21 on page 2391.... then no.. I think the company had an obligation to be a little more in the open with the policy...

 

 

I just think that when we as outsiders don't know ALL the details it is hard to really say... but at the end of the day he is alive.. and as I just said.. being unemployed and alive is better than being dead...

[JackDaWack 2,895]

Moot

Thank you for your contribution to this thread...

 

I agree vlad, being alive and unemployed is far better then anything else that could have resulted from that situation.

[PeteF 1,044]

He KNOWS of no specific policy. Just because he doesn't know of the policy does NOT mean that the policy doesn't exist.

 

Dude you are way off base with this. An electrician is HIRED to do WORK. Employees must follow policy. The company can only do so much, there will always be uncontrollable situations. My bank isn't tornado proof, does that mean I should sue my employer for not providing a "safe" working environment? Where does it stop then? You know there's a lot of dirt involved with money, and it makes me sneeze a lot. Should I complain and sue the company for not providing a clean working environment? There is only SO MUCH that a company can do.

 

Doesn't mean it does either. Have you seen it? I would think the guy after going through the trouble to get a CCW, would have checked.

 

Leaving acts of god out of the picture, if a company does nothing about a valid complaint and

someone is injured because of it you can be damn certain the company is going to get sued.

 

Ever hear of slip and falls in a supermarket?

 

If the money is so dirty as to cause a valid complaint you can be sure your bank would be issuing gloves to handle the money. Same situation as EMT's. 30-40 years ago no one worried if they got a little blood on them. Until someone complained about the chance of catching a disease from blood.

Now gloves are supplied and worn. Not sure if REQUIRED, but they certainly are available.

 

 

See the trend?

1. Problem

2. Complaint

3. Resolution of problem

Good

 

1. Problem

2. Complaint

3. No Resolution of problem

4. Problem continues

Bad

 

If that hired electrician gets out of hand, it is THE COMPANIES responsibility to take care of it. Can be as simple as "Hey you knock it off" or as much as calling the police to have them removed from the premises.

If they do nothing, then they are also at fault.

 

And to all those who think corporate policy clears them of liability ask WalMart about their

lawsuit with female employees.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

Doesn't mean it does either. Have you seen it? I would think the guy after going through the trouble to get a CCW, would have checked.

 

Leaving acts of god out of the picture, if a company does nothing about a valid complaint and

someone is injured because of it you can be damn certain the company is going to get sued.

 

Ever hear of slip and falls in a supermarket?

 

If the money is so dirty as to cause a valid complaint you can be sure your bank would be issuing gloves to handle the money. Same situation as EMT's. 30-40 years ago no one worried if they got a little blood on them. Until someone complained about the chance of catching a disease from blood.

Now gloves are supplied and worn. Not sure if REQUIRED, but they certainly are available.

 

 

See the trend?

1. Problem

2. Complaint

3. Resolution of problem

Good

 

1. Problem

2. Complaint

3. No Resolution of problem

4. Problem continues

Bad

 

If that hired electrician gets out of hand, it is THE COMPANIES responsibility to take care of it. Can be as simple as "Hey you knock it off" or as much as calling the police to have them removed from the premises.

If they do nothing, then they are also at fault.

 

And to all those who think corporate policy clears them of liability ask WalMart about their

lawsuit with female employees.

 

I understand completely what your saying, but there is no resolution to burglaries, or at least a cut and paste solution. If the store was constantly being hit by robbers i could possibly see where no action would be an issue, clearly something is wrong if a store gets hit once a month and nothing is done. Having a store get hit once every 4 years on the other hand doesn't necessarily warrant an issue. If the store gets hit in the a.m. hours then could correlate robberies with after hours and shut the store down, then the employees would be pissed they lost their night jobs...

If a store cannot control the main factor of the complaint how can you hold them liable?

The main thing here is whether or not a complaint is justified, if a store gets robbed once every 4 years is a compliant about security valid? If you work night shifts is it valid to complain about the inherit dangers that come with working night shifts?

[Anselmo 87]

I'll agree with you.. but in all fairness it could have been the other way as well.. it is obviously in their policies.. but they have a right to properly disclose things in a reasonable way..

 

listed within a simple handbook.. clearly marked on the window (as some businesses do in states with CCW laws).... yes.. I agree...

 

line 18 section 21 on page 2391.... then no.. I think the company had an obligation to be a little more in the open with the policy...

 

 

I just think that when we as outsiders don't know ALL the details it is hard to really say... but at the end of the day he is alive.. and as I just said.. being unemployed and alive is better than being dead...

 

Companies have lots of policies. They can't put every policy on the window because that is the policy you're most interested in. The no CCW on premises stickers are for customers not employees. Customers can't read the employee manual and most of it doesn't apply to them but employees can read it. My company just issued a new policy manual and I need to sign attesting that I read it.