Done with Walgreens FOREVER

[DT Guy]

Which will likely save me a ton of money in the long run; we're in there three or four times a week.

I wrote to them expressing my displeasure with their treatment of their pharmacist who was fired in 2011 for shooting at a robber REPEATEDLY PULLING THE TRIGGER of a jammed gun he was pointing at him. They said the pharmacist didn't follow their 'non-escalation' policy...as if you can 'escalate' a situation where the robber is already trying hard to shoot you. :banghead:

Here's their response:

Dear (DT Guy's Real Name ),

Thank you for taking your time to contact our Corporate Offices. We appreciate hearing from our customers and value all comments received.

Walgreens is committed to providing a safe and secure environment for our employees and customers. Like virtually every major retailer and corporation in the U.S., we prohibit firearms and other weapons in the workplace. Our store policies are based on law enforcement recommendations and exist to provide the maximum safety for both employees and customers. Each of our 250,000 employees is required to review this policy when they are hired and expected to adhere to it. We have taken the same action with those who have violated it in the past.

As a result of these policies, Walgreens has an exemplary safety record dating back more than a century and now covering more than 8,200 stores.

Regarding the case described in the video, that incident occurred in 2011 and the pharmacist’s lawsuit was dismissed after a judge ruled in favor of Walgreens.

Again, thank you for contacting our corporate office. We truly appreciate you taking the time to share your comments.


Be Well,

Grant M.
Consumer Response Rep.

So essentially, he should have just sucked it up and died following their policies.

This is, IMHO, a perfect example of a corporation putting their agenda against the natural right of human self-defense. I understand 'their house, their rules', but in this case, 'their rules' would have almost certainly resulted in that man dying, and that's just wrong.

No more $$$ from my family-including all my dogs on heart medication!


Larry

 

[spaniel]

Not that I disagree with you, but just understand that basically means you are done with every major chain store across the country. They all have similar rules. We had a guy at a Kroger here a couple years ago who was fired after shooting an armed robber and likely saving the life of a coworker who was being held hostage. Their justification was he was forbidden from having the gun in the store in the first place.

My wife used to work at the Minute Clinics within CVS (Take Care is the Walgreens equivalent). Her store was robbed 5 times while she worked there, fortunately never during her shift. Her door was right next to the pharmacy counter being robbed. The same poor pharmacist had a gun stuck in his face 3 times. He pleaded with them to switch him to days because he couldn't take it anymore, or provide some sort of security. They declined, and the very next shift he worked he had a handgun shoved in his face again. So he quit.

Personally I think businesses which make their employees impotent, especially in such high-risk positions, should bear more responsibility for keeping them safe.

 

[R.Ph. 380]

Like You Said:

Yeah, Their House, Their Rules. I had to come to the conclusion that I will abide by those rules, because I needed the job. I've never faced the situation that the poor guy in 2011 did, but I wouldn't have had the chance because I don't carry while at work for Walgreens.

Believe me, because of the corporate policy, which I have gone on record as opposing, but agreeing to follow. Judicious noting and writing down various incidents that have happened in my 35 years "behind the counter". If it happens to me and my wife becomes a widow, she will be a very wealthy one. The case has been made abundantly clear that Pharmacy is not safe. Why, even the Federal Government made it a federal felony for an Armed Robbery in a pharmacy, just like a Bank.

Now the D.E.A. and the F.D.A. have gotten together to declare the world's nost prescribed (and abused) drug, Hydrocodone containing meds will from October 6th on be a CII drug. That means that you will now have to visit your Dr. every time you need a prescription for your Vicodin, Norco, Tussionex, etc.... Dr. can't call them in either, must write a new rx to be filled within 21 days and with NO refills.

Do you have any idea how many forged rx's, stolen rx's, armed robberies this is going to engender? INTERESTING TIMES....................................................................

Bill

 

[skizzums]

"circle k" by my house, similar thing happened. guy broke in, put the cashier on he knees with a gun to his head, cashier pulled gun and shot perp in the foot, perp ran away injured(later caught), cashier fired for having gun. nice kid, saw him most every night.

 

[44 AMP]

While its sad, it is their house and their rules. The govt has volumes of laws & regulations (which carry the force of law) covering what an employer has to do to provide a safe workplace.

Protecting you, or any employee from death/injury due to an armed robber isn't in them, anywhere.

Essentially I see it as "yes, we're all happy you're ok, but you're fired", because they are seeing that you did it once (fought back), so you might do it again, and they don't want to take the risk that they will held responsible for your actions. It would cost them money.

You (if you're the clerk) are now a "dangerous person" and I'm confident that the store would be sued if they kept you employed and it happened again. Think on it, big business (deep pockets), lawyer looking for a settlement score, (after all, that poor deluded crackhead didn't really mean to, when he tried to kill you...) store knowingly having a dangerous person like you on the payroll....it adds up to enough to go to court. People take people & businesses to court over a lot less, every day...

Even if the suit gets tossed early (which it should be,) its still going to cost the store money, and firing and replacing you is much cheaper.

I have a small degree of sympathy for the business, they are virtually forced into this policy by economic necessity. But only a small degree. And none at all for those who adopt this policy without being (or feeling) forced to.

 

[geetarman]

Sometimes the "law" just sucks.

 

[Tom Servo]

The one thing a corporation fears more than anything else is liability. They hire lawyers to help them avoid it.

In the late 1980's, the anti-gunners invented the myth that an employee with a gun was a ticking time bomb. A few workplace shootings cemented that myth, which was then sold to the human resources departments of many large companies. The assertion was that allowing employees to arm and defend themselves was a recipe for disaster, and that the company could be held liable.

Unfortunately, the myth has been repeated so many times that it is now accepted as fact. When a company drafts policies and procedures, the lawyers are going to bring it up.

 

[skizzums]

my work has a no gun policy, only because all of us carry guns and most were very open about it. it made the few uncomfortable. the boss knows we still carry, just keep it to ourselves, don't ask don't tell. I don't believe my boss would fire me if I protected myself, but if so "WHO CARES". they would at least give me a good reference.

 

[Spats McGee]

The one thing a corporation fears more than anything else is liability. They hire lawyers to help them avoid it.

^^This.^^

From a corporations standpoint, if a bad gun comes in, robs the place and shoots a customer, the corporation can basically claim intervening causation. "We didn't allow it. This third-party bad guy did it without any help from us." If, on the other hand, a store employee shoots someone, even on accident, then it's not a third party, but an agent of the corporation. No intervening causation. The injured party's lawyer will say, "The store clerk was authorized by the company to carry a gun, wasn't he? Did the company provide any safety training? Marksmanship? . . . . So the company let a 22 year old wander around with a deadly weapon without taking any steps to ensure he could handle it safely, didn't it?"

I'm not claiming right or wrong here, but that's the thinking, from the legal side.

 

[849ACSO]

I'm fortunate..........the place I work has a "you MUST carry a gun policy"..........

Anyway, that's too bad for the guy getting fired, but honestly, I wouldn't want to work for a place that "requires" me to be a sheep among wolves anyway.