0
votes

Man Fired for Stopping Shoplifter

posted December 28, 2007 - 9:03am
Man Fired for Stopping Shoplifter

" John Schultz says he lost his job at Whole Foods Market in Ann Arbor after he tried to stop a shoplifter from making a getaway. But the company says he went too far and violated a policy that prohibits employees from physically touching a customer - even if that person is carrying a bag of stolen goods.

Schultz says he had just punched out for a break at 7 p.m. on Sunday when he heard a commotion at the front door of the store, 3135 Washtenaw Ave. He said he came to the aid of the manager who yelled for help in stopping a shoplifter. Schultz, the manager and another employee cornered the shoplifter between two cars in the parking lot."

Click the link below for the full article written by Dave Gersman

...is it any wonder people don't care any more? you do what in a normal mind is right and you loose your job.


Website: http://www.mlive.com/news/annarbornews/index.ssf?/...
Author: lisadee
-A +A

A Xomba Account Lets You:

Read - Expand your mind. Write - Share your ideas Get Paid - Expand your pocketbook Get Started Today!


Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Liability is key.

bmn - Fri, 2008-4-1 12:26 am
Liability is the key factor here. Also, some people take the approach of, if he needs food so badly, let him have it. For a long time a certain popular pizza chain had a policy (not publicized) that whenever someone asked for food and said they were broke and hungry, they'd give them one. Anyway... back to liability, these Wal-Mart employees killed a shoplifter. http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2005/08/10/wal-mart-employees-kill-suspected-shoplifter/ Definitely not good. Here are some general shoplifter apprehension guidelines. http://www.security-expert.org/shoplifting.htm

There's that, too...

jdubhub - Sat, 2007-29-12 1:17 pm
When I was working my way up to c-store management, I was reminded never to work "off the clock" even if I needed to get something done after my shift. If I injured myself, workman's comp wouldn't cover me, but the store owner would still carry the liability. If that employee was still on break, he wouldn't be on the clock and any injuries he sustained would have been a separate liability for the store owner there. Because there were other, unknown circumstances regarding that employee, that employee should just keep his mouth shut and start filling out applications for a new job elsewhere. This publicity may just be sour grapes. Click here if you have something to say and want to get paid to say it!

jdubhub's Xombyte

CLICK HERE TO JOIN XOMBA TODAY!

also true

lisadee - Sat, 2007-29-12 11:38 am
the press hardly ever reports the whole story so i'm certain there are things we don't know about. however, i'm inclined to lean in favor of the employee because of having gone through corporate double-speak punishment.

Other Factors

angelskates - Sat, 2007-29-12 2:09 am
In the interview with the management of the store that I saw, the management stated that the decision to fire this employee was based on multiple factors that could not be disclosed due to the need to protect the privacy of the employee and that had nothing to do with this incident. The impression that I got was that this employee had been problematic in other ways that contributed to the decision to terminate his employment. Store owners have many factors that they must consider. One might be their workmen's comp insurance carrier who would slam them with very high premiums if they allow their employees to chase customers off the premises and to restrain them. There are issues of liability involved not only if the culprit were to sue the store, but if the employee were to be injured. Granted it seems that an injustice was done, but we only know part of the story. The parts that we don't know could be important. Like maybe he was not supposed to be on break, or maybe he had overstayed his break, or something that we are not even thinking about. Angel

that's what happens when lunatics run the asylum

lisadee - Sat, 2007-29-12 12:20 am
and you bring up another subject i have a huge problem with. i don't see how a murder can be considered either a murder or a murder that is a hate crime. wouldn't the fact that you murdered another being be a hate crime in and of itself? then there are groups who are so into protecting the criminal while the victim suffers. this is wrong also. i just hope one day our society wakes up and says "that's enough!" and takes back control.

It does suck

jdubhub - Fri, 2007-28-12 5:53 pm
But, that's what we get for living in a world where criminality is overlooked in the name of political correctness. I'm sure there are people in this country who believe that a person should be allowed to be victimized as long as it's for the "right" reasons and the "real" criminals are those who would hold the lawbreakers to some sort of moral standard. Click here if you have something to say and want to get paid to say it!

jdubhub's Xombyte

CLICK HERE TO JOIN XOMBA TODAY!

too litigious

lisadee - Fri, 2007-28-12 4:12 pm
but that is the problem. what this man did was prevent a crime and the man could have been prosecuted for the theft if not for the employer. the message the employer is sending is it is ok to rob me as long as i don't have to go to court on a liability case. now the next nimrod sees this article and thinks "oh hey, let me go get some food for free." he goes and takes a couple of hundred dollars worth of food. and then another does it and then another. after a while mr. store owner has to close his business due to excessive thefts. no more income for him. the employees are out of work. there's an empty commercial building rotting in the neighborhood which brings down tax values and discourages new businesses from coming into the neighborhood. other businesses don't want to be near the empty building because of the crime and loiterers so they close their doors or relocate. and guess what...we've just lost as much if not more than a liability case would have cost in the first place plus we've told the community theft is ok and right is wrong. kinda sucks either way.

Liability

jdubhub - Fri, 2007-28-12 2:19 pm
While it does appear on the surface to be a good thing, it does present the store/company with a huge liability--even greater than a sack of stolen groceries. If the thief would have been seriously injured or if an innocent bystander were injured, then the store would be wide open for a lawsuit. Even if the case were settled out of court for thousands of dollars, that is far more than a hundred dollars or so of food. Having been a convenience store manager myself, I understand the frustration, but I also agree with the policy. This country has become too litigious for its own good. Click here if you have something to say and want to get paid to say it!

jdubhub's Xombyte

CLICK HERE TO JOIN XOMBA TODAY!

Catch a Shoplifter, Lose Your Job

Going2Oahu - Fri, 2007-28-12 2:02 pm
What a shame that someone tries to help and gets punished for it. He's probably still scratching his head on this one...

Post new comment

  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You can use BBCode tags in the text. URLs will automatically be converted to links.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <p> <br> <b> <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <span> <object> <param> <embed> <table> <tr> <td> <div>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

Join Xomba Today

Do you like to write? Would you like to make a little extra money on the side? These people do. Join the Xomba community today.
Become a Member