One of the reasons why I would never work for this company.
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44483...een-fired-pulling-weapon-gunman/#.Tm4oVq6y_5g
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44483...een-fired-pulling-weapon-gunman/#.Tm4oVq6y_5g
-
CycleTrack and SDN are teaming up to make medical school admissions more transparent and accessible! Read the announcement to learn how we’re supporting the future of CycleTrack’s free application-tracking tools .
Pharmacist fired by W
Started by pharmaster
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
Especially bad PR after the gunman pulled the trigger on the pharmacist three times.
was it the drive thru line? 👍
but regardless, if you work for company you gotta follow company rules
He'd finally gotten hold of an insurance rep when the robbers entered the pharmacy. 😉
**** THAT PLACE!! that is bull****! if they wont let him protect himself they need armed guards.
As of now, 92% of the votes on that webpage disagree that the pharmacist should get fired. When some menace tries to pull trigger on you three times, you do WHATEVER YOU CAN you keep yourself alive. Whoever wrote that stupid non confrontational policy must have got his degree online.
Who do you plan on working for then? Because this is the policy just about everywhere except for the odd independent.
That's my understanding of it.
Is this some new meme we have here? I swear I've read that in a few different threads over the past week.
The pharmacist was right in defending himself. The chain was right in firing him. The pharmacist did have the option of not pulling. If he just followed company policy and gave up the narcs he may or may have not been shot. The company can't condone this because then they would have a bunch of untrained overnight cowboys shooting it out with potential collateral damage. A better answer would be to place an armed security guard on all overnight shifts.
CVS would probably fire you if you let the armed robbers take your drugs
False
too $$ for them
The way I read it, the robber jumped the pharmacy counter with weapon drawn & commenced attempting to fire at the pharmacist three times (at which point, the firearm jammed). The pharmacist pulled his own firearm and fired three shots, missing. It sounds like point blank to me, so I wonder if the misses were intentional?
Granted, I did not watch the video, I just read the article, which was kind of sketchy.
What does this teach us? Hoodlums fail to proper practice firearm maintenance. 😉
Pharmacist was right in defending himself and, if he had shot/killed one of his assailants, I would have agreed that was the right thing to do as well. The assailants were attempting to kill him! It's miraculous nobody's hurt.
On the other hand, the pharmacy probably should have made this a lot quieter than just handing him a pink slip. Yes, he broke company policy in a big, probably terminatable way (it sounded like if he'd have filed the paperwork he could have had the firearm?).
There are numbers to show that when more women carry concealed firearms, the incidence of random violence against women (muggings, rape) goes down because criminals don't want to take the risk. Guns are the great equalizer. I'm hoping that the news coverage of the pharmacist's response will, in a similar way, make criminals think twice about knocking over a pharmacy.
Let me preface this by saying that I'm a gun owner, have a permit for concealed carry, and am strongly in favor of the right to keep and bear arms. Nonetheless, i really can't blame walgreens for dumping him. He knowingly violated their weapons policy. I'm sure at some point he signed a contract where amongst other things he agreed not to carry at work. If you break the rules, you will have to pay the price. I can't even hold it against walgreens for having such a policy. They can't really be expected to take on the massive liability of having armed pharmacists. If there was ever a situation where an innocent bystander was shot, i'm sure you would be able to hear the lawyers coming from 100 miles away. All that said though, I don't blame the pharmacist either. I'm sure he decided his life was worth more than his job and that it was worth the risk.
lets see they have been robbed in the past when he worked there. how did walgreens change their security setup? they didn't. pharmacist market does not allow for pharmacists to just quit and get a new job anymore. so he protected himself. thank God he did, or he wouldnt be alive today.
ya lots of liability of armed pharmacist. then you can spin it and say liability of armed individuals.
sarcasm is one of the many services that you offer but cannot detect
Oh snap, burned.
odd independent
I'm 100% with you on that, i would probably do the same in that situation. But if i did use my firearm in self-defense, i would expect to lose my job afterwards. That's just the way it is. But hey, better to be out of a job then 6 feet under.
I agree. I see it from the unfortunate big business corporate lawyer aspect at the same time that I agree the pharmacist did the right thing. Even if they didn't fire me, I'd probably at a minimum go on a leave & demand reassignment because I wouldn't want to work there again after I was drawn down on & only saved through the grace of a jammed firearm. Would I still sue for wrongful firing? In America as it is? You bet.
Y'know, convenience stores are held up all the time & convenience store clerks are shot, and they rarely change the security setup. Not that the two are exactly equivalent, but it is another situation in which chains don't allow concealed carry & don't protect their employees.
surprised they didnt give the robber a wag gift card for being shot at
at this.loooool!!! I vote this for post of the month! 🙂
depends on the state but there is no such thing as "illegal termination" unless it is due to retaliation. he wont win the lawsuit. HOWEVER, walgreens will settle with him due to the BAD PUBLICITY from this situation.
I can tell you about my personal story with W where I had to take time off to take care of my dying mother. I asked them to let me know when I need to come in and work to maintain my vacation hours and I was told not to worry about it.
I asked them to cash out all of my vacation hours repeatedly for some extra money, but they did not. Instead, when I was ready to return to work, they told me I would have to reapply as a new employee because I had been gone for too long (about 4 months).
They encouraged me to reapply and start over with 0 vacation hours, and my 8 years of service would start over at 0. That's how they treat an 8 year employee. Wow.
My next job paid me more than $10/hr more, with more generous benefits. On top of that, I've received $10/hr in performance raises in the last 2 years.
I asked them to cash out all of my vacation hours repeatedly for some extra money, but they did not. Instead, when I was ready to return to work, they told me I would have to reapply as a new employee because I had been gone for too long (about 4 months).
They encouraged me to reapply and start over with 0 vacation hours, and my 8 years of service would start over at 0. That's how they treat an 8 year employee. Wow.
My next job paid me more than $10/hr more, with more generous benefits. On top of that, I've received $10/hr in performance raises in the last 2 years.
Probably so. I do work in a "right to work" state, although I have no idea what the laws are like where the pharmacist is. I'd still at least consult a lawyer. Looks like the lawyer is running a good PR campaign, if we're talking about it here on SDN.
I'm not a lawyer, but it's hard to imagine he'll get very far suing for wrongfull termination. I wonder if he would be better off trying to sue for failure to provide a safe work environment or something of that nature, especially given the history the store had with robberies.
