Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hmmm...call me cynical, but I don't think that's their motive. If it were, they would be taking steps such as installing protective glass, hiring security guards, providing things like mace and pepper spray to their employees, providing training on handling threatening situations, etc. This really does smack of a policy designed to lower their risk exposure and manage their liability.
If you saw the train the military and police put their people through to get them to the point of being able to confront and armed and aggressive person, you would realize:
1. That's a different person than the one currently behind the counter.
2. It is way more expensive than you think.
3. There will be periodic and very expensive lawsuits when a bystander is injured or killed.
It's absolutely clear to major companies that the occasional small change robbery isn't a compelling reason to arm their store clerks.
If you saw the train the military and police put their people through to get them to the point of being able to confront and armed and aggressive person
Who is talking about confronting an armed and aggressive person? That would be the exact opposite of what employers would train my employees to do. What I'm referring to is policies and procedures to deal with a robbery. i.e., how to respond, what to do with the safe, when to call police, whether or not to pursue, etc. It sounds like the pharmacist here is saying that Walgreens never communicated anything to him or other employees regarding how to handle a robbery.
Quote:
It's absolutely clear to major companies that the occasional small change robbery isn't a compelling reason to arm their store clerks.
Well, of course. But sky-high insurance premiums are a compelling argument to clearly communicate with employees that they are never to engage with a robber or an armed individual, period. I'm sure some of them may spin it as looking out for the well-being of customers or employees, but a) they don't want the liability if their employee does something to get him/herself or someone else killed, and b) they don't want to deal with the negatiove PR consequences of such an event.
Well, of course. But sky-high insurance premiums are a compelling argument to clearly communicate with employees that they are never to engage with a robber or an armed individual, period. I'm sure some of them may spin it as looking out for the well-being of customers or employees, but a) they don't want the liability if their employee does something to get him/herself or someone else killed, and b) they don't want to deal with the negatiove PR consequences of such an event.
This is a good point. I wonder though, if you can honestly say that this man was doing something that caused anyone to get hurt. It looked as if the intent was to shoot him. If someone is trying to kill you all bets are off, to heck with Walgreens, to heck with the insurance, your instincts to survive are going to kick in. If it wasn't a gun, then it could have turned into a physical struggle of sorts. If this was simply a robbery attempt than the gun issue would be valid especially for insurance purposes but it looks like they intended on killing him.
Another point I would like to add though is we are arguing about the wrong thing. People keep bringing up the gun, but that wasn't why he was fired. He was fired for not following company procedures for a store robbery, by "escalating" the situation. We can talk about guns all day, but that isn't really the whole story.
This is a good point. I wonder though, if you can honestly say that this man was doing something that caused anyone to get hurt. It looked as if the intent was to shoot him. If someone is trying to kill you all bets are off, to heck with Walgreens, to heck with the insurance, your instincts to survive are going to kick in. If it wasn't a gun, then it could have turned into a physical struggle of sorts. If this was simply a robbery attempt than the gun issue would be valid especially for insurance purposes but it looks like they intended on killing him.
If I had quick and easy access to a gun, and two armed robbers were pointing guns in my face, I would absolutely seek to use it. Now, whether I would be effective in doing so is another matter. I think the pharmacist was kind of lucky here, this could have ended much, much worse for him. Lots of guys think that if they're packing heat they will be able to go all Captain Vigilante whenever they're faced with imminent danger, but success in such situations is quite rare.
So yeah, from a purely personal persepctive, I don't fault the pharmacist here. I maintain though that having employees bringing guns intot he workplace is a very, very bad idea. And you are correct, the guy wasn't fired for using the gun, but rather for not following protocol. Will be interesting to see if he pursues any remedies here.
Who is talking about confronting an armed and aggressive person? That would be the exact opposite of what employers would train my employees to do. What I'm referring to is policies and procedures to deal with a robbery. i.e., how to respond, what to do with the safe, when to call police, whether or not to pursue, etc. It sounds like the pharmacist here is saying that Walgreens never communicated anything to him or other employees regarding how to handle a robbery.
Well, of course. But sky-high insurance premiums are a compelling argument to clearly communicate with employees that they are never to engage with a robber or an armed individual, period. I'm sure some of them may spin it as looking out for the well-being of customers or employees, but a) they don't want the liability if their employee does something to get him/herself or someone else killed, and b) they don't want to deal with the negatiove PR consequences of such an event.
The end point is the same. It's really stupid to have armed employees. If you're worried about a robbery put in a safe that the clerk can deposit to but not remove money from.
According to the video, they are saying they have a policy against escalating a situation. If someone is near you at point blank range with a gun, how much more escalated can a situation get?
EXACTLY!
He did not escalate the situation.
He EQUALIZED it. And almost immediately, the situation was downgraded as the knuckleheads ran off.
Otherwise, we would be seeing a story of a multi-million dollar class action suit to Walgreen by the family of the pharmacist for an unsafe work environment... after his funeral.
A lot of criminals use really cheap "junk" guns that don't immediately fire. Sometimes it takes a few trigger pulls. the pharmacist is lucky the crook's gun didn't work on the first 3 squeezes. Eventually a round would have fired.
The robber was attempting to illegally seize merchandise the belonged to neither he nor the store clerk - it was Walgreen's. Therefore, it was Walgreen's responsibility to decide on the appropriate action in the event anyone tried to illegally obtain what was theirs. If they want their employees to fork up Walgreen-owned goodies at the first hint of trouble, like this one, then that store clerk should have done so. In the end, the principle is the same with any legal customer transaction - the store clerk was being paid to provide customers with the merchandise in exchange for funds. Well, Walgreens also had a policy dictating that the store clerk should have also provided the robber with merchadise in exchange for this serious threat. Walgreen's product, Walgreen's decision as to how that product is transferred.
On the other hand, the robber presented himself as a legitimate threat to the clerk's life and the clerk responded appropriately as a citizen, not so much as an employee. Obviously, law enforcement felt the same way, or else he'd be imprisoned.
As far as his firing is concerned, we don't know the full story behind all of this, like the employee's work record with the company. For all we know, he was probably a nut-job with previous warnings on other loosely related issues and this was the straw that broke the camel's back.
a Sprint employee got fired for tackling a dude who snatched a purse from an old lady a few years ago.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
