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

[vontar]

Your right.

For that matter I would have to not show up at work myself. If is not a legally binding sign but they have have a list of items that are not allowed at the receptionist desk. Firearms is one of them. As it is in the employee handbook. However the building it's self is not properly posted. I need my job so I Have to obey that, probably the best paying job I can get in the area.

We have unarmed security, not sure I understand the point there either (not being mean I know both of them and they are good people last year I mowed their lawn because they were both physically unable), they would not be very useful in a physical confrontation if the need arose. When they have been out sick and replacements have been there, the replacements were about the same. I feel I would probably be protecting them.

It is Easy for us to forget, we are so Pro Gun that we like to walk to streets, drive in our cars, go shopping, be in our homes and we want to go to work with our guns. However we find places that might be be off limits to the general public but our employee might be saying NO.

[ttocswob]

I got the same canned e-mail, probably out of the same can!

And I'm outta sudafed, and every other pharm in town is out...guess I'll do without...sniff sniff.

[vontar]

I got the same canned e-mail, probably out of the same can!

And I'm outta sudafed, and every other pharm in town is out...guess I'll do without...sniff sniff.

You have to get there before the Smurfs.

[Chucktshoes]

You have to get there before the Smurfs.

Truth.

They are probably out of lithium batteries and instant ice packs too...

[DaveTN]

To ask someone to sell drugs at 4:30 am without armed security and then to have a policy that disarms them and makes them vulnerable to attack is irresponsible on the part of the company.

[Worriedman]

To ask someone to sell drugs at 4:30 am without armed security and then to have a policy that disarms them and makes them vulnerable to attack is irresponsible on the part of the company.

Yeah but, Walgreen's property rights are intact.

[Guest mds3d]

As a future pharmacist, I am a little disturbed.

I have worked several places with "no guns" policies on the employees. (including Walgreen's main competitor - CVS)

Almost all of them have this statement regarding all policies - punishment for violation of any policies can result in action up to and including, but not limited to, termination. That is, we can fire you or do more or less than that. There are a range of actions that can be taken before firing someone.

I have also seen many pharmacies "training" on how to deal with a robber. Essentially they are all a booklet (or less) that says "do what they say" and a place to sign saying "I have read and understand this company policy." That is not training, its CYA.

[vontar]

To add to what mds3d said, I have a co worker that used to work at company A(national company). I won't say the company name as this is second hand knowledge and I don't want to spread it around to give any criminal with INTERNET search a idea for an easy mark. But the policy in the event of a robbery was to give the robber whatever they wanted, comply completely . The employees that had to deal with the situation I believe he told me got a 1,000 dollar check from the company for following policy if that every happened to them In short, don't fight back, don't risk your life or anyone else's.

[Mike.357]

punishment for violation of any policies can result in action up to and including, but not limited to, termination. That is, we can fire you or do more or less than that.

so what can they do that goes further than firing you?

[DaveTN]

To add to what mds3d said, I have a co worker that used to work at company A(national company). I won't say the company name as this is second hand knowledge and I don't want to spread it around to give any criminal with INTERNET search a idea for an easy mark. But the policy in the event of a robbery was to give the robber whatever they wanted, comply completely . The employees that had to deal with the situation I believe he told me got a 1,000 dollar check from the company for following policy if that every happened to them In short, don't fight back, don't risk your life or anyone else's.

That’s pretty much the standard for any business. They couldn’t care less about the money or drugs; they are happy if in an armed robbery the perp leaves and no one gets shot. Can you blame them?

[Guest midnitelamp]

IF everyone would boycott stores whether "silly" or not,in these economic times it would get their attention.

Just like Krogers and their illegal alien employee the "Belmont Groper",if we had the least courage of our convictions,we could pinch them off one at a time.

[robbiev]

IF everyone would boycott stores whether "silly" or not,in these economic times it would get their attention.

Just like Krogers and their illegal alien employee the "Belmont Groper",if we had the least courage of our convictions,we could pinch them off one at a time.

I agree with that in concept, but is it actually logistically feasable to boycott every single company that has a no gun policy? And I'm actually seriously asking the quesiton. I don't know of any major company that doesn't have a no guns or no weapons policy of some kind, especially for its employees. If we actually boycotted every single one of those, it would make it a little difficult to buy gas, food, or much of anything else.

[creeky]

I agree with that in concept, but is it actually logistically feasible to boycott every single company that has a no gun policy?

No it is not. But is it morally right for a gun owner to stop doing business with one when they fire an employee that was defending himself? I think so.

They had many other "HR" tools at their disposal. (Write ups, suspension, mandatory retraining, etc.)

If he had been addicted to drugs or alcohol they would have paid him to have him put through a program.

Not calling for a nation wide boycott. Not trying to get T-Shirts made and have group hugs... I just can't

in good conscious keep getting my son's diabetic stuff and our other meds from them. All I can say is it just doesn't feel right to me.

To each their own.

[Guest ArmaDeFuego]

As was said above, if a company tells you that you CANNOT defend yourself, & then something happens & you are injured, the company should be held responsible.

[DaveTN]

As was said above, if a company tells you that you CANNOT defend yourself, & then something happens & you are injured, the company should be held responsible.

This is Tennessee. You can’t sue your employer when you get hurt even if they caused it.

[macville]

This is Tennessee. You can’t sue your employer when you get hurt even if they caused it.

Where in the code is that? I'm not saying your wrong, but that seems a little surprising when a party is at fault.

[vontar]

This is Tennessee. You can’t sue your employer when you get hurt even if they caused it.

They are trying to pass a bill limiting lawsuits aren't they. I haven't heard all the details. Been too busy at work.

But there is always,

[robbiev]

No it is not. But is it morally right for a gun owner to stop doing business with one when they fire an employee that was defending himself? I think so.

Not calling for a nation wide boycott. Not trying to get T-Shirts made and have group hugs... I just can't in good conscious keep getting my son's diabetic stuff and our other meds from them. All I can say is it just doesn't feel right to me. To each their own.

Understood, but the post I was replying to may have (and I'm saying MAY) implied or it may could be inferred that he was saying we should boycott every company that has these policies. While that sounds good in theory, I don't thinks it very feasible.

[creeky]

While that sounds good in theory, I don't thinks it very feasible.

I agree.