Pharmacist fired after defending store

[Printo]

I dunno how important "several thousands of dollars" is to a company like Walgreens.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=WAG

True, but having a bunch of shot up pharmacy techs, store employees, pharmacist, and customers/patients is bad for business. Human life is priceless, so thank God for the pharmacist who was brave enough to take a stand, even if it cost him his job.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Old Timer]

The Pharmacist did violate company policy. Big whoop. He potentially saved the lives of himself, his coworkers, his patients and saved Walgreens thousands of dollars.

Is Walgreens really going to lose customers over this? I think they're more likely to lose customers for firing the pharmacist instead of defending his Second Amendment rights.

For somebody whose avatar and posts intimates some knowledge of liberty and of the constitution, you say profoundly stupid things. The constitution was developed to protect people from the government. You are free to call your boss a flaming a-home, you will not be tried as a criminal. You will be fired, however and your first amendment right to free speech will not protect you. You may have the right to carry a firearm, (a very poor reading of the second amendment in my opinion and that's a whole different kettle of fish) a right the government cannot infringe, but your employer can, by denying you the right to remain employed while carrying a firearm on their property.

This is not a constitutional issue in any way, to imply it is shows a profound lack of understanding of the founders and the government they were trying to create. Go back and re-read the Federalist. You didn't understand Publius the first time through.

 

[Printo]

For somebody whose avatar and posts intimates some knowledge of liberty and of the constitution, you say profoundly stupid things. The constitution was developed to protect people from the government. You are free to call your boss a flaming a-home, you will not be tried as a criminal. You will be fired, however and your first amendment right to free speech will not protect you. You may have the right to carry a firearm, (a very poor reading of the second amendment in my opinion and that's a whole different kettle of fish) a right the government cannot infringe, but your employer can, by denying you the right to remain employed while carrying a firearm on their property.

This is not a constitutional issue in any way, to imply it is shows a profound lack of understanding of the founders and the government they were trying to create. Go back and re-read the Federalist. You didn't understand Publius the first time through.

I never said that this was a Constitutional issue. Its a public relations issue and thats all I ever said. I think Walgreens is hurting its image (especially in the pharmacist community) by firing this pharmacist. I feel more people sympathize with the pharmacist instead of the store policy.

As for my understanding of the Constitution and the philosophy of liberty, you have no idea what you're talking about. I am very well read about our Founders. Anyways, theres no way you could have gained even a remote understanding of my philosophical beliefs when I never even mentioned them, other than my support for the 2nd Amendment. So dont go around trying to slay dragons that arent there.

 

[Old Timer]

I never said that this was a Constitutional issue. Its a public relations issue and thats all I ever said. I think Walgreens is hurting its image (especially in the pharmacist community) by firing this pharmacist. I feel more people sympathize with the pharmacist instead of the store policy.

As for my understanding of the Constitution and the philosophy of liberty, you have no idea what you're talking about. I am very well read about our Founders. Anyways, theres no way you could have gained even a remote understanding of my philosophical beliefs when I never even mentioned them, other than my support for the 2nd Amendment. So dont go around trying to slay dragons that arent there.

You were the one who brought up the second amendment. That was your dragon, not mine. I don't need to invent any. So what if people sympathize with the pharmacist? We live in a society so profoundly narcissistic that even when people knowingly break the rules, they expect to get away without suffering the consequences....

 

[genesis09]

I've worked for several retail companies. All of them have the same policy when it comes to robberies, and that is don't be a hero. Give the robber what they want and get them out of the store. They do not want to risk the lives of their employees and customers.

 

[Benelli]

I hate to say it, but even though this Pharmacist acted with bravery and selfless intentions, he is still accountable for pulling a gun in a pharmacy. I can see a lot of problems with how this company controls the safety of its employees as well. It is bs that they did nothing to fix the vulnerabilities of the pharmacy after the first incident. The pharmacist should not be fired, but certainly put on probation. He wasn't there to cause problems, and he surely saved lives that day, but he doesn't have any recourse to fight it, regardless of actions or amendments. The second amendment does NOT state that every individual in the country has the right to own and fire a handgun independently, it merely states that a citizen has a right to join a militia. (If you don't believe me, please check before flaming the hell out of that statement.)