Walgreens fires Pharmacist after defending himself and Coworker from Armed Robbery...

[creeky]

I will no longer purchase anything from Walgreens until Jeremy Hovan is reinstated and a apologized to. We spend a LOT of money on Diabetic supplies for my son... I can assure you they will not be coming from them. Not one alcohol pad, stick of gum, or bottle of water!!

------------ Snippet -------------

"BENTON TOWNSHIP (Michigan) - A photograph of four children tucked in a thank-you card from a coworker reminds Jeremy Hoven he did the right thing.

But doing "the right thing" cost the night shift pharmacist his job at the Walgreens drugstore at Napier Avenue and M-139. The national pharmacy chain fired Hoven on Monday, eight days after he fired his handgun to foil an armed robbery and a potentially deadly hostage situation at the store."

Link to full story...

http://www.heraldpalladium.<wbr>com/articles/2011/05/18/local_<wbr>news/4820927.txt

You can contact Walgreens Corporate here...

http://www.walgreens.com/<wbr>topic/marketing/contactus/<wbr>default1.jsp?foot=contact_us

Here is what I sent in to them...

I am attaching a link to an article I just read concerning the termination of a night shift pharmacist who, legally armed, defended himself and a coworker from an armed robbery.

<Link was inserted here>

Currently all my family's medicines are purchased through Walgreens. That includes all my 14 year old's diabetic supplies (Novalog, Lantus, Pen Caps, syringes, test strips, etc.).

Unfortunately after reading about your company's handling of this matter I can no longer do business with a company that will punish an employee for taking steps to protect himself and a coworker... especially in the light that after a previous armed robbery attempt no additional security procedures appear to have been instigated.

I also feel compelled to express my frustration with your company's decision via email (including a link to the story) to all my friends, family and as well as friends we currently network with through our involvement with the JDRF (Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation).

I ask you to put yourself in this young man's place. With a gun in your face, which would you rather have... the training and a pistol... or your employer adding a couple more security cameras to capture what will be done to you?

It is my hope that at a corporate level the action of terminating Jeremy Hoven will be revisited, that he will be fully reinstated and an apology will be made to him.

Sincerely,

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx

[ttocswob]

Already contacted - I was brief and blunt.

I prefer my locally owned pharmacy anyway, but I've used them when out of town, etc. - NO MORE!

[Guest Bronker]

I will no longer purchase anything from Walgreens until Jeremy Hovan is reinstated and a apologized to. We spend a LOT of money on Diabetic supplies for my son... I can assure you they will not be coming from them. Not one alcohol pad, stick of gum, or bottle of water!!

------------ Snippet -------------

"BENTON TOWNSHIP (Michigan) - A photograph of four children tucked in a thank-you card from a coworker reminds Jeremy Hoven he did the right thing.

But doing "the right thing" cost the night shift pharmacist his job at the Walgreens drugstore at Napier Avenue and M-139. The national pharmacy chain fired Hoven on Monday, eight days after he fired his handgun to foil an armed robbery and a potentially deadly hostage situation at the store."

Link to full story...

http://www.heraldpalladium.<wbr>com/articles/2011/05/18/local_<wbr>news/4820927.txt

You can contact Walgreens Corporate here...

http://www.walgreens.com/<wbr>topic/marketing/contactus/<wbr>default1.jsp?foot=contact_us

Here is what I sent in to them...

I am attaching a link to an article I just read concerning the termination of a night shift pharmacist who, legally armed, defended himself and a coworker from an armed robbery.

<Link was inserted here>

Currently all my family's medicines are purchased through Walgreens. That includes all my 14 year old's diabetic supplies (Novalog, Lantus, Pen Caps, syringes, test strips, etc.).

Unfortunately after reading about your company's handling of this matter I can no longer do business with a company that will punish an employee for taking steps to protect himself and a coworker... especially in the light that after a previous armed robbery attempt no additional security procedures appear to have been instigated.

I also feel compelled to express my frustration with your company's decision via email (including a link to the story) to all my friends, family and as well as friends we currently network with through our involvement with the JDRF (Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation).

I ask you to put yourself in this young man's place. With a gun in your face, which would you rather have... the training and a pistol... or your employer adding a couple more security cameras to capture what will be done to you?

It is my hope that at a corporate level the action of terminating Jeremy Hoven will be revisited, that he will be fully reinstated and an apology will be made to him.

Sincerely,

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx

[Chucktshoes]

I work as an Assistant Manager for Walgreens on the overnight shift. Walgreens does have a specific policy barring employees from having weapons on the property. The supposition in the article that they don't take better security measures for reasons of cost is absolutely true. I was notified that I was going to be losing my armed security 4 days after another store suffered an armed robbery. The company moved from posted armed security to "roving patrols" to attain "significant cost savings". That left me with a choice of going armed and risking my job, or being unarmed and taking those significant associated risks. Any Walgreens employee who may or may not make the decision to carry a gun at work should be aware that if they are in a position to have use that weapon, they WILL be fired. I factored that information into my choice. It is what it is. Most workplaces have similar policies.

