Lowe's clerk fired for confronting shoplifter

[tbn.al]

I just wrote Lowe's an email telling them that this 10+ year card holder was going to close my account if they didn't rehire this lady. Shoplifters are forcing me to pay more for everything I buy.

http://screen.yahoo.com/popular/woman-l ... 18274.html" target="_blank

[Dan Schultz]

According to the news article... this woman clearly put herself in danger and violated store policy. It should have been enough for her to simply record the license number and report the incident.

It's sad to say but I don't blame Lowe's for terminating her employment.

[Tubaryan12]

Most stores have a similar policy. If you think you pay more for shoplifting, imagine what you would pay because of lawsuits and workman's comp cases if employees are hurt by fleeing shoplifters.

Cost / benefit analysis in play here.

In fact, I almost got fired when I worked for Domino's Pizza because I had the natural reaction of trying to hold on to the pizza bag when someone tried to steal it from me.

[Bob Kolada]

Who else did she put in danger? I say boycott the hell out of them; they might not notice but they deserve it. ****, she should try to steal something from there and sue whomever tries to stop her.

[Dan Schultz]

.... she should try to steal something from there and sue whomever tries to stop her.

THAT's a major reason for the 'no confront' policy that many businesses have.

[bort]

Lowe's should rehire her as a security guard. Otherwise, I'm sure Home Depot well be happy to have her (as well as Wayne's money )

[bort]

What would be the grounds for the lawsuit though? What are the damages?

[hup_d_dup]

Does anyone know if there are additional reasons that the woman was let go? If there are, wouldn't that make the story less effective? Don't networks and news shows always want the most dramatic presentation possible? Wouldn't mitigating factors make the story less interesting? How much trust do we have in the news media?

Hup

[Donn]

Does anyone know if there are additional reasons that the woman was let go? If there are, wouldn't that make the story less effective? Don't networks and news shows always want the most dramatic presentation possible? Wouldn't mitigating factors make the story less interesting? How much trust do we have in the news media?

Hm, you asking us to think critically about news media supported by advertising revenues? But that would just open up a whole can of worms!

[Dan Schultz]

What would be the grounds for the lawsuit though? What are the damages?

Anyone can sue anyone about anything.... and even if they don't win, it costs everyone money because the lawyers are going to 'get theirs' regardless.

I can easily see that clerk suing the employer for a variety of goofy things if she got hurt in the process of executing her job as she sees it.

[Tubaryan12]

Who else did she put in danger?

In this case, no one....but let's say she tries to stop the guy and he pulls a gun and starts shooting to escape. I guess lots of people may have been put in harms way then. When things like that happen, then the store closes down for a while and they lose more money than what he tried to steal. What if he freaks out and speeds out of the parking lot and hits people or cars? These things do happen. Companies pay folks lots of money to do the cost / benefit analysis to make these sort of choices in company policy.

[Bob Kolada]

Even in your scenario, the answer its still no one. HE would have been the one doing, well, the dangerous things he would be doing.

[Tubaryan12]

Even in your scenario, the answer its still no one. HE would have been the one doing, well, the dangerous things he would be doing.

With that line of thinking, then the person that cuts you off on the freeway and causes you to swerve your car to avoid hitting them is not at fault because they didn't hit you.

All I'm saying is that it is very posible that the confrontation can cause a response in the shoplifter that probably would not happen if they thought they got away undetected.

[TMurphy]

I used to work at a bank. It was made very, very clear to me what the procedure was in the event of a robbery: comply 100%, and hit the alarm when the robber leaves. Putting people in danger by trying to stand up to the robber would definitely get you fired. Let them go, and let the police handle it.

Do I think the woman should have been fired? No. I do, however, understand why, and cannot fault Lowe's for this. Initiating a conflict like that can cause a criminal to turn violent, and while yes, Bob, the criminal would be at fault, how much comfort would that be to the dead clerk who violated policy?

[hup_d_dup]

The punishment seems unreasonably harsh. People make mistakes. This particular mistake was not a malicious act. People can learn from their mistakes. There is such a thing as forgiveness and sometimes THAT is a better policy.

• HOWEVER •

We do NOT know the full story. There may be a long list of other problems we don't know about. Maybe this episode was the last straw.

Hup

[iiipopes]

STOP! The punishment is not unusually harsh, and it is not unreasonable for there to be such policies.

The law firm I used to work for represents a regional retail chain. One of the assistant managers did just what this lady did. He was assaulted by the shoplifter, and he is injured, and between all the complications of his injuries, workers compensation issues, civil issues of the shoplifter/assailant of restitution to the store and damages to the assistant manager, criminal law issues of the shoplifter/assailant for his actions, and all the legal fees from the company counsel, his personal counsel, the prosecutor's office, and the multiplicity of administrative, civil and criminal proceedings, IT IS NOT WORTH IT to chase after the criminal.

The item at issue which was stolen, and then used as a weapon: a $20 frying pan.

If the assistant manager had followed the store policy, he would not have been injured, and it was quite a significant injury that we all hope he recovers from; the thief would have been caught, and only he would be paying for the frying pan and his legal fees and criminal penalties for his actions. But because this assistant manager did not follow store policy, EVERYBODY is paying for it now.

Flame away if you must. These are the hard facts of life. It is much cheaper and less damaging to all persons involved to turn the matter over to law enforcement to do what they are trained to do, even if it takes time, than to be vigil ante about the situation; the recent popular videos of the convenience store clerks defending themselves to the contrary notwithstanding, and notwithstanding the emotional appeal of those wanting to reinstate the woman to her job.

[Dan Schultz]

..... The law firm I used to work for represents a regional retail chain. ...

AHA! Herein lies the problem. We need to string up about 95% of The Nation's lawyers (especially the ones in Washington who make the laws), strap on some six-guns, and resort to a little 'old-fashioned' law and order.

Right, Bloke!

[iiipopes]

..... The law firm I used to work for represents a regional retail chain. ...

AHA! Herein lies the problem. We need to string up about 95% of The Nation's lawyers (especially the ones in Washington who make the laws), strap on some six-guns, and resort to a little 'old-fashioned' law and order.
Right, Bloke!

You will think differently when you need one some day....

[Dan Schultz]

..... The law firm I used to work for represents a regional retail chain. ...

AHA! Herein lies the problem. We need to string up about 95% of The Nation's lawyers (especially the ones in Washington who make the laws), strap on some six-guns, and resort to a little 'old-fashioned' law and order.
Right, Bloke!

You will think differently when you need one some day....

I didn't say "string up ALL of them". The 5% that I would plan to leave would be the HONEST ones!

[iiipopes]

Thank you!