It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Grocery Store Employee Catches Purse Snatcher, Gets Fired

page: 1
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   
I saw this story on CNN earlier today, and it just made me sick:


Talk about corporate inflexibility. File this under "And this is the thanks I get?"

A produce manager at a Randalls grocery story in Texas was just back from lunch last week when he heard a female customer screaming at the deli counter. Someone had just grabbed her purse and headed out the door.

The manager immediately followed in hot pursuit, finally catching up to the perp a half-mile away. The purse, and all its contents, were retrieved.

The next day, the company's "loss prevention unit" showed up and suspended our hero without pay. He was ultimately fired over the incident. His wife and son hope he finds work soon.

Source.

Just another ploy being used by the Corporatocracy to wittle away the final sense of community amongst us. If we don't stand up to these Corporations, we will have no one but ourselves to blame once we are completely enslaved by them.

I guess that doing the right thing isn't always the right thing to do...

If this has you P.O.ed as much as it has me, feel free to express your opinion at Randalls.com




posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   
I wish I lived near a Randalls so I could boycott them.

Absolutely disgusting, I wonder how the woman who was robbed feels about this? That thief will most likely try that same # in Randalls the next time he wants a quick fix, because now the employees will be too afraid to do anything about it unless they want to lose their jobs.

Yes everyone, we are being conditioned to just give in. The corporations cannot afford the lawsuits, and your personal belongings are of no worth to them. Just let the robbers take whatever they want.

Liability issues and frivolous lawsuits are destroying this country.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   
This is similar to the story I read a few years ago, except it involved a Loss Prevention Manager who instead of doing his job, tended to the produce department all day because he was a vegetarian and had an extreme desire to make the produce look nice and moist.

The simple fact is that we get hired on to do a job. Don't do it, and you can be fired.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by 1st Person Conspiracy
 


So you would not want your employees to do the right thing.

Everything must follow the S.O.P.?



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   
How the hell can he be fired anyway? Is there a possibility that he could sue over unlawful termination or something? The company has to have a legimate reason to fire someone right? And wasn't he technically still on his lunch hour also?



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


A lot of the time when you start a job you sign a little piece of paper that says they can fire you for no reason what so ever. I know not all states have at will clauses but a good many do.

However, I think this person should be recognized not punished for his actions.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by 1st Person Conspiracy
 


So you would not want your employees to do the right thing.

Everything must follow the S.O.P.?


According to you, the "right thing" here is to to risk your life chasing a person who may or may not have a weapon and intend to use it on you and also risk the livelihood of your wife and son by your death or injury for a strangers purse, which contains items unknown?

That wouldn't be the right thing; it would be the idiotic thing.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Hypntick
 


I for one would never sign a contract like that. I thought in US job security was a big deal but if you can bypass it with a simple contract like that then I guess I was wrong.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   
I'm thinking that this was on CNN and local news this guy is going to be hailed a hero and the locals will take care of the rest. This is getting attention and it will look really bad for the grocery store.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by 1st Person Conspiracy
 


I wonder how you would feel if three guys where beating the living bejeesus out of you and ten others stood around and let them because they aren't allowed to intervene! You show in your post why there are so many cowards in this world. They might get hurt so let someone else get hurt so you don't. A very sickening point of view you have there amigo!!

Zindo



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 08:17 PM
link   
People think I'm nuts because of my extreme hatred of the corporation. This shows I'm not nuts.

I once got in trouble for telling the bosses at a supermarket that we were getting ripped off by certain customers. They were stealing and I got in trouble and was told to mind my own business. I'm supposed to put up with this crap for a wage that's barely livable?

I hope this guys sues. He should get a freakin medal for helping out and he gets fired. There has got to be some type of Pythonesque logic to that.

Bring down the corporation, I say. To hell with them all.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
reply to post by 1st Person Conspiracy
 


I wonder how you would feel if three guys where beating the living bejeesus out of you and ten others stood around and let them because they aren't allowed to intervene! You show in your post why there are so many cowards in this world. They might get hurt so let someone else get hurt so you don't. A very sickening point of view you have there amigo!!

Zindo


Would you give the exact same sentence for purse snatching as you would for gang battery? If not then why are you even comparing these to disparate situations? You might as well compare riding a bicycle to driving 250+ in a racecar with 9 other people inside.

Beyond that, what I said has nothing to do with being "allowed" to do anything. There is a point where you have to calculate the risk factor in a situation when performing an action. This is generally called a cost/benefit analysis.

When you have a wife and a child who depend on you as this man did, it's called responsibility. Apparently you don't have it. Apparently, you would risk your life and leave your wife and family behind just to retrieve a stranger's purse.

I call your type of thinking "Citizen Hero Social Darwinism."

I'm sure your family would really appreciate it if you died chasing down a purse snatcher.

Your mind might be this clouded: Your husband or wife got shot and killed, trying to get someones purse back from a snatcher. The purse had lipstick, a tampon, $25, cigs, lighter, grocery list, and a myraid of feminine products. Total value: $76.85.

Your response: She died a hero!

------

Now, are you really that clouded?



