Well, Tripp just sort of declared that he'd slam customers if he wanted to, whether it was his fault or their fault or nobody's fault or everyone's fault—I don't remember that he actually got into a confrontation with either a customer or a criminal. The old thread seems to be mainly hypothetical—"Can they really fire someone for saying I'll use my judo on shoplifters!" "Yes!"
If it was the thread I remember, no I don't recall it stating why, or if, he was fired.
Can they really fire someone for saying I'll use my Glock on shoplifters? Not in my America!
Originally Posted by Rivington
Yes, in your America. Let's be real here unless you actually take their HR policies to a judge, which is technically a breach of confidentiality, you'd be surprised at what goes on in America.
I constantly tell people to read their HR books all the way through then you aren't as shocked when people get fired.
I haven't shopped at Walmart for over 20 years (since I left the US), however from the various stories I've heard about them, I wouldn't be surprised if they had another clause that would have gotten the guys fired for allowing the theft.
And to be honest, just because the thief said:
“The gun is cocked. C’mon guys, just let me go. I don’t want to do this”
Would you really take the guy's word that he wouldn't shoot anyway? After all he already said that he doesn't want to do this, but carrying the gun (cocking it then aiming it) and commiting the crime already shows intent.
Or has America changed that much since I left?
On the other hand, the fact that they weren't leaking out of new holes shows his intent to not shoot them.
Originally Posted by kitkatninja
Maybe, maybe not... It could have gone either way depending on his state of mind... Theft, inciting fear, mental anguish. Just how far away is bodily harm when you're pointing a loaded gun at someone?
Originally Posted by Permalost
Actually I think it might be a catch-22. You want a union to ensure you keep your job, but if you succeed in getting a union into your walmart, they close the store down around you and you are out of a job.
Originally Posted by It is Fake
Just to chime in and add my .02, absent a collective bargaining agreement (or other similar agreement) that gives employees additional rights and protections beyond those provided by current labor law, WalMart is well within their rights to fire these people. Notice that I didn't say they are morally right.
The brutal reality of employment law is that, as noted above, generally speaking an employer is completely at liberty to fire someone for absolutely zero reason or for the most ridiculous reason you can think (they don't like you, think you're ugly, don't like your shoes, whatever). So long as the fired employees aren't covered by a CBA that requires certain procedures be followed or they aren't being targeted for elimination because of a legally protected characteristic (race, age if over 40, gender, national origin, and in some states sexual orientation etc) they have virtually no leg to stand on.
Finally, don't get fooled into thinking that a company's handbook is somehow a legally binding contract, between employer and employees, that the company must follow absent other unusual facts. Generally speaking (yes, there are some exceptions), company policies aren't really enforceable unless you can use them as a springboard to show that other employees were treated differently under similar circumstances, and that the reason for this difference is due to a protected classification. So, in short, even if the handbook says X, they can usually go ahead and do Y instead with no legal recourse.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO