Walgreen's Fires Pharmacist Who Fired On Robbers

[malern28us]

Screw Walgreens! Jobs are plentiful. Just ask Obama.
If you can't find a job, Obama has welfare standing by.
Such a sad state of affairs.

 

[kevman65]

Don't blame the company for a mentality that society created. Any one of you with children would have sued them to Jupiter and back if your child was in that store and was hit by a round discharged by this man against company rules.

Between lawyers and insurance companies no major corporation can allow employees to carry a firearm on their person while on company property and working.

It isn't the company's fault, it is society's fault for allowing the litigation nonsense get to the point that common sense is no longer common nor allowed.

As to the company policy thing, I say BS, every place I've been that has a company handbook has required a signature for that handbook before I ever started work. If he didn't read it and signed off on it that's his problem and he has no out.

He is basically screwed for the rest of his life. This will follow him and he will never make the income he expected to make when he got his diploma and license.

 

[CalebToNowhere]

WAS being the operative word, of course, now that I've read this.

Walgreen's: ATTENTION ALL BAD GUYS! ATTENTION ALL BAD GUYS! NO ONE IN OUR STORES ARE ARMED. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO ROB AT WILL WITHOUT WORRY!

Brainless idiots.

This exact thought runs through my head every time i read a thread on here about someone being asked to leave an establishment for carrying a gun. I just don't understand it.

 

[Hooker]

Hmmmmm, this is a tough one. Risk getting fired or risk getting shot in the face. Hmmmmmm, let me think about it.

The time is going to come when predators realize that people aren't taking their any more, that people are breaking policy in order to protect themselves, that they had better think twice about life as a criminal.

+ 1 for the pharmacist. I wish him well.
- 1 for Walgreens. Lost yet another customer.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

The story said nothing about any corporate policy. Until and unless someone produces the policy, we don't know that it exists.

 

[Icarry2]

I filled out their form letter on line, who knows where that goes, I think I will open carry in Wallgreens if I ever go in one..

 

[Rampdog]

I wrote to Walgreens corporate offices stating my displeasure for the firing of Mr. Hoven. Neither I nor any of my friends or family will shop at a Walgreens store.

 

[CalebToNowhere]

This is a private property matter, the owner of that property(Walgreens) has the right...

I know this is completely different, so I apologize. How does the Private Property issue work when the store space is being leased? In the case of several BW3's locations being in strip malls. Just curious. I had read a thread a while back about an INGO member being asked to take his firearm out to the vehicle or leave during the middle of his dinner because BW3's has a no firearms policy. If it is a private property matter, shouldn't the strip mall owner have to weigh in? Sorry for taking this off topic.

 

[sadclownwp]

The story said nothing about any corporate policy. Until and unless someone produces the policy, we don't know that it exists.

Of course the story said nothing about a policy. The story wouldn't be very good if it did. And it would not create support for he now unemployed pharmacist if it read, "The pharmacist pulled out his gun and knowingly choosing to break store policy which he would be fired for."

But it is policy, ask me how I know.

 

[Kitty]

Yeah you sign a piece of paper before your first shift starts, if you don't sign it, then you don't start, so unless they forgot to have him sign that paper, he is screwed. If the store manager did forget to get him to sign that paper, then the store manager is screwed too.

That's why I said "intend". I'll admit, I used to point out certain pages to people in hopes they would READ the rest. Once you sign, you are considered informed.

 

[youngda9]

How does the Private Property issue work when the store space is being leased? In the case of several BW3's locations being in strip malls. Just curious. I had read a thread a while back about an INGO member being asked to take his firearm out to the vehicle or leave during the middle of his dinner because BW3's has a no firearms policy. If it is a private property matter, shouldn't the strip mall owner have to weigh in? Sorry for taking this off topic.

I'm actually not sure about the leased property issue. This isn't really a "property issue", I probably shouldn't have gone there really. I would think the tenant can set the rules until over-ridden by the owner.

Michigan is an "at will" work state...he can be fired for any reason, or no reason at all. That's the bottom line, unfortunately.

 

[youngda9]

Good. Gives me an excuse to not go into a CVS, either.

Running out of street corners to get our drugs on...dang.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

No worries!

Running out of street corners to get our drugs on...dang.

Just hang out on the corner near any Walgreen's and buy them from the BG as he leaves...

 

[booey50]

this store is located in benton township, MI. A few miles away from Stevensville in SW Michigan. It is close to the Cook Nuclear Plant for those of you not around here.

 

[kinorton]

It is a fact that Walgreens has a no weapons/gun policy, it is on one of the first papers you sign when you start work on your first day.

 

[indytechnerd]

Ok, INGOers, I'll probably take some lumps for this, but I'm raising a flag...

