Walgreen's Loses My Business FOREVER

Breaking the rules saved his life and I sure the pharmacist is thankful. However, after the dust settled he still broke the rule. He chose to work for someone with a policy he didn't agree with and choose to violate it. He likely knew the consequences of a policy violation. I side with Walgreens.

These big corporations aren't worried about employee and public safety, they are worried about litigation and loosing lawsuits for liability. Most of the companies are ultimately run by bean counters and all they worry about is the money.

Yes, the guy broke the rule, which probably saved his life. How many of us here would have probably done the same thing?

Hoven lost his original suit in 2012 and lost the appeal in federal court earlier this year.
http://www.freep.com/article/20140602/NEWS06/306020141/pharmacist-self-defense-walgreens-michigan

He was fired in 2011, for crying out loud. Why are you just now deciding to not do business with Walgreens?

We have discussed this incident several times since 2011.
http://www.thehighroad.org/search.php?searchid=12959884

Interesting that you point out that he was fired for breaking a non-escalation policy and Walgreens says they fired him for the firearms possession. I was under the impression from everything that I had read that he was fired for having a weapon at work that he wasn't allowed to have per policy. Even he article you cited doesn't mention anything about a non-escalation policy, LOL. It says he was fired because of his weapon.

I side with Walgreens.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Employment policies are an entirely different animal, not in the same league as weapons prohibitions for patrons.

I'm also boycotting Walgreen, and have since 2011. There are always exceptions to the rules and policies. The fact they stuck to a hard line made them look bad, because essentially, they said they would have rather their employee been shot, possibly killed, than to bend policy in rare, exigent circumstances.

I'm also boycotting them for other reasons completely unrelated to RKBA.

What national pharmacy chains don't have a similar weapons policy for employees?

It's all about litigation. Public and employee safety has little if anything to do with this policy.
While I may disagree with their policy I do understand why they have it in place. The employee was aware of the policy and chose to break it so I don't feel that he is in the "right". I am very glad that he chose to defend himself in the face of a violent threat and he may be alive today because of his actions so at least he can look for another job. He has the Right to bear arms but he does not have the right to break a company policy.

If your company has a policy that you disagree with then you should change it, accept it, or leave. Ignoring it or intentionally disregarding it can get you fired. Many companies do drug testing and I personally don't think what I do on Saturday shouldn't be my company's business. The last company I worked for did random drug tests on many employees which always baffled me. Again, it is all about the litigation.

What national pharmacy chains don't have a similar weapons policy for employees?


Having been married to a Pharmacist at one time... *none*.

This "Boycott" is all tin foil hat stuff. You pack, you shoot, you get fired for "breaking company policy"... Big deal: You chose to disobey your employer, you were proven right, you're alive, now move on to your next job... <yawn>...

If I were in charge of corporate communications for Walgreens and got a letter like the OP sent *three years after the fact* I'd laugh my ass off and toss it right where it belongs. Wastebasket Basketball anyone?



Willie

.

USAF_Vet said:

they said they would have rather their employee been shot, possibly killed, than to bend policy in rare, exigent circumstances.

Click to expand...

He didn't bend or break the policy in rear or exigent circumstances. He broke it every single day when he came to work with his firearm. He was fired for bringing the gun to work with him, not for discharging it.

Several people above have stated that all companies care about is their numbers and base their policies off of risk mitigation and liability. ..And that's largely true. What most people forget is that part of that risk mitigation and liability considerations are the chances of a violent encounter versus the changes of one of their own employees doing something stupid or causing workplace violence. You don't get to carry your gun to work because the company is worried about what you might do with a gun at work.

I've never met a man yet who admits he is a danger to other people with his firearms.... but I've kicked many a person off my range and out of my classes.

A company doesn't know your skill or safety with a firearm. They can't risk letting your have it when they are liable for your actions.

If you chose to break your companies policies, just accept that termination is the inevitable result of being discovered. If that is an acceptable exchange for you, then by all means, proceed.

If you chose to break your companies policies, just accept that termination is the inevitable result of being discovered. If that is an acceptable exchange for you, then by all means, proceed.

Precisely.

Wear your big-boy panties when you decide to do as you please rather than what you signed on for when you accepted your job....


Willie

.

DT Guy: Thank you for posting this. I'm sure myself and plenty of others didn't hear about this the first time around and appreciate you re posting it.

Pretty much any corporation of this size is really just an extension of the federal and state government. I bet you more than half of their business comes from billing Medicare and Medicaid and the rest from private health insurance which is subsidized through corprate tax breaks.

I would love to see a federal law requiring corporations to honor their employees constitutional rights as a prerequisite for participating in any government program, receiving funding, billing the government, receiving loans or bailout money.

Dan

*three years after the fact*

Click to expand...

I have some belief that this is due to the recent round of slacktivism on facebook, referencing a "new" article/video by ABC.:

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=655706767870440

This is the first reference i've seen regarding the "escalation" bit. I say "new", because I haven't seen this video before. ITs possible its old, I don't really have the time to research it- other things goin on. MAybe someone else can. It popped up on my wall sunday, monday, and today. Annoying !



The group is called "Active Self Protection", and was brought into the facebook sphere in 2013- although according to my "wall" they've been blitzing pretty hard for likes since about the end of 2013.

