Over the past few years there have been several incidents of employees stepping up to stop robberies or shoplifting and have been subsequently dismissed for violating company policies which are to not put themselves or others in the store in danger. Examples are Walmart, Sprint, Key Bank, Auto Zone, Shell gas, etc.
But recently there have been a couple of examples where employees have been fired for not doing enough to stop or minimize the damage of the robbery.
A manager at a Popeye’sin Houston was terminated for leaving too much money in the register and not putting it in the locked safe and then refusing to reimburse the store. [There’s previous dope thread on this incident somewhere.]
Now awoman in Kansasworking at a Dollar General was suspended for not stopping the suspect.
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t! The latter situation just seems downright cruel.
Not terribly outraged about this one. The restaurant had cash-handling procedures in place, and adhering to them was part of her job. Don’t do your job, get fired, 'nuff said.
Unless there’s some details we’re missing here, like the “unidentified weapon” the clown-thief was toting was a cream pie, that’s pretty outrageous. No retail store should be expecting a clerk to risk their physical well-being to prevent a robbery. If you want your store to be protected, hire a security guard.
Even worse is the apparent remarks from a law officer:
A law officer should be advising people to comply, not risking physical harm in resisting.
I don’t agree with this, his advisory seems reasonable, which is to asset the threat and consequences, part of the consequences should not be will I lose my job if I comply.
All the examples so far in this thread are of corporations with large Human Resource departments. The role of HR is to protect the corporation from the employee and the potential liabilities due to the employee’s actions. The way to do that is to set up policies and procedures that protect the corporation. And firing an employee is the tool that is most often used.
I don’t know how many signed forms I have in my file at work that are there solely to prove that I was trained properly, I was aware of the procedures and policies, I was present at the training, etc. Anyone of these can and will be used to fire me in order to protect the company from potential liability due to my actions .
There are still a large number of people who still believe that HR is there to provide resources for the employee. I think that is so cute.
If a person came in to shoot up the Dollar General, I’d think the cashier, and every other able bodied adult in the store, should resist the shooter.
If a hijacker was intent on flying the Dollar General into a building, killing everyone inside, I’d think the cashier, and every other able bodied adult in the store, should resist the hijacker.
If a guy wants to steal money from a Dollar General, I’m less interested in cashiers putting their lives on the line to protect the owner’s cash flow.
These are ridiculous comparisons. We’re not talking about stopping someone who is out to commit mass murder, but who wants to steal a few thousand bucks belonging to the store owner. Should a teacher risk her life to try to stop an armed robber trying to make off with school video equipment?
Of course, one’s willingness to resist should be proportional to the consequences of not resisting. If a shooter entered the store and threatened to kill people at random, then of course anyone present should make an attempt to subdue them to the extent of their ability.
Because it was misreported as “fired for not fighting the robber.” Also with a big dose of “she’s pregnant” – so what?
This is exactly why places have procedures about keeping excess cash in the safe – so they become less attractive robbery targets and can advise employees to “comply” without losing more than necessary.
Someone who commits armed robbery of a Popeye’s is not the suave professional thief who says “give me the money and no one gets hurt” that you see on TV. This is a desperate, stupid person who is probably committing his first robbery with a gun he just acquired, and is either high on something or in withdrawal. There’s no telling what he might do. There are lots of news stories about employees, particularly fast-food employees, who “comply” and end up marched into the back to be shot for no reason anyway.
Assessing the situation and realizing that you may be facing certain death if you comply but have a chance if you fight should be an option. The myth of the “guy who just wants the money” gets people killed.
I wonder if we’re getting the full story here. I read three different accounts of this incident and all three made a point of specifying that this is what the fired employee was saying. So it’s possible she’s leaving out an important aspect of the incident.
I’ll resist a criminal if he’s threatening somebody’s life. But I’m not going to die for my money. And I sure as hell am not going to die for somebody else’s money.
I think there’s still some level of employee obligation, though. If you’re a courier, and someone tries to snatch the company package out of your hands, you should at least make an effort to physically hold on to it.
And in thois case those rules do really help the company and make the place safer for employees. The last thing you would want is a reputation for tons of money readily available.
Employees have a business relationship with their employer, not a moral one. They provide specified labor for specified compensation. Does their work contract specify that they are expected to resist armed robbers? Are they reasonably compensated for that expectation?
I know a bartender who tried to stop a guy from snatching a woman’s purse, having no idea that the perp was hiding a knife in his hand. He was stabbed 9 times, and the doctors said it was a miracle he survived. Then too, it’s not so unusual for people to be killed or maimed as a result of unarmed combat.
As an employer, I prioritize my employees’ safety above my cash proceeds at all times, and to do otherwise would be to risk the kind of lawsuit that could put me out of business entirely.
Thank you. I learned quite a while ago that “Human Resources” was named by someone channeling George Orwell. The fewer dealings I have with anybody from “Human Resources” the better, as far as I’m concerned. Dealing with them is like being sent to the adult version of the principal’s office, only worse. At least back then all I had to worry about was getting a talking to and maybe a paddlin’!
This is a good general policy, but just be aware some employees may read situations not as “give up the money or escalate” but rather “follow policy and be killed or resist and maybe survive.” Sometimes you should make exceptions if an employee with reasonable judgment sees that someone is going to use that weapon against him no matter what. It depends on what kind of business you have, of course.