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. 

And the Rest Here on Retail Island!

Besides the Store Managers and Assistant Store Managers, there are the others who play parts in the survival (or ultimate end) to employees and companies in general. Here are most of them:

Assistant Managers:


Back in the days of Woolworth's, these managers were usually hired at store level by the Store Manager.  This created the perfect opportunity for people like Bernie to stack the deck with his drinking buddies.  That is exactly what he did.  Sad to say that if you ever had a problem with any of them, the only person you could see was the person who was Human Resources (or what we called Personnel).  In fact at one point I actually had to do this when one of the managers decided one day to do physical harm to me.  As would be expected, they denied harming me even though I was pain for weeks.  Most managers, however, were good-natured and worked well with other employees.

At HQ, I never met anyone who was assistant manager and maybe that was a good thing given that the other managers weren't so hot either.

At Staples, assistant managers were burned through like red shirt crew members on "Star Trek".  Sadly, nobody really stayed long enough in the 2 to 3 open positions to really get attached to.

Sales Manager


This position didn't exist at either Woolworth or HQ.  Smart move for them.

At Staples, however, this became the position that nobody ever really wanted and it was obvious.  To bare the brunt of bad news or being the happy recipient of how well the store was doing was probably the most stressful position in the entire store.  Sadly, I saw this position replaced about 5 different times at least during my 12+ years with the company.

Ironically, I have seen this position up for grabs 3 times in the last 9 months as it has been advertised as part of the State of Maine Career Center job listings that I subscribe to.  I have been tempted to send out an application to this job just to irritate the company just for the fun of it.  I believe that very rarely does Staples advertise through state jobs boards, so they must be extremely desperate to hire someone for this undesirable position.

Personnel/Human Resources


No matter what you call this position, it is necessary to have someone in the store to have this position.  They help with just about any problem you may have even if it is with other managers, at least that's what the concept should be.

Woolworth had the position nailed correctly.  During my employment there, someone actually was personnel and performed scheduling, worked to help out employees, and most importantly was there TO LISTEN!!

HQ had a personnel person and during my seven weeks there, it became apparent that she had been overwhelmed with the problems in the store.  The feeling was basically hope for the best, but don't expect results.

When I first started at Staples, they actually had a personnel person.  Her name was Nikki and she was a very nice person.  She did well getting me in the door and getting me prepped for what would come in my career with them.  Sadly, after about 6 months, her position was eliminated from the company and from that point forward Human Resources (as they called it) was either a manager on-duty or a phone call to home office in Massachusetts.  This really presented many problems as the fact that you could not talk to a manager if they were the problem in the first place and calling Home Office was like calling an uninterested party.  About 2 years into my employment with Staples, they had introduced another useless option of getting help.  It was a group of psychiatrists who worked for Staples that you could call by phoning an 800 number.  Well, one Sunday afternoon, I called and got the response "Sorry, we are closed. Please call again between 9am and 5pm Monday through Friday. If you need help otherwise, please dial 911 to get further assistance"

"Hello, 911 .. My manager is a jerk. I was told to call this number because the company that my employer hired to assist in our problems isn't open on weekend and the answering system said to call you instead.  Hopefully, you can help me"  Of course, I never said that, but maybe it would have been hilarious if I had done so.

Front-End Supervisors


The front-end supervisor (or front-end babysitter, as I like to call it) is the best friend that any cashier can ever have.  I always got along with everyone in that position and I feel they were my friend.  I have my own emotional attachment to the position as I was one for nearly 2 years at Woolworth under Bernie's evil reign.  Certainly the position at Woolworth meant standing at the front of the store and usually chatting with the young (mostly) female cashiers.  There was much downtime there and not much to do.  So the money was easy and not very stressful.  Until, of course, the weekend came and back-to-school season was the thing.  This was when all 8 registers at the front end were ringing and the little desk bells at each register rang off like a song constantly (cashiers are never satisfied).

At HQ, the front-end supervisors varied greatly.  One was a very nice young lady (about half my age unfortunately) and the other was an old man who used to work as a manager at the local grocery store and was always a mean person.  I could not wait to leave this company after 7 weeks given the type of treatment that I got from this jerk.

At Staples in the beginning, we actually had someone who had the title of "front end supervisor".  She was a very nice lady and stayed in the position for about 3 years.  She did not leave by choice, the position was eliminated completely in the company.  For the next year approximately, managers took turns playing front-end manager and reluctantly.  Sometimes, there lack of speed kept customers waiting for up to 20 minutes for them to respond to the cashiers.  They usually were responsible at times for the whole store especially at night which accounts for their tardiness.

About 4 years into my time with Staples, they introduced the C.S.L. (Customer Service Lead).  This new position were basically the former front-end manager position without the manager key-holder training (a manager never-will-be position).  While this position was only held by only one person in the store, it was apparent that this person could be considered overworked because nobody cared about how well they performed.  I always found it interesting that I was never offered the position given that I had previous supervisor experience, but then again we are talking Staples here--home of the stupid.

Up Next:  Searching For That Job

The Way I See It: Department of Health and Human Services Video

First, let me say that I have not nor will I waste time watching the DHHS videos.  I am more disturbed over the fact that Mr. LePage says that the "interviewer was not properly trained".  I believe that no matter how much training you have or how many years you have worked in a job, there is ALWAYS the chance that someone will try and get away with something.  In the 20+ years I worked in retail, I occasionally had people who tried to pull a "fast one" on me.  Sadly, no matter how much training you have, the unexpected can always happen.  What makes this worse is that this was a setup, complete with a hidden video camera.  To blame the employee in this case is stupid and Mr. LePage should know this.  However, given his background as manager of Marden's stores, he proved his incompetence as both a governor and representative of the state...again.  Sadly, Mr. LePage (and I will not address him as governor because he is NOT my governor - I did not vote for him and never would) thinks that his "experience" as a store manager gave him all the training he needed as governor.


Well, Mr. LePage, you are sadly mistaken, just like all the other retail managers I have worked with and known over the years.  If anything, you fooled 39% of the voting people last year who voted you as governor, the other 61% knew better.  I wonder if that person who was the client was one of the 61%..my guess would be yes.  


As far as the incompetency of the DHHS employee, I would say they were probably very capable in their job, unlike the governor.  As I will explain in a future post, I believe scammers are more of the norm not the exception


So, in conclusion, Mr. LePage, unless you personally know the DHHS employee, you are best not to say anything at all rather than insult them as I can speak from personal experience. Better yet, just shut up for the next 4 years and accept your one-term (or shorter) life as governor.


And that is the way I see it...