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
reply to post by 1st Person Conspiracy
 


I wonder how you would feel if three guys where beating the living bejeesus out of you and ten others stood around and let them because they aren't allowed to intervene! You show in your post why there are so many cowards in this world. They might get hurt so let someone else get hurt so you don't. A very sickening point of view you have there amigo!!

Zindo


Since you want to inflate the situation into another realm, I'll deflate it into another dimension:

I wonder how you would feel if purse snatcher pick pocketed her purse and took a tissue and then ran off while the women was screaming?

... and then:

I wonder how you would feel when you returned the tissue to the woman saying, "Not to worry ma'am, I've retrieved your tissue!"



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1st Person Conspiracy

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by 1st Person Conspiracy
 


So you would not want your employees to do the right thing.

Everything must follow the S.O.P.?


According to you, the "right thing" here is to to risk your life chasing a person who may or may not have a weapon and intend to use it on you and also risk the livelihood of your wife and son by your death or injury for a strangers purse, which contains items unknown?

. . . .


That is absolutely correct!

We have a winner!

What is the saying . . . evil thrives when good men do nothing.





[edit on 7/28/2009 by Lemon.Fresh]



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

Originally posted by 1st Person Conspiracy

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by 1st Person Conspiracy
 


So you would not want your employees to do the right thing.

Everything must follow the S.O.P.?


According to you, the "right thing" here is to to risk your life chasing a person who may or may not have a weapon and intend to use it on you and also risk the livelihood of your wife and son by your death or injury for a strangers purse, which contains items unknown?

. . . .


That is absolutely correct!

We have a winner!

What is the saying . . . evil thrives when good men do nothing.



[edit on 7/28/2009 by Lemon.Fresh]

So then, let's get this this straight:

The good thing is:
Getting shot running after a purse worth $80 dollars

The bad/coward thing is:
Thinking of your wife and family.

I think I get it now: You should risk your life and family on a whim, for anything in particular that happens as long as you deem it to be evil?

Is this right?



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1st Person Conspiracy
The good thing is:
Getting shot running after a purse worth $80 dollars

The bad/coward thing is:
Thinking of your wife and family.


So what you're basically saying is Randall's fired this man because he risked his life to help a stranger, and by firing him, they are teaching him a lesson to put more importance on his wife and family?

Well, how thoughtful of them! I'm not sure who gave corporations the right to decide what people can and can't do in their lives, but with your logic, they certainly are the rightful owner of that right!

He did nothing wrong and should not have been fired. I hope he sues Randall's for unlawful termination and gets every cent of lost wage and every ounce of recognition that he deserves.

In the meantime, as I live in the Houston area, I will be sure to not buy anything from Randall's.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   
I thought it blatantly obvious why they fired him...he should have been manning HIS counter, not leaving it unattended!

I mean how many cabbages went missing while he was out for a jaunt???

Plus his actions were outside of his job description and actually impinged on those of someone else employed for that particular role.

Now if that purse snatcher had grabbed a couple of melons, it might have been a different story


People, we must all learn to follow protocol!



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 

There is a good reason why companies increasingly have fired employees for intervening in crimes and it relates to insurance premiums. Getting into a conflict is a very good way to be injured or killed, the same reason stores train employees not to confront robbers. I spent most of last week in a murder trial where a young man fired a shot at a convenience store clerk to "act like a gangbanger" and wound up murdering a man by accident. In the many years I workied in retail I saw several instances where a thief beat the living s--t out of an employee.

That being said, they need to rehire this man.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi

Originally posted by 1st Person Conspiracy
The good thing is:
Getting shot running after a purse worth $80 dollars

The bad/coward thing is:
Thinking of your wife and family.


So what you're basically saying is Randall's fired this man because he risked his life to help a stranger, and by firing him, they are teaching him a lesson to put more importance on his wife and family?


You are missing the point entirely. This has nothing to do with the relationship between the man and his work place. I'm simply talking about the relationship between the man and his family.



Well, how thoughtful of them! I'm not sure who gave corporations the right to decide what people can and can't do in their lives, but with your logic, they certainly are the rightful owner of that right!


Doesn't apply.


He did nothing wrong and should not have been fired. I hope he sues Randall's for unlawful termination and gets every cent of lost wage and every ounce of recognition that he deserves.


He did nothing wrong because he didn't get injured. If he had got shot and you asked his wife if he did anything wrong... or his kid if he did anything wrong, you'd either get the brainwashed "hero" propaganda that you guys are spouting or you'd get the truth.



In the meantime, as I live in the Houston area, I will be sure to not buy anything from Randall's.


... and you'll just be buying from some other store that prohibits exactly what this man did.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Thank the insurance industry for this one.

By having this pledge to not interfere with any robbery attempts spelled out in employee handbooks, and signed by the employees, insurance companies have covered their backsides.

In return, companies pay cheaper premiums for coverage, however, must show that they are enforcing this policy, as well as many others, all for the good of the insurance companies.

I was a manager for a nationwide bar and grill that had delicious and wild wings, and we signed this policy, as well as every other employee.

In three years, two managers were terminated for doing this very thing.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join