AutoZone Fires Worker Who Stopped Robbery

[jcardona1]

I agree with you 100% and was about to post the same. The last thing companies need to do is encourage employee's to put their lives in harms way over material assets that are insured and even more importantly are not worth the loss of life if anything goes wrong (and there is very high potential it will). I think what the man did was brave but none the less the policy is there for a reason and that reason is to protect the employee's safety.

Anyone who has ever worked for a bank is very familiar with policies like these and what goes wrong when someone tries to be a hero..

I side with the Company too. I don't agree with what Autozone did but I can understand it. America is a sue-happy culture. They canned this guy for legal reasons. And I can't say I blame them. If Autozone honored this guy as a hero (which he is) it would send a wrong message and leave the company open to liability, strictly speaking from a legal standpoint here. I'm sure senior management at Autozone feels this guy was a hero too but they have to do what makes sense for the company and limit their exposure as much as possible. It's the sad reality of running a corporation these days.

 

[jcardona1]

The company could be responsible for the manager's death (legally), and would probably be sued by his family for wrongful death.

This is exactly why Autozone did what they did. They can't control what customers do but they can enforce policies on their employees. And it's the reason every employer these days has a 'no weapons' policy. It's to cover their asses in case something happens.

 

[frnchjeep]

That was different, no ones live was at stake. In this case though, he was protecting his supervisor, if the robber was leaving then it would be stupid to try to stop them but if someone life is in danger then it is a different story.

I fully understand that, and wasn't really trying to compare the two. Not to derail the thread, but, if a young teenager is caught swiping something from a store, does anyone still grab the kid by the arm and hold him in the office till his parents get there? If so, where is the cutoff for this, and where does judgement meet policy? Because auto zone's policy leaves NO room for judgement... As they've proven in this case.


Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app

 

[frnchjeep]

This is exactly why Autozone did what they did. They can't control what customers do but they can enforce policies on their employees. And it's the reason every employer these days has a 'no weapons' policy. It's to cover their asses in case something happens.

What I'm saying is if they restrict an employee's ability to protect themselves from the public, then not provide some type of security (cameras aren't security), and an employee is hurt, maimed, or killed, there is a very good chance of a civil suite that could end up costing the company 7+ figures.
I don't have to worry about this, though, because I can and do carry at work.


Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app

 

[lp85253]

auto-zone did him a favor...now he'll get a job = his worth...somebody with sense will see this and give him a GOOD job....

 

[Cellitti]

that's nuckin futz

 

[Miguel]

It is a sad state of affairs the world is coming to, where an act of heroism is superseded by corporate policy. But so it is, unfortunately, nowadays.

Some part of me wants to believe that there was some kind of behind the doors agreement between him and the company. He left, but probably not empty handed ( i hope )

 

[MadRussian79]

The problem with the company policy is that it WILL encourage more robberies. Eventually someone will get killed, NYC is a perfect example. No one gets to carry so only the criminals are packing. Zero risk to the robber means more chance of robberies. There are plenty of cases where the employee cooperates and they still get killed.

The cost of these acts are paid for by the customer. Also we are openly condoning the actions of the robber. As far as I'm concerned if you commit armed robbery you completely deserve to get shot, and the person the shots you should be protected from both criminal and civil penalties.

 

[majorhavok]

The problem with the company policy is that it WILL encourage more robberies. Eventually someone will get killed, NYC is a perfect example. No one gets to carry so only the criminals are packing. Zero risk to the robber means more chance of robberies. There are plenty of cases where the employee cooperates and they still get killed.

The cost of these acts are paid for by the customer. Also we are openly condoning the actions of the robber. As far as I'm concerned if you commit armed robbery you completely deserve to get shot, and the person the shots you should be protected from both criminal and civil penalties.

Exactly. Just look at NY, Chicago or DC in this country or if you want to look at a whole nation, look at australia. Total gun ban = 30% increase in violent crime. People like to pretend coddling and therapy and medications solve problems but the reality is that if you remove all consequences or risks, crime increases.

 

[MTBjake]

Exactly. Just look at NY, Chicago or DC in this country or if you want to look at a whole nation, look at australia. Total gun ban = 30% increase in violent crime. People like to pretend coddling and therapy and medications solve problems but the reality is that if you remove all consequences or risks, crime increases.

EXACTLY!!


Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app