The Way I See It -- Walgreens Fires Employee Who Fires

This commentary refers to the following story:

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/fired-walgreens-gun-toting-michigan-pharmacist-filled-robbers/story?id=13705438

I feel there is always something wrong when an employee cannot defend him/herself in a possible life-threatening situation.  I don’t know of any employee handbook that says that “just stand there, get shot, and die”.  Certainly, nobody would ever in their right mind ever say that because it is stupid policy, yet this is exactly the way most businesses operate.

What bothers me the most is that Mr. Hoven could have any sort of weapon be used to attack the would-be robbers, not just the concealed weapon he was carrying.  He could have had a baseball bat, a knife, a can of mace, a large rock, or any of hundreds of various items to use against the attackers.  Sadly, the unappreciative Walgreens decided to turn this hero into a poster child of doing the wrong thing.  The problem is he saved to employees from getting shot themselves and yet company policy states that you can’t carry a concealed weapon.  Sadly, this is where logic and policy collide.  Not in a good way either.  How would Walgreens have explained to Mr. Hoven’s family that he got killed because he didn’t defend himself when he could have done so?  Certainly, blood would be on the hands of Walgreens along multi-million dollar lawsuits.  It is natural for anybody to defend themselves (if they can) when being attacked. Anybody would have to be stupid otherwise in not doing so.  And this is where policies are not only bad, but really wrong.

Apparently, most policy makers are lawyers who sit isolated from reality and have no clue on what life is outside their little boxes.  Policies are meant to be BROKEN WHEN NEEDED!!  Not every policy should ever be followed to the letter, otherwise most people would be unemployed within a couple of weeks of being hired..

Here is what Walgreens should have done:  Mr. Hoven should have been spoken to about what he did and explain what the consequences of what he did.  He should neither have been fired nor been put on any sort of suspension.  He saved people’s lives—he should have been commended for that, not condemned.  I hope that Mr. Hoven wins his case against them for their foolish termination.

The reason why I bring up this story is that over the years I have been the victim of crimes at each of the three companies I have worked for..and one of them regards a life-threatening incident, which I will describe all of them in a future post.  In all of those cases of mine, policy was violated and I became the victim with no recourse.  Certainly in my cases, a different result would have come if the companies paid attention and showed compassion not ignorance, but what can be expected from stupid companies anyway?  And that is the way I see it…

The First Day (Wish It Was The Last?)

Like any job, the first day is usually the do or die feeling.  The feeling of being overwhelmed by the amount of material that a new employee is presented with can be daunting.  Many potential employees don’t survive even that first day after finding out what everything is all about.  I can’t blame them—it is hard sometimes.

Besides what appears to be an endless slew of paperwork to fill out, there is the notorious training videos to watch.  Way back in the days of Woolworth, the videos were on VCR tapes and there were not that many of them.  Short and sweet training this way..done in a couple of hours.  Same was true with HQ because they really didn’t care anyway.

Staples was a very different story.  It seems that there was endless videos to watch.  Some were on videotapes, others were on CDs.  A full 8 hours was needed to get through it all and even then all the training was not completed.  It would take another 2 to 3 weeks to complete all the required training to be considered fully trained.  The biggest difference between Staples training and everybody else’s was that Staples training was interactive.  This meant no sleeping or “ho-hum wake me when its over” training.  The biggest problem with Staples’ interactive training is that many of their so-called quizzes resulted in the old “ask a question and have no right answer there”.  This made taking quizzes almost impossible.  In fact, a couple of quizzes actually had to be purposely helped by management because they were absolutely impossible to pass otherwise.  I think this was intentional just to discourage employees and make things they want to learn confusing and incomprehensible.

One such video that is now part of the orientation is this one:  It was done as part of a store meeting in 2005 and made many people angry:

Originally distributed to store meetings in 2005

I think its interesting that someone actually was able to film this without getting caught or be fired for posting it. Thanks to the anonymous donor for the link to this video.  It should also be noted that many other retailers have videos similar to this, but the message is clear. STAPLES HATES UNIONS AND DON’T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT OR ELSE!!  Sounds like thug retailing to me…more on that attitude in future posts…

Next up:   Dressing for the Role

The Way I See It – Obama and LePage Got It Wrong

After hearing President Obama’s jobs speech last week, I came to the conclusion that he is going about this whole thing the wrong way.  Certainly, one could play a great drinking game every time Obama said “Pass This Bill”, but the real problem is not lowering corporate taxes, but increasing them.  Yes, we need to take money away from big companies that have been hoarding money and taking it overseas.  The government should be punishing companies for not hiring and only lower taxes when they REALLY hire the unemployed. 

Extending unemployment benefits won’t fix anything either, as states like Maine top out benefits at 72 weeks.  It would not matter if Obama extended the benefits forever, they will still limit them to 72 weeks.  So people who really need help will never get it and would just be more tax dollars wasted.

Cities and towns should also stop giving tax breaks to big businesses as they take their money out of the country and contribute nothing to local economies.  Since most employees live out of the towns in which businesses are in, they don’t help town economies either.  So lets end the corporate welfare and raise those taxes and punish big business once and for all..!!

As far as LePage goes, he states that Maine has only 24,000 unemployed and 21,000 job openings.  Sadly, he is once again, misinformed about both numbers.  The last state statistics say that over 50,000 people are unemployed and possibly more jobs are available (or possibly even less depending on how often job banks are updated.  It is sad that LePage thinks that training is all that is needed to produce a fix to this odd game of musical chairs. If LePage was really thinking (I have previously stated that he doesn’t), he never would have painted this fake rosy picture. 

I am hoping that Obama’s job bill fails and LePage stop saying stupid things, but hey 1 out of 2 wouldn’t be completely bad.  And that’s the way I see it.

Searching For That Job

Way back in 1988, I needed to find a job.  I was a college student, who had run out of student loans and had to drop down to a part-time basis in college to afford my ways.  So I decided to look for a job.  Back then, there were many choices:  bookstores, many stores at the mall, and now defunct stores of Lechmere and Ames.  I had decided to work at Woolworth at the mall.  I figured I had a better chance here than any place else, because my father knew the manager Bernie.  The interesting thing was that I got hired on my birthday.  What a wonderful birthday present, I thought.  A FULL-TIME JOB WITH BENEFITS!!  A rarity in today's job market.

Getting hired at HQ was almost as easy, because this company was desperate.  They needed help to keep their full-timers from getting overtime.  I barely had my application submitted and got home when I got a phone call from them wanting to interview me.

Staples, however, was a different story.  I submitted my first application with them shortly after I got the boot from Woolworth.  Heard nothing at that point, but didn't care because I had the job a couple months after at HQ.  After the job at HQ disappeared, I submitted another application to Staples and this time I had my meal ticket.  The person who took my application was a former employee at Woolworth who knew me quite well and was able to get me an interview.  This proves the point that you really need to know someone to get in the door of any company.  About a week later, I got the job.  Ironically, about 6 months after I was employed there, I was told that they didn't have my application on-file and wanted me to fill out a new one for the record.  Was this a warning of things to come?  Maybe it was....

One thing I want to mention is that in all 3 of these jobs, they all had paper applications in which to apply for the job.  Unlike today, where most jobs are applied for online and you are blindly submitting somewhere out there.  Not only that, but with today's Internet applications, the companies can ask quiz type questions to test your knowledge of various things.  One application I filled out a few months ago had 200(!) questions on it besides the standard application items.  This probably all adds up to the fact that I am not currently employed.  Some computer "sees" I am unemployed and for how long, then sees my answers to their endless questions, then says "REJECT" and I never hear from them.  Welcome to the 21st century of hiring...or not hiring as the case may be.....


Up Next:  The First Day (Wish It Was The Last?)

The Way I See It: EEOC vs. Kohl's

This commentary refers to the following story:
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/eeoc-sues-kohl-s-department-stores-disability-discrimination

I need to write about this lawsuit as my own interactions with the EEOC is less desirable and somewhat hilariously sad. I will describe my own experience with them in a future post.

First, let me say that the EEOC is a clueless government agency, that picks its fights by levels of stupidity.  This case ranks near the top of the stupidity meter, even though it feels like a "legitamite" case.  So, who will win this lawsuit?  Drum roll, please...

The winner will be Kohl's (or even better, be dismissed).   Here's my reasons why:

1:  It is not stated whether Ms. Manning was either a full-time or part-time employee.  If she was just a part-time employee, then Kohl's (nor any other employer) obligated to give her a set schedule.  They may have guidelines and time frames for part-timers, but like most companies part-time scheduling are not set in stone.  If she was a full-timer, then Ms. Manning may have a little bit more to support her case, but then again full-timers sometimes have their schedules changed if given prior advanced warning.  Many companies also have rotating schedules which Ms. Manning didn't like or didn't want.  Many companies also go by seniority when scheduling as well, even if someone transfers in from another location, those people are given seniority and given priority scheduling.  Also, no mention is given to what Ms. Manning availability was when she originally applied for when she was hired.  If Kohl's didn't like her availability, then they should not have even bothered interviewing her in the first place.

2:  Ms. Manning also claims that the change of hours created a "life-threatening condition".  Oh, please.  Ms. Manning, there are thousands of people who work in various jobs many more times stressful than working at Kohl's and have diabetes and aren't complaining.  Seriously, unless the store is having Ms. Manning land 747s in the parking lot, I can't think of any position that would be that stressful.  I think the most stressful thing about her diabetes that Ms. Manning should worry about is looking like Wilford Brimley with his big walrus mustache in her old age.

3:  Ms. Manning also states that she had discussed her problem with her manager orally.  Huge mistake there.  Anybody who has worked in any job that telling a manager anything will be the same as talking to a brick wall -- they never listen -- NEVER!!  Unless, you have something in writing it means nothing.  As far as the managers laughing at her, I am not surprised, but I expect them to deny it in writing.  Managers will always deny everything even if its in writing (a future post by me will affirm that one).  As far as bringing in a note, the manager can just deny he/she ever saw it and could also deny that any conversation ever happened.

4:  As far as accommodating other employees, more than likely they probably were accommodated for a once-in-a-while time not a permanent need. This is a huge difference because managers don't want to deal with disabilities in the workplace.  Yes, I said it.  They will do anything to eliminate employees with disabilities including lying to either get an employee to quit or eventually get fired, as was my case.

If Ms. Manning's illness was so life-threatening, why did she bother to continue to work?  It seems to me that there is a lot more to this story then what has been revealed.  I don't ever expect Ms. Manning will ever see one red cent, because the company's managers would be in denial of everything and consider Ms. Manning a problem employee.  It was this type of spinning of the facts that got me terminated from Staples.  Ms. Manning should just walk away from this whole situation and hope that she has not been black-listed by Kohl's as I was from Staples.

As far as Kohl's changing their ways and improve training to managers and employees, I highly doubt that this would EVER happen in a million years.  Companies would rather just not hire problem employees than suffer the consequences of hiring a problem potential employee.  There are way to many people looking for work that would be suited for Ms. Manning's position and never create a problem.