Edited May 19, 2011 by Chucktshoes

[ted]

WELL I WANT BUY ANY THING THERE ANY MORE THAY OVER CHARGE I go to target now and get all my meds now I save BIG TIME

[Patton]

Walgreens has allways sucked.

[Guest mikedwood]

I try to stay away from Walgreens. I'd say, pray and hope Mr. Hoven will get a better job soon.

[Glock30]

Any Walgreens employee who may or may not make the decision to carry a gun at work should be aware that if they are in a position to have use that weapon, they WILL be fired. I factored that information into my choice. It is what it is.

Better to be fired and alive, than to be dead after following company policy.

[Chucktshoes]

Better to be fired and alive, than to be dead after following company policy.

Some would say that, yes.

Sent from my MB511 using Tapatalk

[Guest GLOCKGUY]

Better to be fired and alive, than to be dead after following company policy.

I agree.

[Dolomite_supafly]

What is driving all the no weapons policies by companies is one thing. Law suits and not by the good guys but by the bad guys or their families.

If a would be criminal comes in to commit a crime and gets injured or killed someone is guranteed to sue the company on his behalf. If an employee gets killed then there is social security and worker's compensation. So it is cheaper for the company to let an employee get killed than defend a wrongful death law suit by a would be criminal's family.

This is from a few years ago but I was told to defend against law suit was very expensive. Even if the case was thrown out at the first hearing I was told it cost over $20,000 just to prepare for that first hearing. And in the off chance the trial went ahead and the bad guy won there could be a multi million judgement against the company. An employee can't sue the employer for something a criminal does in the store but a bad guy sure can sue the company over what the employee has done because the employee is an agent of the company. It is all a matter of money and what ever is cheaper for the company is the route they will take.

What needs to happen is the laws changed so that the person who was injured or killed could not sue if they were injured or killed during the commision of a crime, any crime. Also, no one else could bring a law suit on behalf of the criminal or the criminal's family. Additionally, if the company restricts an employee's ability to defend themselves then the company should be liable for any and all damages if it is proven a weapon would have more likely than not prevented the damages.

This would take the liability away from the comapnies and make them rethink their no weapons policies.

Dolomite

[Guest nicemac]

Additionally, if the company restricts an employee's ability to defend themselves then the company should be liable for any and all damages if it is proven a weapon would have more likely than not prevented the damages.

This would take the liability away from the comapnies and make them rethink their no weapons policies.

Dolomite

Big Amen.

[Jonnin]

I do not think it is fair to say the store is wrong to fire someone for breaking a rule that says "if you do this, you will be fired". If you want to shop elsewhere, do it because the rule exists in the first place, not because it was enforced upon someone who knew he was breaking the rule and did it anyway. Yes, the guy is a hero and yes, I would have done the same thing... but the point is nearly every place you shop at has this same rule in effect and if you logic it out, you would have to stop shopping at almost all stores. The only difference between walgreens and every other big store is they were forced to choose between enforcing their rules and policys or to create an environment where rules are really just suggestions (which never works outside a mom and pop sized operation). I am not saying I am pleased with the results, or approve, I am just saying that I understand their decision and cannot fault the company for enforcing a documented policy.

[Guest nicemac]

I do not think it is fair to say the store is wrong to fire someone for breaking a rule that says "if you do this, you will be fired". If you want to shop elsewhere, do it because the rule exists in the first place, not because it was enforced upon someone who knew he was breaking the rule and did it anyway. Yes, the guy is a hero and yes, I would have done the same thing... but the point is nearly every place you shop at has this same rule in effect and if you logic it out, you would have to stop shopping at almost all stores. The only difference between walgreens and every other big store is they were forced to choose between enforcing their rules and policys or to create an environment where rules are really just suggestions (which never works outside a mom and pop sized operation). I am not saying I am pleased with the results, or approve, I am just saying that I understand their decision and cannot fault the company for enforcing a documented policy.

I agree with this–he knew the rules. However I too would be fired from Walgreens if I were in his place (after all that had happened). But paraphrasing several around here have in their signature: I would rather be judged by twelve (or fired) than carried by six.

[Guest Broomhead]

I don't agree with their policy, or the enforcement of it. However, I am stuck with doing business with them, they handle all of my Work Comp scripts, and I am under contract with my pain doctor to only get scripts filled at the Walgreens that I use. I don't like it, but I have to do what I have to do. Plus, they are one of the few that actually stock my meds.

[creeky]

Here is my reply I got this morning from "Alicia"...

