lowes employee fired for stopping shop lifter

We don't need 68 year olds working while we have an overcrowded labor pool.
 
One of the odd times I'll agree with you. Its never made sense to me that you outright dismiss an employee for these types of things. Usually one of the harder parts of being in management is getting employees to actually care.
One of the odd times I'll agree with you.
 
The employee failed the employers guidelines. Buh bye
 
Next time, instead of attempting to stop the thief, just get on the store intercom and announce to everyone in the store that the person is stealing and remind everyone to let him go and that everyone there will pay for the theft later.
Why wait until later? They could institute a policy that if something like this happens in the store there will be an upcharge for everyone in the store at the time.
 
.

Companies now say, loudly and clearly, "Come and steal our merchandise and our shoppers will be happy to pay for it".

This is why I do not shop at Lowes any longer.

.
Would you rather a gunfight erupt in the store?
 
If companies want to let themselves be robbed blind so be it. If an employee is going to be fired for trying to stop it stand back mind your own business and get your unemployment when the business goes under.
They're insured, dummy.
 
Continued theft makes insurance rates go up to where they reach the point you can no longer afford it or the insurance company decides you are no longer worth the risk and drop you dummy.
Are you suggesting that an insurance company is unaware of a companies theft policies? They probably helped write them. Again, better that someone steal $1k in power tools than have to shell out millions because a customer was caught in crossfire. Are you really this stupid?
 
15th post
We should do that to ex presidents convicted of sexual abuse. What should we remove in that case? #MAGA
.




Oh, gee whiz. What president has been convicted of sexual abuse?

And links showing us valid legal definitions of the words "convicted" and "sexual abuse" will be required.

And the word "valid" is a biggie here.






.
 
Of course I said no such thing.
You said "What does it say to the still-employed workers? Try hard to do the right thing gets you fired."

The "right thing" is not to try to get back the merchandise from a person that is probably armed. You are placing a greater value on the merchandise than a human. It's in a retail stores manual for a reason not to go after robbers. Are you really this stupid?
 
You said "What does it say to the still-employed workers? Try hard to do the right thing gets you fired."
Yep and I stand by that.
The "right thing" is not to try to get back the merchandise from a person that is probably armed.
I see your point in the terms of "live and death".
You are placing a greater value on the merchandise than a human. It's in a retail stores manual for a reason not to go after robbers. Are you really this stupid?
And you're thinking someone should be fired for trying to prevent theft? Reprimand sure. Re-train. Sure. Fire? Nope.

I think you should ask yourself the same question. Undoubtedly you're going to have to answer "yes".
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom