And you THOUGHT you hated WalMart yesterday?

[Ping]

I mean "bombed" like air strike. 

[McGyver]

The "Bogan" knows I'm wearing my "extreme sarcasm" hat on this one.  I think he hates wallyworld more than Pelosi!   

[MAUSERMAN]

Thats why I dont shop there. F-Walmart.

[PegLeg45]

Fired for refusing to be


I try not use this word often, but f**k wal-mart.......BASTARDS.  

[twyacht]

Wally world has done this before. They have a comp. policy, and stick to it; from a liability standpoint, if one of the employees would have been injured, disabled, or killed, you can bet that Wally World would have been sued 25 ways from Sunday.

The "lawyers" have to make blanket policy, as Wally World would rather lose merchandise, than pay work comp, disability, or settlements to employees.

I agree however, with defending one's life and if a chance arises to beat, tackle, disarm, a scumbag thief,...well,....

[Sponsor]

[Dakotaranger]

Where I work we have similar policy, whether or not I'd get fired, well, I don't know, but we are fortunate that we have the State HQ for the Hiway Patrol less than two hundred yards away.

That been said we ALL have our own little secret plan what we would do if something were to go that south.

[Ichiban]

If it had just been about losing merchandise and/or letting a thief get away, I come down on the WalMart side.  If it went down as described in the video, it sounds like the BG was not simply trying to get away but was presenting a very real and serious danger to store employees and customers.  Then these guys are heroes and WalMart is scum sucking douche bag.  Not to mention that they are one of the major things that has helped derail this country.

[tombogan03884]

Does it not make your opinion of the company drop even lower?  Damn Tom, do you ALWAYS have to be so cantankerous?  
I thought you might just feel a LITTLE animousity towards a company that would do that to it's employees!    

After my snarky post I'll give you a serious answer.
I'm ambiguous about big box stores. On one hand, I hate that they have policies like this, it's BS that actually tends to increase the risk to their customers and is self defeating to the bean counters who put it in place since it tends to increase the losses they will suffer from theft.
Additionally, their flooding of the market with cheap Chinese products has SOME impact on the American job market.
On the other hand, every thing is governed by rules, whether it's game of cards or a job, while wrong headed this specific policy is probably intended to keep their employee's (who are generally 15 or 80, no in between ) from getting themselves stabbed, shot or beaten.
TW is exactly right when he posted  "The "lawyers" have to make blanket policy, as Wally World would rather lose merchandise, than pay work comp, disability, or settlements to employees."

And the fact that they sell cheap imports only has a limited effect on US employment. For many, perhaps the majority, it is a choice of either buying Chinese imports or going with out. I can buy 3 pair of shoes at Wal Mart for the same price the local shoe store would charge for one pair, and the fact that I pay 3X as much does not mean I'm getting American made, generally speaking, America no longer manufactures shoes, (that was where Thompson Center got most of their employees,) or mass market clothing.
When I had my first heart attack in '03 I had pretty good insurance, but my medications cost about $250/ month, so I quit taking them because I could not afford to buy both prescriptions and food.  When I had the second HA last summer I was put back on the same meds, buying them at Wally World costs me $25/month.  There is no net loss to the economy, in fact, there is a net gain since I will not have to lose time from work, or die on the job, and my buying cheap imports doesn't hurt the economy because I would other wise have simply done with out.

Back in the early years of the 20th century Ford was the highest paying company in America. The reason was not because Henry was generous, he wasn't, in fact he was a penny pinching prick, ( He was the first to apply time studies to his work force and invented charcoal briquettes to make money off the wood scraps from car frames ) He paid that kind of money so that his workers could buy his cars, He realized that by limiting his profit per item he would more than make up for it in volume.
That is essentially what the big box chains have done.
So, while I would not want to work there, I am equally not going to boycott the local Wal - Mart.

[MikeBjerum]

I fully understand that we are only hearing one side of the story.  I watched the video two more times since my first post, and even if you throw out three quarters of what the former employee says I still don't see that WalMart has a reason to dismiss them based on the stated policy.

Facts that demand action both morally and by the stated standards:

1.  While producing a firearm the suspect acted to exit the room into the public area within the store;
2.  Rather than exiting the room he grasped and held an employee.

Two facts that required the loss prevention team to act as they did.  There are many other stated facts that I left off the list, but since we are only dealing with one side of the story I stayed with two very basic stated facts.  Even if you eliminate number 2 from my list, number one still put the shopping public at enough list that I don't understand how they could be expected to do anything other than subdue him.

[tt11758]

This seems to me just another in a long list of situations in which a common sense application of employee regulations could have prevented this whole controversy.  I mean, I understand the policies and the reasons for them, but not everything can be covered under a black and white, cookie-cutter policy.  Apply common sense to an individual situation.  maybe something like, "Good job......DON'T EVER DO IT AGAIN!"

It really is a pity that common sense is so uncommon.