Walgreens


PDA






ColdDeadHand
July 30, 2011, 11:06 PM
This is from my blog, but I feel it's an important issue, so I'm reposting here. Please join me in my boycott against Walgreens Pharmacies and any other company who feels their employees should lay down and die like sheep. I also list contact information at the end so you can pass your feelings along to Walgreens Corporate. I pasted this article and sent it to them. Hopefully if they get enough feedback from sane gun owners, they can change their ways.

http://tokeepandbear.blogspot.com/20...walgreens.html

I am an NRA member, card-carrying, and I read my "American Rifleman" magazine every month. One of my favorite sections is "The Armed Citizen" so I usually head there first. Right there in the August issue I saw this snipped about a pharmacist, Jeremy Hoven, who was fired for using his legally-carried concealed weapon to defend himself, his co-workers and Walgreens' inventory from 2 armed robbers.

I followed the citation and went over to The Herald-Palladium, a newspaper up in Michigan, and they confirmed the same facts. The original article can be found here:
http://www.heraldpalladium.com/artic...ws/5741185.txt

The synopsis is this. The store was robbed by gunmen. Employees complained to Walgreens management that they needed better security at the store. Walgreens ignored these complaints, so Hoven went and got his concealed carry license and a pistol. The next time the store was robbed, Hoven picked his moment. When the robbers tried to coerce the employees into the back room of the store (a tactic that often leads to execution), Hoven fired on the robbers. The robbers fled, no employee was harmed, the police arrived and made their report and no charges were filed against Hoven. So Walgreens fired him because he violated company policy by carrying a firearm to work.

WALGREENS: This is not acceptable. It is despicable. If you don't want employees to carry a weapon to work so they can defend themselves, then you, Walgreens, are responsible for hiring armed security to protect them. Mr. Hoven broke no law when he carried that weapon, and not only did he protect himself and his coworkers from harm, he also protected your precious cash. You are despicable backstabbers who would rather see your own employees die than violate your company policy. This is truly a case of not being able to see the forest for the trees.

I will not set foot on Walgreens property again until you extend an apology to Mr. Hoven, offer to give him his job back, and change your policy to allow your employees to carry concealed weapons where legal. I will also use any means at my disposal to promote a boycott against you and to promote any and all of your competitors until these demands are met.


Walgreens customer service can be reached via the following means (please be sure to share your opinions with them, I know I will):

Web:
http://www.walgreens.com/marketing/c...mp;h4=consumer
Phone: toll-free (800) 925-4733
7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Central Time, Monday thru Friday
Address: Walgreen Company Consumer Relations
1411 Lake Cook Rd, Mail Stop #L428
Deerfield, IL 60015

If you enjoyed reading about "Walgreens" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
hso
August 1, 2011, 07:23 AM
Who are viable alternatives to Walgreens? Does CVS have an anti employee carry policy? Walmart? Kroger?

Most large corporations have similar policies for employees and folks may need to ask their current pharmacist if they have a policy forbidding employees to carry weapons on premises.

Locally owned pharmacies are most likely to permit carry. I know of a couple locally that do carry in their stores and allow their employees to do so as well.

Zach S
August 1, 2011, 11:33 AM
Just about any corporation has a similar policy - including the one I work for.

If I refused to do business with any corporation that didn't allow lawful CCW by employees I couldn't even buy gas to get back and forth to work.

I aint saying Walgreens is right in their actions, but as an employee, he was aware of company policy, and he decided that the ability to defend himself was more important than his employment. Several folks here on THR have admitted to doing the same thing.

All of your links are broken.

USAF_Vet
August 1, 2011, 11:33 AM
Does walgreens have a "no guns" sign in their window too, preventing law abiding citizens who lawfully carry from doing so? Jus tcurious if they want to disarm everyone in their facility, not just the employees.

Good reason to continue using the drive-thru pharmacy, I can still have a gun in the car.

Zach S
August 1, 2011, 11:35 AM
Does walgreens have a "no guns" sign in their window too, preventing law abiding citizens who lawfully carry from doing so? Jus tcurious if they want to disarm everyone in their facility, not just the employees.
I was at the local Walgreens yesterday, I didn't notice one.

jcwit
August 1, 2011, 12:01 PM
Anyone consider it might just be the Insurance carrier that corporate headquarters uses?

Maybe?

USAF_Vet
August 1, 2011, 12:11 PM
Insurance carriers or corporate policy... either way, it leaves people defenseless when this particular place has been robbed multiple times.

jcwit
August 1, 2011, 12:37 PM
What I was attempting to bring out that it might not necessarly be Walgreens Corporate policy but their insurance policy. You're correct the end is the same but thats true in life with many things.

I'm sure the employee knew this when he hired on, if he didn't agree with it it was his responsiblity to move on. Not to break the rules.

Or mayhap we all should just pick and chose what rules and laws we wish to obey and what ones we wish to ignore.

Ya, That'll work out just great!

Handyguy
August 1, 2011, 03:07 PM
I have decided NOT to patronize Walgreens!

jcwit
August 1, 2011, 04:11 PM
Yup, that really gonna affect their bottom line as most of their profits come from large population centers where firearm ownership is a non issue with the general populace overall.

But go for it and check the policy where you do take your business.

Strykervet
August 1, 2011, 04:58 PM
The guys that come up with these policies are just either trying to cya or they are ignorant or both. For cya, it could be insurance. It could be that they think that if nobody can confront a bad guy, then the guy will just take their cash and pills.

But what about that guy in Jersey or New York? The one that shot everyone in the store?

Bottom line is that a pharmacy is NOT like a regular store. It has drugs as strong or stronger than heroin, and that is a strong motivator in an addict, not to mention the fact that someone strung out on multiple drugs could do things they normally wouldn't while under the influence. Regardless of the policies of the store, the individuals need to be able to protect themselves when a robbery goes south. I feel it no longer becomes their store during a crime --it becomes a crime scene. In a life and death situtation, I could care less about appeasing some lawyer in some other state. I could care less at all, come to think of it.

I personally don't care about policies. I don't even take the time to read them. I carry everywhere I go that isn't expressly forbidden by our Constitution. If I get kicked out, I'll sue. Nothing can stop me from doing that. If I win, fine, if I lose, fine. The idea is that if others will do the same, this big corporation will be tied up in truly frivilous lawsuits --get enough going at once, they'll change the policy just so they can get rid of the ridiculous legal team they need to employ in order to fend off lawsuits. For corporations, it simply is a matter of money. Make it expensive to keep a policy they don't really feel that strongly about and they'll change it.

For instance, here in WA we have a big open carry thing going on now. Flash mobs show up at businesses and open carry. Starbucks came under fire when they said they supported them and that they were welcome in their stores. Then the antis jumped in and started a boycott. Well, the response from folks that carry was huge. During the boycott, tons of folks patronized Starbucks because they wouldn't back down. They said they didn't have a dog in the fight and wanted everyone to get along, but that they weren't willing to infringe upon rights.

The one right down the street from me was the site of battle between the antis, the pros, and a couple of ignorant cops. It was on youtube and talked about on here. Anyway, the end result of a complaint about flashing a gun ended with the guy capitulating. But that wasn't the whole end. The store was mobbed for weeks after, and I went there just last weekend, and do you know what was on the first table next to the door? An empty holster.

And the antis still go there too. I guess the coffee really is that good. I think it is all a matter of standing up for what you believe in, taking hits for it from time to time, and never giving up. Because, you see, the average anti doesn't feel as strongly about 2A as the weakest of us do. They will give in tomorrow, just hold out until then.

Old Shooter
August 1, 2011, 05:27 PM
So if you decide to take a job with a company that has a no guns policy you have to decide if you will or will not abide by the policy, simple choice...yes or no.

If you decide to carry discretly even though there is a no gun policy you are accepting that if something happens that you need to use your ccw piece or if it is somehow discovered that you are carrying, then you may be fired for violating policy, whether you saved a dozen lives or not.

So, man up to it. If you have to use the ccw in defense of your life and get fired you can always look for another job. IF you decide to not carry and are killed on the job you will look really nice in your casket and the company will probably send a very nice selection of flowers in your memory.

1: Follow rules, don't carry, hope nothing happens.

2: Don't follow rules, carry concealed, mayby nothing happens or mayby you get fired.

3: Look for employment elsewhere. As mentioned above this may be a common rule for many employers or their insurance companies.

ps: If I've got pants on....I'm carrying and nobody needs to know but me.

jcwit
August 1, 2011, 05:51 PM
Well put, Old Shooter

Pat C.
August 3, 2011, 06:31 PM
Old shooter are you currently emploied or retired?? Not saying your wrong , just saying finding a job that will let you carry while on the job is a tough task!! Hell just finding a job that pays well is tough!! I think if you look at most companies your out with the CCW on the job. Now I don't know about the rest of you I need my pay check!! I guess youll just have to use a little common sence and pray your not shot on the job!! Pat C.

jcwit
August 3, 2011, 06:58 PM
Follow the rules or face the consequences, fairly simple rule of life.

oneounceload
August 3, 2011, 08:58 PM
I carry everywhere I go that isn't expressly forbidden by our Constitution

Since the Constitution doesn't prohibit carry anywhere (at least not in the Document I read in school), this statement has no meaning as it is written.

I am sure that Walgreen's policy is driven by insurance requirements set by their carrier - which they need to be in business.

Try sending letters asking for the policy and pointing out the obvious - maybe it does something, maybe not

As to being an employee, I have never seen a major corporation allowing CC by employees that was not required as part of the job. Their handbooks specifically spell out the rules on things like guns, drugs, alcohol, etc.

Their property, their company, their rules - if you do not like them, you are free to go elsewhere - both as a customer and an employee

gennro
August 3, 2011, 09:02 PM
I didn't even know about this and I won't shop at Walgreens ever again after they handed my wife some one else's prescription. They also did this to a friend of mines wife. This just takes the cake here.

TexasBill
August 3, 2011, 09:31 PM
You can write Walgreens and boycott them all you want; it won't change anything.

The truth is it's all about money. If the employee accidentally shoots another employee or a bystander or overreacts to a situation, Walgreens could lose millions. This is true of most companies, especially large ones. Heck, a lot of companies don't even allow their uniformed security personnel to carry firearms.

I was a department supervisor for a large electronics chain. The company fired people for chasing shoplifters after they got out of the store. This included loss prevention personnel. I knew a little old lady who worked for a major grocery chain as an overnight checker. Somebody tried to steal beer and she stopped them forcibly. She almost got fired.

The reasoning is that money and merchandise losses are covered by insurance, liability for employee shootings or injuries incurred while trying to foil a theft are not. They bank on the odds that a robber will be happy with the money and leave and then everything can be turned over to the police. Sometimes it doesn't work out that way but they have insurance for that, too. Doesn't do the dead employees any good, but there you have it.

Shop at Walgreens or CVS or wherever makes you happy. But if you want a private-sector job that allows you to carry a gun, become a security guard or armored car driver.

Busyhands94
August 3, 2011, 11:05 PM
i have made the decision to not shop at a place that would rather have their employees dead and a robber alive than a lawfully carrying employee defending the store and his fellow workers from an armed robber. that is the very definition of evil.

thank you for informing me of this fact, i will be sure to write a letter or send an email.

