Comments on: Fired for bravery

By: REG

REG — Mon, 26 May 2008 13:33:26 +0000

Caution:
No discernment allowed
Rules only

reminds me of Sunday School

By: Frank in Phoenix

Frank in Phoenix — Thu, 22 May 2008 20:53:34 +0000

Anlir (23): Perhaps, instead of raking the employer over the coals we should focus our wrath on a legal system that allows people to sue at the drop of a hat.

Frank: Yup. (See my observation at (3) above.)

Report comment to moderator

By: Anlir

Anlir — Thu, 22 May 2008 20:49:31 +0000

Perhaps, instead of raking the employer over the coals we should focus our wrath on a legal system that allows people to sue at the drop of a hat.

If the female employee was injured in the incident, she could sue her employer for the actions of the other employee. This has happened many, many times, and the employer has been found liable. So who can blame employers for putting a “no interference” clause in their employee handbook. In fact, many times it’s not even the employer’s choice to have the policy. The liability carrier requires it.

Nearly all retailers, particularly in the fast food and convenience store category have a “no interference” policy for practical and financial reasons. Given the highly litigious country we live in, I can’t say as I blame them for having the policy. And as I said, it’s likely that SuperAmerica’s liability carrier mandated the “no interference” clause.

Pity SuperAmerica. No matter what they do in a case like this, they’re screwed.

Report comment to moderator

By: Wiglaf

Wiglaf — Thu, 22 May 2008 18:47:20 +0000

“cooperate: don’t argue, resist or attack the robber”

I would say that under certain circumstances, complying with this rule may be a very bad idea. Sort of like lying down like sheep for muslim airline terrorists. Would Marathon management fire an employee regardless of the circumstances?

This is a reminder to ask to review the employee handbook BEFORE accepting a position at a company.

Report comment to moderator

By: Cheryl D.

Cheryl D. — Thu, 22 May 2008 18:44:10 +0000

It seems to me that their basic policy is wise. But it seems UNWISE to let potential robbers see so clearly how strongly they take their policy. (”Free money. Come and get it; we won’t stop you.”) And it seems particularly unwise to fire a man not for protecting the money, but for protecting a co-worker. I think this decision will hurt them–and may result in more robberies.

Report comment to moderator

By: Wiglaf

Wiglaf — Thu, 22 May 2008 18:43:41 +0000

It’s a stupid policy if you ask me. The company is stating by their actions that his violation, according to policy, was grounds for immediate termination. Zero tolerance. Where my own life is concerned, or the life of someone else, I don’t want some company telling that I can’t act in defense of myself or them if I deem the situation is appropriate for that. If he really did err in judgment, why fire him? Review the circumstances and discuss the wisdom of this or that action and how being under pressure can change your decision making. Wouldn’t you rather have an employee who’s grown in wisdom through experience? What’s up with this “zero tolerance”/no second chances policies these days?

Report comment to moderator

By: Kyle A

Kyle A — Thu, 22 May 2008 16:22:54 +0000

Frank, I remember the headlines after the student in Florida became unruly at a John Kerry speech.

“Student Tazered for Asking Question”

No, he was tazered because he kepr pulling away from the police and jumping around. The police escorted him out because he exceeded his time limit and wouldn’t stand down. He had already asked several questions and wasn’t actually listening to any answers.

Report comment to moderator

By: Frank in Phoenix

Frank in Phoenix — Thu, 22 May 2008 16:14:54 +0000

Mark Roth (11): I also disagree with this post’s headline.

I thought he was fired for violating company policy.

Frank: Yeah, I noticed that, too.

A couple of weeks ago, a WMBlog post discussed a Houston, TX high school senior who was removed from her prom in handcuffs (then immediately released) when she refused to leave after arriving in a “dress” that violated the school’s published prom dress code.

Many of the stories online had headlines like “Girl arrested for skimpy prom dress.” I had to point out that she was arrested for refusing to leave (and making a scene) after arriving in a skimpy prom dress.

Still, headlines are, by definition, short and punchy and designed to get you to read the article.

Any suggested headlines that meet the criteria both for accuracy and brevity here?

Report comment to moderator

By: Joel Mark

Joel Mark — Thu, 22 May 2008 16:03:38 +0000

If a co-worker was “accosted,” then he may have endangered her and himself more if he had refused to resist the robber. But I don’t know the details. Was the masked man armed? With what?

I might also have tried to stop the him too if I thought I could. Frankly, I trust my judgment more than policies based only on hypotheticals and theories. And my judgment may well have kept me from trying to resist him. I don’t know.

And I am willing to live with the consequences of doing what I believe to be the right thing.

Another think I don’t know is what all the robber had in mind. Only the masked robber knew that. Was this a HATE crime or a GREED crime? Maybe it was both. Maybe he was seeking to hurt others as much as to take money. Who knows? Hate crimes do happen, you know.

Whether it was a greed crime or a hate crime, the defender should be given some benefit of the doubt in reacting. However, being the all-knowing critic (from our places of safety) is more tempting to people today than anything.

There is no way the defender should be fired.

Report comment to moderator

By: Ken

Ken — Thu, 22 May 2008 15:08:33 +0000

If Mr. Beverly genuinely believed his coworker to be in danger, then his behavior was appropriate. The policy of cooperation is in place to protect workers from harm, not to force others to stand idly by when someone is already being harmed.

The article suggests that the tapes do not backup the manager’s contention that the clerk was being attacked. If it is possible that he simply misread the situation due to ambiguious circumstances, he should at worst receive a lesser punishment than firing.

If he overreacted in a dangerous way, the firing is appropriate. His supervisors would be in the best position to evaluate.

Report comment to moderator