Yea this policy is in place for a reason, they just do not want to be liable for every employee who decides to play Clark Kent (superman) to take out all the crooks. So therefore, the guy had put Wal-Mart at risk in liability lawsuit once he ran after the thief.
Wal-Mart fires employee for chasing after thief
- Thread starter yizuman
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 45,080
- Reaction score
- 322
Walmart shouldn't have fired him. Maybe the guy reacted on impulse and didnt think of the policy at the time? A warning or suspension would probably have helped him remember not to do it again.
Wal-Mart isn't the only one that had fired an employee for chasing after a thief, I remembered there was a story about an employee at Round Rock Randalls in Texas who was fired after chasing a purse snatcher out of the grocery store, Best Buy in Denver fired two employees who tried to stop a shoplifter, a home depot manger was fired for chasing a suspected thief, plus some employees at home depot was fired for chasing after a thief. It happens all over the place, Pretty much a lot of companies, retail stores and banks have a no chase policy.
webexplorer
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2003
- Messages
- 5,517
- Reaction score
- 0
Walmart chains really have plenty of profits.
If the employees see someone steal something at the store, then don't bother to call the police.
It's not worth it because the employees need the money to make a living. Let Walmart figure it out later because it is very simple that they have to follow the policy period.
If the employees see someone steal something at the store, then don't bother to call the police.
It's not worth it because the employees need the money to make a living. Let Walmart figure it out later because it is very simple that they have to follow the policy period.
diehardbiker
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 16,190
- Reaction score
- 16
Here is perfect example why employees should never chase crooks.
Supposed a robber stole something in the store, and an employee saw that crook and chased that crook, then the crook runs past me, and I happen to be in straight between that crook and an employee, the crook turns around and fired gun at me instead of the employee. I got injured because of that... I will have no problem dial a number to an attorney, and have that attorney deal the rest... That would mean I will sue the company where that same employee works at, what would I charge? I would press charge against that company for allowing untrained (remember that word untrained) employee, in other word amateur police. And I will be 99% certainly walk off the court with nice sum of money.
That is why most stores and banks don't want that kind of losses.
So, therefore America is truly sue happy country. Sad, isn't it?
Supposed a robber stole something in the store, and an employee saw that crook and chased that crook, then the crook runs past me, and I happen to be in straight between that crook and an employee, the crook turns around and fired gun at me instead of the employee. I got injured because of that... I will have no problem dial a number to an attorney, and have that attorney deal the rest... That would mean I will sue the company where that same employee works at, what would I charge? I would press charge against that company for allowing untrained (remember that word untrained) employee, in other word amateur police. And I will be 99% certainly walk off the court with nice sum of money.
That is why most stores and banks don't want that kind of losses.
So, therefore America is truly sue happy country. Sad, isn't it?
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2007
- Messages
- 69,284
- Reaction score
- 142
you have to remember that Wal-Mart has one of the largest legal departments in this country because it deals with over 5,000 lawsuits per year. They have every rights to protect themselves from liability.
This employee may be a hero to locals but to Wal-Mart - he's a liability. a very expensive liability. They can easily afford $42.98 loss due to theft but this liability may cost Wal-Mart over $200,000 for lawsuit + medical cost.
This employee may be a hero to locals but to Wal-Mart - he's a liability. a very expensive liability. They can easily afford $42.98 loss due to theft but this liability may cost Wal-Mart over $200,000 for lawsuit + medical cost.
While a lot of the policies are in place to cover the company, a lot of the policies are also for the safety of the employees, which in turn protects the company. Fast food places and stores won't allow one person to open the store at early hours or close very late because it isn't safe to be alone like that. So they pair up employees because there is safety in numbers. The employees are made aware of such policies and agree to follow them and adhere to a code of conduct. This dude willingly broke a rule he had agreed to just because he wanted to play hero. If he wanted to do 'what's right,' then shouldn't he have done what he had promised to do? What he was hired to do?
PowerON
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2007
- Messages
- 11,266
- Reaction score
- 10
I believe that staff should just make report on what person look like, what car that person drive. So, police would able to aware better to caught on future instead capture.