~Levi Hawken Dabney

Para Cassatt
August 3, 2011, 11:20 PM
Thank you for the headsup CDH. I had no idea that they had this policy. After the high profile pharmacy incident, I can only imagine that more corporations will make similar poor decisions.

ChCx2744
August 3, 2011, 11:49 PM
I, personally, think that it would actually be a good idea to have either armed security guards or allow the employees to CC at pharmacies. They carry all kinds of stuff junkies like and stuff that dope boys can sell on the street. Pharmacies are probably often targeted for robberies and burglaries as much as gun stores, jewelry shops, pawn shops and check cashing joints. Sometimes "company liability" can be quite ridiculous in the eyes of the higher ups in corporate, these people don't understand this.

Cactus Jack Arizona
August 4, 2011, 12:41 AM
Ironic, isn't it? A company will "trust" customers (read: complete strangers) with concealed carry, but not their employees. It always makes me wonder just how bad a company treats it's employees when they have policies like this. :confused:

hso
August 4, 2011, 07:16 AM
Most large businesses have this policy. It is nothing new. They adopt the policy because of liability issues, not because they have an Anti political/philosophical view. Their costs are limited if employees are injured or killed. Their costs are unlimited if an employee injures or kills a customer accidentally. It could be nothing more than pure economics.

BUT is it a false economic stance because they could, and do, carry liability insurance. The could add to that liability insurance to cover this potential problem. It would add to the overall overhead costs to the company, but it would be possible.

USAF_Vet
August 4, 2011, 08:17 AM
Follow the rules or face the consequences, fairly simple rule of life.

Breaking the rules/ company policy, the resulting consequence may be getting fired.
Follow the rules/ company policy, the resulting consequence may be getting killed.

I can't speak for anyone else, but even in this economy I can find another job, I can't find another life.

Sometimes, breaking the rules is the right thing to do.

Cop Bob
August 4, 2011, 09:45 AM
I moved my prescriptions away from Walgreen's about the time that this happened, however it was due to a change in insurance, not their policy.. As stated, to boycott every company that had a negative firearms policy would gridlock most of us..

I disagree with their policy, as would most here.

As far as an employee carrying in violation of policy, ah, that is a matter of choice. In today's economy, as hard as any jobs with benefits are to get.. It again is a matter of choice.. one that any individual in that position would have to do some soul searching. It all boils down to choice..

Choose to take the chance of getting caught, and being terminated, as we used to say, "Judged by twelve, or carried by six"

Just thinking out loud, I wonder if they would have fired a Pharmacist under those circumstances? My guess is that the public response by the company would be yes, but if they could sweep it under the rug, they probably would protect their 6 figure employee..

In my work place now, for the office staff, the question is not IF you are carrying, it is usually WHAT you are carrying....not a good idea to rush the office..

GEM
August 4, 2011, 09:58 AM
Suing is great - are you paying your lawyers? How about if you have to pay for your opponent's defense of a frivolus suit?

Carl N. Brown
August 4, 2011, 10:36 AM
If an employer allows carry by an employee at work, I suspect the legal ramifications are that they are almost as liable as if they had an armed guard (read responsible for the armed employee's actions). Anyone got a detailed knowledge of the laws and court case rulings on this issue? I bet they vary widely state to state.

Personally, I think employers should have a hands-off policy on whether an employee chooses to lawfully carry in compliance with state law for personal self-defense as long as they are not doing it as a condition of employment or on the behalf of the company.

If an employee defends against a robber, it should be a matter of defense of themself, not a matter of defense of the employer, and should be treated as a personal matter of self-defense, with liability on the robber and defender. Lawyers wouldn't like that though since those are very shallow pockets.

jcwit
August 4, 2011, 10:57 AM
Breaking the rules/ company policy, the resulting consequence may be getting fired.
Follow the rules/ company policy, the resulting consequence may be getting killed.

I can't speak for anyone else, but even in this economy I can find another job, I can't find another life.

Sometimes, breaking the rules is the right thing to do.

How'd that logic work in the Air Force, Vet?

GEM
August 4, 2011, 11:32 AM
I read law review articles that suggest, I think I said this before, that the employer may be seen as liable for the employee.

Think for a second about the Oklahoma pharmacist who shot the kid on the floor. That wasn't a big chain - just a single owner, IIRC. There was a suit filed against the pharmacy owner and pharmacist. Since the latter was found guilty - betcha the suit will be successful or settled.

If it were Walgren's or CVS, you can bet that there would be a very, very expensive suit against the company.

The easiest solution is legislation that removes liability from employers for the actions of employee in self-defense unless the employee is explicitly charged with resisting robberies.

USAF_Vet
August 4, 2011, 12:29 PM
How'd that logic work in the Air Force, Vet?

Pretty well, in fact. Sometimes waving the BS flag because of a stupid policy gets that stupid policy changed. Especially when local policy goes against overall USAF policy.

Those who accept the status quo have no reason to complain when the status quo bends them over. Those who reject the status quo just as often get bent over by it, but on rare occasions are able to make changes.

where did my bucking the status quo get me? A third tour of duty in Iraq.

jcwit
August 4, 2011, 12:44 PM
All I can say is I'm glad I didn't try to buck the system during my assignment to the Pentagon during the early 60's.

Sure beat sloshing thru the jungles.

oneounceload
August 4, 2011, 03:03 PM
I, personally, think that it would actually be a good idea to have either armed security guards

In certain areas where thefts of all kinds are high, they DO have armed guards

If an employee defends against a robber, it should be a matter of defense of themself, not a matter of defense of the employer, and should be treated as a personal matter of self-defense, with liability on the robber and defender. Lawyers wouldn't like that though since those are very shallow pockets.

Which is why it won't fly - that basic stumbling block to common sense - lawyers - it would lessen their payday

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers". -Shakespeare, King Henry VI (Act IV, Scene II)..............;)

Personally, I think that idea would be very viable to a lot of employers who are looking at liability issues. I remember working construction for a large international company - there was an accident where one worker died, the other was basically ruined for life. As far as the economics went, it was cheaper for the company if the worker died - the payout was once and done; if the worker was paralyzed or similar, the payout was continuous - that was over 30 years, and I imagine that scenario has only gotten worse over the decades unfortunately

IllHunter
August 4, 2011, 04:27 PM
Why is this not a civil rights issue? Where is the ACLU? IF the employee was within the law, and the rule violated his rights, what don't I see? Why aren't there lawyers stumbling over themselves to sue?:what:

IllHunter
August 4, 2011, 04:33 PM
Went over to my local suburban Social Security office as a favor to a relative. If there are no cash or drugs in the building, why do they have a private armed (Glock 19) guard in the lobby? The lobby was crowded but I could've knocked them all down with a kick. Yet we're paying for an armed guard ostensibly against the belief that we citizens will be so enraged at the actions of this administration that armed guards are required. I gotta look into the history of violence at that location, oh wait it's a block from my home and there are never any problems there!!!!

hso
August 4, 2011, 05:17 PM
Folks,

I'll remind everyone that the topic is the OP's call for action against Walgreens and other companies that prohibit employees from carrying when they have state authorization to carry. Other discussion doesn't help refine or reinforce the OP's call for action.

Deltaboy
August 4, 2011, 08:50 PM
Does walgreens have a "no guns" sign in their window too, preventing law abiding citizens who lawfully carry from doing so? Jus tcurious if they want to disarm everyone in their facility, not just the employees.

Good reason to continue using the drive-thru pharmacy, I can still have a gun in the car.
Walgreens in TX have no signs I have seen yet. I only go there after hours when I had to get meds after hours since they have the only 24 hour Pharmacy in Town.

TexasBill
August 4, 2011, 09:27 PM
If you really want to affect Walgreens' policy, you're going to have to do more than write, phone call, or e-mail. To be honest, and I am not singling out Walgreens here, the letters are filed and a canned response may or may not be sent; the phone calls are endured and the e-mails are either deleted or get a robot response. You might feel good, having done your part, but the reality is the policymakers aren't going to be bothered.

First: If you are a resident of the area, see if the story about the firing was covered in the local media. If not, bring it up. Always room for a good human interest story, especially if the person is still unemployed and had a good employment history prior to the incident. This can cause public embarrassment and companies really don't like that.

As I mentioned in a previous post, it's all about money and liability. Don't base your arguments on Second Amendment rights; they are not the issue. Base your challenge, instead on the cold calculations that allow money to outweigh an innocent human life. There is no shortage of incidents where non-resisting employees were murdered and the presence of an armed employee might have made a difference in the outcome.

After a long battle, Texans finally got a law that allows them to lock their weapons in their vehicles while they are at work. The same legislation, from the beginning, absolved employers of liability. Nevertheless, employers fought tooth and nail to kill the legislation. Expect nothing less in response to this issue.

Next: Walgreens is a publicly traded corporation (WAG on the NYSE). Buy stock and attend the stockholder's meeting. There should be an opportunity for stockholder questions and comments. Come with prepared comments and speak your piece. Be aware there is usually a short time limit.

This requires more commitment, but the Revolutionary War wasn't won by burying George III with e-mails.

rooter
September 1, 2011, 09:01 AM
He knew the risks of working there. He had a choice: quit or accept the risks. He's fortunate he isn't being charged if the property was posted.

Sav .250
September 1, 2011, 10:59 AM
Their no "carry policy" while working is company wide. Fair enough.

Funny thing though. If that same guy had been a customer (with a carry permit) and did the same thing, all would have been forgiven. Go figure.

USAF_Vet
September 1, 2011, 11:15 AM
I just reread this thread, and I know exactly where that walgreens is. I used to work not far from there. Not the most friendly area, glad I moved and got a better job.

DaisyCutter
September 1, 2011, 08:03 PM
This is from my blog, but I feel it's an important issue, so I'm reposting here. Please join me in my boycott against Walgreens Pharmacies and any other company who feels their employees should lay down and die like sheep. I also list contact information at the end so you can pass your feelings along to Walgreens Corporate. I pasted this article and sent it to them. Hopefully if they get enough feedback from sane gun owners, they can change their ways.

http://tokeepandbear.blogspot.com/20...walgreens.html

I am an NRA member, card-carrying, and I read my "American Rifleman" magazine every month. One of my favorite sections is "The Armed Citizen" so I usually head there first. Right there in the August issue I saw this snipped about a pharmacist, Jeremy Hoven, who was fired for using his legally-carried concealed weapon to defend himself, his co-workers and Walgreens' inventory from 2 armed robbers.

I followed the citation and went over to The Herald-Palladium, a newspaper up in Michigan, and they confirmed the same facts. The original article can be found here:
http://www.heraldpalladium.com/artic...ws/5741185.txt

The synopsis is this. The store was robbed by gunmen. Employees complained to Walgreens management that they needed better security at the store. Walgreens ignored these complaints, so Hoven went and got his concealed carry license and a pistol. The next time the store was robbed, Hoven picked his moment. When the robbers tried to coerce the employees into the back room of the store (a tactic that often leads to execution), Hoven fired on the robbers. The robbers fled, no employee was harmed, the police arrived and made their report and no charges were filed against Hoven. So Walgreens fired him because he violated company policy by carrying a firearm to work.

WALGREENS: This is not acceptable. It is despicable. If you don't want employees to carry a weapon to work so they can defend themselves, then you, Walgreens, are responsible for hiring armed security to protect them. Mr. Hoven broke no law when he carried that weapon, and not only did he protect himself and his coworkers from harm, he also protected your precious cash. You are despicable backstabbers who would rather see your own employees die than violate your company policy. This is truly a case of not being able to see the forest for the trees.

I will not set foot on Walgreens property again until you extend an apology to Mr. Hoven, offer to give him his job back, and change your policy to allow your employees to carry concealed weapons where legal. I will also use any means at my disposal to promote a boycott against you and to promote any and all of your competitors until these demands are met.


Walgreens customer service can be reached via the following means (please be sure to share your opinions with them, I know I will):

Web:
http://www.walgreens.com/marketing/c...mp;h4=consumer
Phone: toll-free (800) 925-4733
7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Central Time, Monday thru Friday
Address: Walgreen Company Consumer Relations
1411 Lake Cook Rd, Mail Stop #L428
Deerfield, IL 60015

Nobody put a gun to Hoven's head and forced him to work at Walgreens.

If he doesn't work by their rules, then they can fire him.

He can extend his option to find an employer that cares more for his personal safety.

Walgreens presumably doesn't want the laiability of a representative of their company popping off with a handgun, under any circumstances. If you want a paycheck from them, then that's what you sacrifice.

It's freedom to choose.

MisterMike
September 8, 2011, 10:52 AM
I understand that these policies may be somewhat common, but they're also policies that are administered by human beings who should have the good sense to react appropriately. There are myriad other ways that Walgreen's could have responded, and they chose to react--in light of an act that may very well have saved lives--by terminating the guy.

I, too, have the opportunity to choose how I'll react. In my case, it will be be patronizing any pharmacy other than Walgreens and by urging everyone I know to do the same.

gym
September 8, 2011, 01:20 PM
Drug stores have become an increasinglly dangerous target for addicts who can't get their pills anymore due to the passage of Floridas new law that made it much more difficult as of July 1st, 2011. If they can't go to the pill mills and get their fix,they are being shut down daily, why would it seem unusual that they will go directlly to the source? I hear just about every week of a major pharmacy being robbed by crews of armed men.
These pills, some of which go for 40 -100 dollars on the street, are more valuable than cash, so you really have to be crazy to work in a drug store with a no gun policy. They are soft targets, and the robbers are high, so it's a recipe for disaster. Again they only address half the probem. If you are going to restrict a drug that has been booming in FL the last 10 years, you better protect your employees. If you aren't a Floridian you may not know what's going on down here, but criminal enterprises, were sending bus loads of seniors down a couple times a month, to go to the pain clinics and paying them well for the trip. Thousands of people aside from the ones who live in the state. Another big problem that Govt half solved by passing a law.
Plus the guys who opened these places are not even doctors for the most part or pharmasists, two were brought to light recentlly, they had like 5 of these places making millions per month. Hiring doctors who were deadbeats to write the script and fill it right there. One stop shopping. Wallgreens in Broward had put up signs ,"no oxy" to fend some of this off. As many still use the drugstore. My buddy who had both shoulders replaced and a knee, had a real problem getting a legitamate perscription filled "he lives in Broward".

DennisRL
September 8, 2011, 01:55 PM
I dont take Walgreens side or agree with its stance. And I would certain have taken the position and made the decision the staff did BUT honestly, I can understand and see Walgreens side of it.

They are out for Walgreens and Walgreens $. ESPECIALLY if they are in a NON-Castle Doctorine state or an area (like NY or MA, NJ) where the person who did the shooting stands civil lawsuit, Walgreens doesn't want to be caught up in financial games and risk taking a large financial loss. The easiest and safest route for them is to terminate the employee.

Hes a PharmD, they are NOT easy to find, he will be re-employed shortly. AND the NRA very well may assist him in finding employment, and / or seeking loss of finances from Walgreens.....HOWEVER i know from having an education and much experience in Human Resources, if they had a no-gun policy, which I can GUARANTEE they do, then Walgreens Covered their Ass.

fulltanghalo
September 8, 2011, 02:29 PM
Video was released by the pharmacist lawyer.

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2011/09/video_of_benton_harbor_pharmac.html

Amazing how hard it is to secure those sliding doors, and a good job by the other employee securing the gun one of the guys dropped/threw.

V1ROT8
September 8, 2011, 03:02 PM
I can speak with my $. All of my family has moved their Rx to another location. Amazingly WalMart is less expensive. A bunch.

Cop Bob
September 8, 2011, 04:25 PM
I can speak with my $. All of my family has moved their Rx to another location. Amazingly WalMart is less expensive. A bunch.
Moved my to an HEB.. I also saved some money... Go figure...

gym
September 8, 2011, 08:13 PM
I have health ins, but it doesn't cover a lot of things like most popular drugs, Even "generic", Wag, "walgreens , has a card thats $25 for an individual and $35 for a family,"per year" that saved me $1000.00 dollars last year. I use my insurance for 50% and the WAG card for the stuff that isn't covered by AARP secure Horizones, it paid for a lot of stuff that the ins didn't.And they will give you a lot of things in 3 month supply so you don't even have to go in there armed like a pirate to get a prescription.

DennisRL
September 8, 2011, 09:41 PM
Because a private business has the right do make that call...it is a PRIVATE business. And honestly, they should have the right to decide that.