(I'm interested if anyone else gets a "canned" response like this.)

Dear xxxxxxxx,

Thank you for contacting Walgreens regarding this matter. Our policies in this area are designed to maintain the maximum safety of our customers and employees.Store employees receive comprehensive training on our company’s robbery procedures and how to react and respond to a potential robbery situation. In past incidents, employees have told us they’ve found this training effective.These policies and training programs are endorsed by law enforcement, which strongly advises against confrontation of crime suspects.Compliance is safer than confrontation. Through this practice, we have been able to maintain an exemplary record of safety.We’ve made significant investments in security technology in recent years, including increasing the number of digital surveillance cameras at our stores.With upgrades to security technology, we are able to provide police with high-resolution photographs and video of crime suspects.We continue to invest in state-of-the-art security measures and high-definition surveillance equipment and hope that the apprehension of robbery suspects in the Benton Harbor area will prevent future crimes. Thank you for contacting Walgreens to share your comments.

Sincerely,

Alicia

Consumer Response Representative

--------------- -------------------------

Here was my reply back...Alicia,

Thank you for your time in responding back to me.

Unfortunately it appears that we (Walgreens Policy and myself) disagree on a number of issues you point out in your company's response.

Your response states...

"These policies and training programs are endorsed by law enforcement, which strongly advises against confrontation of crime suspects." ... ... ... "Compliance is safer than confrontation."

We must first define "Confrontation"... if that is to mean chasing an armed suspect from the premises that has stolen property I will agree that it is very unwise. Yet if we define "Confrontation" in the context of an act of defending one's self from serious bodily harm and or death... then that type of "Confrontation" is not only justified in court but is actually recommended by many law enforcement professionals.

One such women's defense class (Given by our local Law Enforcement Officers) my wife took stressed repeatedly the need for resistance, both physically, mentally and verbally.

Florida State University criminologist, Gary Kleck, analyzed data from the Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey (1992-1998). Describing his findings on defensive gun use, in Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control, New York:Prometheus Books (2001), Kleck writes:

"In general, self-protection measures of all types are effective, in the sense of reducing the risk of property loss in robberies and confrontational burglaries, compared to doing nothing or cooperating with the offender. The most effective form of self-protection is use of a gun. For robbery the self-protection meaures with the lowest loss rates were among victims attacking the offender with a gun, and victims threatenting the offender with a gun. For confrontational burglarly, attacking with a gun had the second lowest loss rate of sixteen self-protection measures, bested only by another mode of armed self-protection, threatening the offender with a nongun weapon." (p. 291)

"[W]hile defensive gun use is generally safe, it does not appear to be uniquely safe among self-protection methods as data from earlier NCVS data suggested. Nevertheless, there does not appear to be any increase in injury risk due to defensive gun use that counterbalances its greater effectiveness in avoiding property loss." (p. 292)

(I am attaching a chart that shows the data of resistance against a threat to bodily harm.)

Your response also states...

"We’ve made significant investments in security technology in recent years, including increasing the number of digital surveillance cameras at our stores.With upgrades to security technology, we are able to provide police with high-resolution photographs and video of crime suspects."

This is not a proactive measure... this is by definition a reactive measure in that cameras only record what is being done at a given time. It has no ability to intervene only document an occurrence. It is also fiscally cheaper to install both active and inactive cameras to deter possible criminal acts. However, they are only helpful at reducing shoplifting and more so... employee theft.

An armed robbery is a very different situation, as I am sure we can agree on. There is a different motive, intent, and system of tools used. Not to mention that masks (such as the suspects in this incident were wearing) will negate any practical use of the cameras.

My goal here is not waste your time Alicia. I realize I am but one person, one customer in a sea of many. My hope here is that perhaps, just perhaps this email might be forwarded up just a little. That you, or maybe someone else will think if just for a moment what a policy like this is really protecting. Certainly not the employees... rather a corporation from the irrational fear of a phantom wrongful death suit that corporate lawyers assure will come... but never has.

Perhaps the real solution here is in the legislative branch. Perhaps the best way to protect both business and employees would be legislation that exempted employers from wrongful death suits where self defense is involved.

If you have made it to the end of this email I again sincerely thank you for your time in reading this.

However, I still feel strongly that Walgreens has acted rashly in firing this man. As I am sure you are aware there where many other HR tools at Walgreens disposal to handle this situation more fairly. It is very unfortunate that they did not.

In closing I can only find myself supporting your employee's actions and finding great disappointment with Walgreen's actions at the same time. I also wonder what policy is in place if those two employee's had died. Would policy dictate that their widows be given finical compensation? Is Walgreen's policy that the District Manager would have went to both funerals, stood next to their widows... their children. I think we know the answer to both those questions. Walgreens would put up additional cameras, not bother with hiring armed security guards (too expensive) then a reasonable amount, perhaps $50 would be spent on flowers for each man's service.

