TexasCHLforum.com

Another thought provoking article. :

"The four Layton Walmart employees felt it was mission accomplished. Police officers told them they had done everything right.

But a week later, all four were fired from their jobs. Walmart said their actions had violated company policy and put their fellow workers and shoppers at risk."

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=14319284" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I suspect someone will be along shortly to offer those sheepdogs a better job.

RoyGBiv wrote:I suspect someone will be along shortly to offer those sheepdogs a better job.

I certainly hope so.

That's disappointing, but not surprising. You hear about this type of thing frequently where employees get fired for resisting a robbery. Just about all the national retail/restaurant chains have these types of policies. They're more concerned about their own liability than employee safety.

This reminds me...we just went through "de-escalation" training at work. Basically, if some one is physically aggressive towards you, you turn and run.

Just wrote Walmart a nasty gram telling them they have a few unhappy customers regarding this. I told them whether they decided to give them their jobs back or not either way I was sure they would be paying for their bad choice.

Great report from the officer. I'm curious why he wasn't charged with Agg Robbery or the equivalent statute for the state.

He treated the details of the pistol well even though he wasn't familiar with the pistol, or probably guns in general ("magazine clip").

gigag04 wrote:Great report from the officer. I'm curious why he wasn't charged with Agg Robbery or the equivalent statute for the state.

He treated the details of the pistol well even though he wasn't familiar with the pistol, or probably guns in general ("magazine clip").

I would guess that had to do with the plea deal the article said they gave him

Yes this makes my blood boil. The employees weren't risking their lives to save a computer -- their lives were in jeopardy already, and they were protecting themselves. This is just appalling.

txmatt wrote:

gigag04 wrote:Great report from the officer. I'm curious why he wasn't charged with Agg Robbery or the equivalent statute for the state.

He treated the details of the pistol well even though he wasn't familiar with the pistol, or probably guns in general ("magazine clip").

I would guess that had to do with the plea deal the article said they gave him

Not on the booking charges. You're booked with the onsite charges. The DA can fiddle with it later

There are a couple parts to this story that don't make sense to me.

Asset protection coordinator Poulsen met him at the door and ushered him back to the loss prevention room to confront him.

So, I'm the BG, I know that I have a stolen computer under my coat....and I let a store employee usher me back to a room?? Hello? Yes, I know that BGs don't think very clearly or they won't be doing what they are doing but why not flash the gun right then and there instead of when you are in an isolated room and outnumbered 4-1? I recognize a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking in my question.

Why aren't the fired employees making the case that they were in fear for their lives? Call me wrong but the line in the story says they were concerned about allowing the BG back into the store with the gun. To me, that is "batman license" thinking and exactly what Wal-Mart honed in on. Please don't get me wrong - these guys should have had the right to defend themselves as they saw fit at the moment. It sure seems like their actions where justified in that regard. But it should have remained a self-defense argument. Aren't we, as CHLs, taught the same thing? "I was just protecting myself against a threat." I do agree that they probably didn't have any training to help them understand what to say. I just think that Wal-Mart would have had a hard time defending its actions if the 4 guys sang the self defense song over and over again. As soon as they started saying other things, they weakened their position. Boy, does that sound familiar.......

The story says the BG grabbed one of the employees and threatened him with the gun on the way out. It didn't sound like they acted solely out of concern for the shoppers, but more out of the immediate threat to the employee.

It honestly doesn't matter what argument the employees make. They physically stopped a man from leaving the store who had a gun. Doesn't matter why or who's life they were saving. They broke the letter of the policy. WalMart is going to fire them because they are a liability to the company. With Texas being an at-will employment state, they don't need a reason.

Brian

Every organization reflects the character of the folks at the top.

Most retail chains figure that the workers' compensation payout for a dead or seriously injured employee is cheaper than a liability suit by a customer or even a shoplifter injured by the direct actions of an employee.

The incident described in this post comes from what I call "beancounter morality" - the sad set of priorities that come from putting money ahead of everything else, including the safety and welfare of employees.

Decisions like this one are why so many employees' gag reflexes are triggered whenever they hear the CEO talk about how their people are the company's most valuable assets. The brass can't figure out why, after giving that speech, these ungrateful folks don't work harder, and why turnover is so high.

Excaliber hit the nail on the head right there!

Excaliber wrote: "beancounter morality" - the sad set of priorities that come from putting money ahead of everything else, including the safety and welfare of employees.

Beancounter Morality - Copyright © 2011, Excaliber