Zombiphobia
September 8, 2011, 10:32 PM
the robbers tried to coerce the employees into the back room of the store (a tactic that often leads to execution

I want to know how often this actually happens.

gym
September 8, 2011, 11:28 PM
If you notice wallgreens has more dome cameras and steel gates that come down in seconds, and the pharmacy is always in the rear of the store. I haven't seen any that were laid out different in FL. I believe that they can trigger a lockdown if they are suspicious of a person or group of people who come in and just look like a take down crew. I noticed several emergency switches in mine today, and the windows are all surrounded with metal frames. I guess their bean counters found it cheaper than gaurds. Gaurds are very expensive through an agency, unless they let police moonlight like in Broward county. But here I don't see that so you are looking at a couple grand a day easy. They are open all night.

Pat C.
September 9, 2011, 08:26 AM
Ill bet if you check all the pharmacies youll find they all have the same type of rules. May not be right but thats the way it is. Now how many of you guys work where you can carry?? I can't and if i do im fired. So what do you do when there no pharmacy you can use becaue their employee can't carry??

SigP229R
September 9, 2011, 09:32 AM
I decided somewhile back (about 7 years ago) not patronize Walgreens because of their policy of supporting Gay and Lesbain rights over and above the traditional American way of life, also Target is another one on my do not shop list because they refuse to support our vertans.

oneounceload
September 9, 2011, 09:51 AM
I would venture that if you checked the corporate policies of CVS and other major Rx chains, you'll find the same thing. Your choice (for the time being) to go where your insurance will pay - personally, I shop by mail for most and the local grocery store for the few I can't get 90 day's worth by mail - they also do not let their employees carry guns - does that mean I shouldn't buy my groceries there either?

You can take this to a very narrow-minded extreme - and it solves nothing

Maelstrom
September 9, 2011, 11:33 AM
Because a private business has the right do make that call...it is a PRIVATE business. And honestly, they should have the right to decide that.

By that logic, Walgreens can refuse to hire black people, right?

Pat C.
September 9, 2011, 01:36 PM
Because a private business has the right do make that call...it is a PRIVATE business. And honestly, they should have the right to decide that.

By that logic, Walgreens can refuse to hire black people, right? Realy??
Apples and oranges

74sharps
September 9, 2011, 02:21 PM
That is what I am thinking too

Maelstrom
September 9, 2011, 05:48 PM
Not apples and oranges. The difference only exists because someone pushed the issue.

A persecuted group who were often looked down on, detained against their will, arrested without cause, and had civil liberties denied, banded together and had laws passed which prevented such things from occurring.

Apples and apples.

Bravo Sierra
September 9, 2011, 06:02 PM
I just saw today that Walgreens carries accidental death insurance (http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/WAG/1396045393x0x344393/c1ec1a81-fb37-4a7e-a747-6689b52f2420/10K.pdf#page=52)on its employees. For purposes of posting here, I'm going to assume here that "accidental" in the insurance policy covers criminal acts, which are generally considered "unforeseeable" acts as defined by insurance companies.

So if all this is true, Walgreens has a financial interest in the accidental deaths of their employees.

Now, even more than before, shouldn't Walgreens be asked why the request for a panic button was refused? And while questions are being asked, why doesn't Walgreens want their employee to defend himself when a gun is drawn on him.

And I'm guessing the the payout to Walgreens would be substantially greater than what the employee would earn in a year or more.

This is just so wrong on so many different levels.

digsigs226
September 10, 2011, 12:47 PM
Well, Wallgreens stopped accepting Tricare, so I wont be going there anyhow... :neener:

sarduy
September 10, 2011, 01:33 PM
the way i see it, it's better to loose your job than your life.

Vern Humphrey
September 10, 2011, 07:59 PM
Quote:
Because a private business has the right do make that call...it is a PRIVATE business. And honestly, they should have the right to decide that.

By that logic, Walgreens can refuse to hire black people, right?
Good point.

But one thing should be made clear -- no business has a right to my patronage. I can choose to shop at Walgreen's or not.

22-rimfire
September 10, 2011, 10:25 PM
Hso said...Most large businesses have this policy. It is nothing new. They adopt the policy because of liability issues, not because they have an Anti political/ philosophical view. Their costs are limited if employees are injured or killed. Their costs are unlimited if an employee injures or kills a customer accidentally. It could be nothing more than pure economics.

That is the harsh reality of business in today's world. Too many lawyers. Too many people trying to make their one lifetime score...

This reminds me why unions really got their push back in the early 1900's. Coal mines are a good example... it was cheaper for the company to replace a human than it was donkey, mule, horse etc.

Walgreens is free to set their own corporate policies. They had essentially the same policy where I worked before. Many did not abide by the policy, but it was a one-way ticket out the door if the company chose to enforce the gun policy. It depended "who you are" more than anything.

Deltaboy
September 11, 2011, 09:24 PM
I only use Walgreens when it is after my regular Drugstores Hours. An example is my daughter broke her arm and by the time we got home from the Childrens Hospital it was almost midnight. Walgreens is the ONLY 24 hour Pharmacy in our town. And here in TX none I have seen bans CCW.

bikerdoc
September 11, 2011, 09:45 PM
Vern Humphries said,

no business has a right to my patronage.

Bottom line for me.

Hoppe
September 12, 2011, 08:17 AM
BTW this was on GMA today have you seem the video? This guy needs more range time, I for one would not what him carrying on any of my jobs. Not only does he have poor technique, but drops then kicks his gun across the floor.

While I support everyone’s right to carry I as an employer have the right to protect myself as well. By allowing employees to carry on the job the company takes the full liability. If anything happens it is no longer the person holding the firearm but the company they work for that is held liable. Are you willing to take that responsibility for thousands of people you don't know personally?