Its a Phoenix, AZ self defense teacher that apparently incorporated in 2011 offering :

"Firearms classes: NRA Basic Pistol, NRA Personal Protection in the Home, Defensive Pistol, Arizona CCW certification, Defensive Rifle, Defensive Shotgun, Armed Guard certification.

Gun Fu: Empty Handed Defensive Tactics, Getting to the Firearm, Justifiable Force Continuum Training, Surviving The Encounter, and more."


Yep, Gun-Fu.


Maybe it is new, maybe his lawyer is trying a different tact. ITs America, it could happen. But for all the reasons already stated- and the fact that Michigan is an "at=will" state, a positive outcome is unlikely. IANAL, but it seems pretty well defined. Apparently his lawyer thinks differently.


Regardless, the video thats floating around keeps linking back to ASP, and as such appears to be commerce masquerading as slacktivism/"PSA".

I don't dispute the man's right to preserve his life, but he knowingly broke the rules of his employer. It is clear he put more stock in his life than his job, and I applaud that. That being said, Walgreens certainly has the right to terminate him as they did.

I am not allowed to carry at work either, and I don't. However, my job frequently takes me far from any sort of help, and into areas with dangerous animals, and possibly people. IF I chose to carry for some reason, and chose to use that firearm to defend myself, I would expect my career to be over. And since I'm a federal employee, I would just be begging not to be prosecuted, as the government would have every right to do so.

Is it right? No. Do I have reason to carry in the workplace? Well, I'm a forester, so I think I have more reason than some do since there is pretty much no chance law enforcement would be able to help me. And yes, I have been confronted by a gun toting jack wagon, and by dangerous animals. But I accept that risk as a part of my employment in a career that I love, and I accept that my employer will not allow me to carry. So it is up to me to either break that rule, or find an employer who will let me carry.

If I was terminated by my employer, I would not boycott enjoying our nation's natural beauty, resources, or administrative services, nor expect others to do so on my behalf. I would just be happy that I was alive.

Coming from an HR background I have to say that although I am a major proponent of concealed carry I must also say this is strictly a good business practice. The company is not looking at it from this aspect. They are looking at it from a "what if he accidently shoots someone ELSE, what if he drops the gun and it discharges and injures / kills someone? How many people have an AD / ND in their life? How many people have to use their gun in self defense? The chances of the first one ahppening is likely MUCH MUCH higer than the latter.

That is why Walgreens and virtually every other corporation has a strict no gun policy.

The pharmacist probably has NO regrets...however he knowingly violated a company policy. He must be dealt with according to the policies in order for the company to say they are treating all fairly and with the same regard. He had to be let go...I am sure he would rather be alive and unemployed then dead and unemployed. He is a pharmacist. I doubt there isn't a surplus of those.

I personally think making a person choose between survival and employment is unethical; it may be 'their house', but they are ultimately accountable for the effects of their actions.

If this guy had followed the rules, he would very likely be dead. So their policy, which it is their right to set, would have proven fatal to him.

Again, it's their right; I do not agree with their actions (a policy is an 'action', after all), and will not support an entity making such unethical decisions.

Larry

Click to expand...

Well Larry, don't count on buying a car, commercial made food products, eating in any national chain store, ordering national chain pizza, buying a computer or other home electronics, and you might as well give up on using the phone, too. You won't be using a major credit card and chances are you should not be using any utilities. I am not even sure how you are accessing the internet. Otherwise, you are supporting companies that make "such unethical decisions" contrary to what you said you would be doing.

Well I do not want to give money to anti gun company s either I would rather have armed store employees and armed robbers in a store then just the armed robbers ... silly me

Their rules carry the day. I will still shop at ours. My union contract had a no weapons clause , it was law. You show up with one, automatic termination.
One guy in our shop got pissed at management and started brandishing a hunting knife. We went to our supervisor and the guy was out within minutes.
Very glad that policy was enforced.

hmm, I guess they consider armed robbers the same as paying customers. Any +1 on the boycott.

While I agree with those who said it doesn't make sense to begin boycotting a company for something they did several years ago, I think there are important exceptions worth noting.

1) Obviously (given their response), they still embrace that "sucks to be you" policy, and would sooner see their employees shot and killed than simply yielding to state law and allowing their employees the right to defend themselves.
2) You also just now found out about the event. The fact that it happened three years ago is totally irrelevant, as their stance hasn't changed.

Given both these factors, I'd say you're perfectly justified in boycotting them for it. Of course you get to do whatever you want without anybody's permission or approval; I just wanted to say I support you in it.

By the way, I didn't catch whether or not you addressed this, but I want to encourage you to let Walgreens know you won't be shopping there anymore - and be sure to include the reason.

Walgreens lost me a long time ago due to exceptionally high prices.

I agree that hiring on meant signing on to their policy rules. The policy rules suck, but should have been known when signing on.

I suspect USAF above and I may have the same dislike for Wal-Green--maybe not.

They suddenly quit accepting military retirees medical insurrance.

I dont' side with anyone who opposes the right to self defense in a life or death situation. Damn their house, their rules. They don't do anything to protect the lives of their employees with the exception of having a rule that ''no guns are allowed"..

I'm sure the criminal element will adhere to that.

He was faced with potentially a life or death situation. He saved his own life. Walgreens should be glad he did. Had he been killed, think of the lawsuit the family would have had against them.

Corporate pukes.. It's the way of the world, and one of the reason the world is beginning to suck..