- On YOU, not Walgreens...

Anytime someone comes on here and starts questioning whether they should carry at work (against company policy), the answers are always to carry anyway and take your chances with getting fired if you have to use it.

Here we have a case of someone doing just that, and rather than say "well, we told ya so, glad you're alive, good luck finding a new job", we break out the torches and pitchforks and go after the evil corporation who fired him.

Gimme a break. There's an awful lot of 'damn the man' chest thumping here on a regular basis, and now you're all (*) because someone actually got dinged for carrying against policy?

2 Days ago:

Keep it covered up and carry it, your life is worth more than a job. You can always get another job if fired

4 Weeks ago:

[snip] Then, they changed management companies and the new company had the policy in their manual, no carry at work. Of course I would never, ever, ever violate a company policy by carrying a small pocket pistol where no one could ever see it.[Dross didn't put this in purple, but it's pretty obvious he's being sarcastic] I wouldn't even think about carrying my kel tec p3at deep in my front pocket. I wouldn't dream of carrying my CZ in my Crossbreed Supertuck under a loose, untucked shirt. Of course not.

From the same thread:

You can legally carry it - they can fire you if they wish.

You don't need to justify your choice to anyone.

While this is somewhat out of context as the individual has a specific threat she is concerned about, carry against company policy is still encouraged...

[snip] She had said just a few nights ago that she was not ready to carry, however she sent me a text today asking some questions about my carry pistol (which she likes, so I am guessing she is thinking of buying one for herself). I am encouraging that. I really hope that we can get an understanding (in writing!) with her manager to allow her to "break company policy" and keep a carry gun in her purse, that way she has it for walking back to her car.[snip]

* - I'm not calling out the posters quoted above, these posts are merely examples of the bravado I see on here pretty often.

 

[Kitty]

It is a fact that Walgreens has a no weapons/gun policy, it is on one of the first papers you sign when you start work on your first day.

In this case - he's got nothing including unemployment. Fired is better than dead, but he's got a long road and possibly a career change a head.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Ok, INGOers, I'll probably take some lumps for this, but I'm raising a flag...

- On YOU, not Walgreens...

Anytime someone comes on here and starts questioning whether they should carry at work (against company policy), the answers are always to carry anyway and take your chances with getting fired if you have to use it.

Here we have a case of someone doing just that, and rather than say "well, we told ya so, glad you're alive, good luck finding a new job", we break out the torches and pitchforks and go after the evil corporation who fired him.

Gimme a break. There's an awful lot of 'damn the man' chest thumping here on a regular basis, and now you're all (*) because someone actually got dinged for carrying against policy?

2 Days ago:


4 Weeks ago:


From the same thread:


While this is somewhat out of context as the individual has a specific threat she is concerned about, carry against company policy is still encouraged...


* - I'm not calling out the posters quoted above, these posts are merely examples of the bravado I see on here pretty often.

This is simply answered, ITN. It is the right of an employer to set the policies of employment. It is the right of the employee to choose to disregard those policies IF he accepts the possible consequences of doing so. It is also the right of the general public (us) to voice our displeasure with and attempt to persuade the employer to change those policies. It is their right to be wrong, no question. It is ours to attempt to disabuse them of the notion that they are not the ones who are wrong.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bond 281]

Ok, INGOers, I'll probably take some lumps for this, but I'm raising a flag...

- On YOU, not Walgreens...

Anytime someone comes on here and starts questioning whether they should carry at work (against company policy), the answers are always to carry anyway and take your chances with getting fired if you have to use it.

Here we have a case of someone doing just that, and rather than say "well, we told ya so, glad you're alive, good luck finding a new job", we break out the torches and pitchforks and go after the evil corporation who fired him.

Gimme a break. There's an awful lot of 'damn the man' chest thumping here on a regular basis, and now you're all (*) because someone actually got dinged for carrying against policy?

Sounds to me like INGO advice to carry regardless of company policy turned out to be solid advice in this case. If I recall those threads correctly, some people also urged that people try to influence company policy as well to not leave people defenseless. Plus, this reminds of a statute that Chicago passed if I remember right, where if you used an illegal gun in self-defense you wouldn't be charged for it. I bring this up because of the simple acknowledgement where if somebody violates law/policy and saves lives by doing so, it's inherently seen as incredibly unfair to punish the person that did so.

I really don't understand how you can't see that just because it might be suggested to carry in spite of policy, it's still unjust to fire the man. At least in the eyes of many here. Nobody here advocated policies against firearms. THAT would be hypocritical if we then were up in arms about what Walgreen's did.

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

I wonder what people would be saying if the bad guys gun did not malfunction and the pharmacist was murdered. Would it still have been the right call to pull his gun?

What if they shot the other people after that?