If you bother to ask you will find almost every business has a similar policy. Tractor supply calms firearms are not even allowed in the parking lot by it's employees.

alex4922
September 12, 2011, 09:41 AM
I think the section this thread started in is ACTIVISM. If you want to be active and push back against stupid "rules" or if you want to simply accept "rules" that the UNRULY criminal will ignore thats your choice. I personally will not use Walgreens or any other store that is this blatantly anti second. Our actions may not change things right away but if we stay focused and vocal we may see change in our lifetime.

FWIW, Alex

oneounceload
September 12, 2011, 11:33 AM
personally will not use Walgreens or any other store that is this blatantly anti second.

Then you won't be doing much in most stores. Again, most do not seem to understand corporate insurance and liability issues in today's litigious society brought to you by every law school in the country - it's about CYA and not having a lawsuit - period.

USAF_Vet
September 12, 2011, 01:10 PM
Then you won't be doing much in most stores. Again, most do not seem to understand corporate insurance and liability issues in today's litigious society brought to you by every law school in the country - it's about CYA and not having a lawsuit - period.
In some cases, a lawsuit will be held either way.

There was a request and subsequent denial for more security, panic button, etc. I know the neighborhood this happened in, not a very friendly place to be after dark. I worked a security job half a block from this Walgreens. No CCW there either.

Anyway, if the employee had been shot, do you not think that even despite the so-called employee accident insurance, the employee or his next of kin wouldn't sue the crap out fo Walgreens? Insurance would have paid what, a hundred grand tops?

Names like Walgreens, Wal-Mart, Ford, Coca-Cola, McDonalds, etc. have deep pockets, and someone will always go after them, frivolously or otherwise. They have millions set aside for settlement purposes, either because they were in the wrong and did nothing about it, or (and sometimes also) for settlement payouts/ hush money.

There have been many occasions where a company paid off a lawsuit they would win in a heart beat because it was cheaper to pay their way out of it than defeat it in court.

Personally, I'd rather carry a concealed gun to the job (legally, but against company policy) and risk being fired if I work in a high risk area (like Benton Township, MI) late at night. I'd take that chance especially if the company I worked for could not or would not provide ample security measure to keep employees safe. In this instance, it had been proven that the security provided was not enough (that place has been robbed multiple times in the past) and more was requested, and denied. Walgreens is at fault, their no-guns policy was only part of their failure.

stonecutter2
September 12, 2011, 01:25 PM
BTW this was on GMA today have you seem the video? This guy needs more range time, I for one would not what him carrying on any of my jobs. Not only does he have poor technique, but drops then kicks his gun across the floor.

While I support everyone’s right to carry I as an employer have the right to protect myself as well. By allowing employees to carry on the job the company takes the full liability. If anything happens it is no longer the person holding the firearm but the company they work for that is held liable. Are you willing to take that responsibility for thousands of people you don't know personally?

If you bother to ask you will find almost every business has a similar policy. Tractor supply calms firearms are not even allowed in the parking lot by it's employees.

This is all very easy to say when you're not face to face with some thug who cares nothing for your life and has pulled the trigger 3 times trying to kill you, but his gun didn't fire (per the statement by Mr. Hoven). Panic/stress does weird things to people. Apparently his effectiveness with his handgun was affected - how much training can one really do for preparing for this situation?

I didn't think he kicked his gun across the floor - i thought the criminal freaked out and dropped/threw HIS gun on the floor, and the pharmacist kicked it down the aisle out of the way. It's hard to tell - why are all security cameras so dang grainy??? Anyways, the angles made it seem like the criminal dropped their gun.

Like someone said, i'd rather lose my job than my life. Although losing a $150,000/year job for saving my life would still be a little hard to deal with.

I personally feel this man is a hero, his life was threatened and he responded with his legally concealed handgun. It defused the situation, nobody was hurt, and he not only saved his life but also the lives of his co-workers (his manager was getting shoved and pushed all around the store for some reason - maybe to see where it'd be best to shoot and leave him?).

I hate that Walgreens fired him for a "what if." "What if" someone got shot by him by mistake is irrelevant when it didn't happen. By violating the store's policy, he saved his life and his co-workers' lives - I would expect that to result in a "reprimand" and also a thank you for his actions. Instead he got fired.

I wrote to Walgreens corporate and voiced my opinion of the matter. It's a shame that a day after we celebrated some incredible heroes, we have a news story about a genuine hero that was rewarded with losing his job.

There are times when laws and policies need to be set aside because of common sense. If someone had snuck a gun aboard Flight 93, and instead of the terrorists taking it over, he shot them all in the back of the head, would he have been arrested and imprisoned for sneaking a gun aboard an airplane?

billybob44
September 12, 2011, 08:52 PM
That there is FUNNY!! I have done a number of my gun deals in a Tractor Supply parking lot...:uhoh:Bill..:rolleyes:

22-rimfire
September 14, 2011, 02:40 PM
That is for employees, not the general public.

The world is a tough place and I will protect my own interests. You can't always have what you want.