I can not in all good faith do business with a company that seems to hold such little regard for their employees lives. He suffered enough having a gun put to his head and his life threatened... he didn't need to be fired as well. At least his co-worker and co-worker's family was grateful.

As of yesterday we have made arrangements to no longer use Walgreens for any reason.

Again, thank you for your time and have a good day.

Sincerely,

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx

[Guest GT_Rat]

What needs to happen is the laws changed so that the person who was injured or killed could not sue if they were injured or killed during the commision of a crime, any crime. Also, no one else could bring a law suit on behalf of the criminal or the criminal's family. Additionally, if the company restricts an employee's ability to defend themselves then the company should be liable for any and all damages if it is proven a weapon would have more likely than not prevented the damages.

This would take the liability away from the comapnies and make them rethink their no weapons policies.

Dolomite

Agreed. Don't we have some representatives or representatives of representatives on here that could propose such a law?

[G27]

Here is my reply I got this morning from "Alicia"...

Flippin brilliant response, Creeky. Good on ya'.

[Guest rebeldrummer]

Better to be fired and alive, than to be dead after following company policy.

Yup.....

[Guest nicemac]

Well done Creeky!

[Guest HvyMtl]

"This would take the liability away from the comapnies and make them rethink their no weapons policies."

No. I think we go further. Make it so in these situations, if the company refuses to allow self defense, they are to pay the victim(s)' family compensation for wages lost, retirement lost, insurance lost, pain and suffering. And make it extremely expensive and the company must pay.

The ONLY way to make corporations follow what is right is to hit them in the wallet, harshly. (Why else do you think our Governor is limiting such cases? So his corporation does not have to pay...)

Remember this: Corporations go on a profit vs loss view on the lives of employees and customers. How expensive is the loss of life vs the profits made? Ask Toyota. They knew there was severe life threatening issues with their vehicles. What did they do? A recall? Warning? Corrective measure? NO. They thought it was cheaper, and increased profits, to lie and not inform the customer, or the government, of issues, and fight any statements there were.

Look up the Ford Pinto case. Same thing. It was cheaper to lose the lives than it was to change the product.

So, until we make it so expensive, forcing corporations to put life over profits, nothing will change. And considering the present viewpoint of our politicians (Corporations > citizens) policies such as this will stand. The employee will, at worst, lose their job, and at best (in the eye of the corporation) will lose their life following corporate policy, preventing harm to the bottom line...

Sadly, most EVERY corporation, Wal-Mart to Walgreens, to manufacturers, to paper pushing companies, follow similar policy. You cannot boycott all.

IMHO: Walgreens has no customer service. I do not shop there, except for a nasal spray or candy before a movie. And I don't need either often. The last time I used them for prescriptions, I would use their automated service to request refills. After 4 times of using the service and giving them 24-48 hours to refill, and getting there and having to wait 30-1hour for a refill, I then called the pharmacy direct. I again gave them a minimum of 24 hours to refill, and got the same results.

Edited May 20, 2011 by HvyMtl

[hammerdrop99]

I too emailed my anger at their actions and got the exact same form response with a different persons signature. What a cop out. They should delete their ads for cheap toilet paper on their marquee outside and instead post "ATTENTION THUGS, COME IN AND TAKE WHAT YOU WANT. OUR EMPLOYEES ARE TRAINED TO COWER IN THE CORNER TO BETTER SERVE YOU !!!!"

[vontar]

I would say this, anyone that decides to move your meds to another store because of this, print the news story out and take it with you and give it to the store manager in person and let them know that is why you are transferring your meds away from their story. If you just silently transfer away it won't be noticed.

I know what my monthly co pay is, as well as what they claim my insurance pays. What is on my bill shows my insurance pays just under 300 a month for just my migraine pills. I only have to pay 25 at least. I am sure that is some nice mark up. I pay the same no matter where I go. So I can go some place else, I have several choices.

anyone else notice they fired him over EMAIL.

Edited May 21, 2011 by vontar

[strickj]

Most retail stores have the same or a very similar policy. Getting angry at one is silly.

If you wanna put your money where your mouth is, then I guess you'll have to boycott every business with that policy.

The good news is that your lonesomeness will save you money... and gas (since every gas station has that policy).

Edited May 21, 2011 by strickj

[robbiev]

Most retail stores have the same or a very similar policy. Getting angry at one is silly.

If you wanna put your money where your mouth is, then I guess you'll have to boycott every business with that policy.

The good news is that your lonesomeness will save you money... and gas (since every gas station has that policy).

Very true. For that matter, most companies have a similar policy. I've worked a bunch of different jobs in my life, both full time and part time, retail and other, and I've never worked anywhere that didn't have a no guns policy.