For those that will refuse to do business with Walgreens, my suggestion is that you spend perhaps a million dollars or more and open your own pharmacy and I bet within a year if your business has liabity insurance, you will have the same policy for employees. It is better sometimes to simply look the other way as an employer, but officially their hands are pretty tied.

gibson_es
September 14, 2011, 07:34 PM
my job or my life?

fire me!

yes it seems wrong. and i think it is. but it is what it is, if nothing happends, then its a moot point, its concealed carry for a reason, if something does happen, then you get shot or loose your job (yes, i understand that you can be robbed and not injured or killed, but if im being robbed, im not going to assume the gun is for show).

i choose loose my job everytime. at least my wife and daughter will see me at the end of the day, and the same goes for everyone else in the store at the same time.

besides, the guy on eisle nine might just be owner or hiring manager of a company. and for saving his life, you got a replacement job. not likely but possible!

almherdfan
September 14, 2011, 09:09 PM
The guy did the right thing, even if he knowinlg violated company policy. The video clearly shows his life was imminent danger. If he'd not been armed, there's a pretty good chance the idiot criminal would have overcome his malfunction and shot the pharmacist and/or other innocent folks present.

On the other hand, Walgreens has done the wrong thing, even if the pharmacist knowingly violated company policy. I understand they probably don't want gun battles in their stores, but given that this turned out very well, they should count their blessings that it wasn't much, much worse and let the guy off with a wink and a warning.

Pharmacists are in very high demand & I'll bet he'll have some very good offers.

oneounceload
September 14, 2011, 09:17 PM
my job or my life?

fire me!

yes it seems wrong. and i think it is. but it is what it is, if nothing happends, then its a moot point, its concealed carry for a reason, if something does happen, then you get shot or loose your job (yes, i understand that you can be robbed and not injured or killed, but if im being robbed, im not going to assume the gun is for show).

i choose loose my job everytime. at least my wife and daughter will see me at the end of the day, and the same goes for everyone else in the store at the same time.

besides, the guy on eisle nine might just be owner or hiring manager of a company. and for saving his life, you got a replacement job. not likely but possible!

Here's something even easier - do NOT go to work for them - when you agreed to work for them, you agreed to their employee rules, so stop the macho BS and realize that kind of thinking is irresponsible - it is simple, go work for another company where you can carry or whatever. Better yet, start your own company and deal with the insurance liability issues

hoppinglark
September 14, 2011, 10:49 PM
If you have a prescription there simply go somewhere else and ask to have it transferred. Let the Pharmacist know WHY because when a Walgreens Pharmacist transfers a prescription out, there is a section asking why the patient doesn't want to use Walgreens anymore.
If enough people transfer it might get corporate's attention.

rellascout
September 15, 2011, 10:02 AM
I support private property owners right to control what they allow their employees to do on their private property. This employee willingly gave up his right to carry when he took the job. I am 100% positive they gave him a employee manual. I am also 100% positive he signed an agreement to follow the company policies and guidelines or be subject to termination.

I am willing to be that all the big chains CVS, Walmart, Walgreens, Rite Aide etc..... have the same policy.

Look for a smaller locally owned pharmacy that supports your rights if you do not want to support these larger corps but IMHO they have every right to have that policy.

GEM
September 15, 2011, 04:39 PM
NO - employers do not have the right in an abstract moral sense to control the behavior of the employees beyond those things directly related to the job. Protecting yourself is not under their domain.

As far as working somewhere else - nice thing to say in this job market. I also remember when employers could demand that you belong to specific church or register for a specific political party. Or you could work somewhere else during the Depression or maybe not and starve.

If the issue is liability, legislate to remove liablity from employers for the actions of legally carrying employees. If the employee screws up, let the victim of such pursue criminal or civil action against the employee.

Those who want the employer to be king of his or her little castle for more than work issues have more of control issue concerns than true civil liberties concern. It's MY little domain - Prince ME!

Vern Humphrey
September 15, 2011, 04:52 PM
NO - employers do not have the right in an abstract moral sense to control the behavior of the employees beyond those things directly related to the job. Protecting yourself is not under their domain.
They have a right to tell employees how to dress, how to conduct themselves and so on on the job.

However, I take the position if anyone -- employer or government -- deprives you of the means of self-defense, they assume an absolute liability for your protection.

Grayrock
September 15, 2011, 07:13 PM
Bill O'Reilly featured this story the other night. His legal team said they would check in later to see if the corporation had offered the R.Ph's job back to him after their intercession on his behalf. If they do that, perhaps he will drop the federal suit.

oneounceload
September 15, 2011, 08:10 PM
As far as working somewhere else - nice thing to say in this job market

SO, when it changes job-wise, you change your view and attitude?

WOW

Makes you a hypocrite - either you are in it for the long haul or not

Want to remove liability? - kill the lawyers

rellascout
September 15, 2011, 09:40 PM
NO - employers do not have the right in an abstract moral sense to control the behavior of the employees beyond those things directly related to the job. Protecting yourself is not under their domain.

You must live in a vacuum.... Employment by its very nature requires that you give up your "abstract moral sense of control" over your own behavior. Carrying and using a gun on company property when it was expressly prohibited is clearly within "things directly related to the job."

They have a right to control your behavior in the work place especially behavior that could put them into a position of liability.

If you do not want to submit to their rules "at work employment" entitles you to choose a different employer. This is a agreement or contract between willing participates. A job is not a right. It is a choice which we are all free to choose or abstain from.

Pat C.
September 16, 2011, 04:26 PM
Im calling BS here, Lets be honest here how many of you guys can carry a gun on the job?? Im betting 80 percent can't!! I work for a cable company and I can't!!

KingMedicine
September 16, 2011, 10:06 PM
Oldshooter +1

If its the rules, follow them or find new employment.

hso
September 18, 2011, 12:09 AM
This has evolved into a basic philosophical argument of the employer's vs. the employee's rights and hasn't developed into a discussion of any sibilance the development of a plan of acton to support RKBA.

These sorts of discussion are better suited to General. I encourage anyone interested in continuing the employer's rights vs. employee's rights argument there to do so.

If you enjoyed reading about "Walgreens" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!