Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Store worker fired for grabbing shoplifter
Atlanta Journal-Constitution ^ | 12/29/07 | Dave Gershman

Posted on 12/29/2007 6:08:47 AM PST by madprof98

Ann Arbor, Mich. —- A grocery store worker says he lost his job after he tried to stop a shoplifter from making a getaway.

But the company says he went too far and violated a policy that prohibits employees from physically touching a customer —- even if that person is carrying a bag of stolen goods.

John Schultz, 35, of Ypsilanti Township, had worked at the Whole Foods Market store for five years, most recently as a fishmonger. He wants his job back.

"The fact that I worked at the store at [the time of the robbery] is coincidental," he said. "If I had went over to the bookstore on my break and they were being ripped off, I would have helped them."

Schultz says he had just punched out for a break at 7 p.m. on Sunday when he heard a commotion at the front door of the store. He said he came to the aid of the manager who yelled for help in stopping a shoplifter. Schultz, the manager and another employee cornered the shoplifter between two cars in the parking lot.

Schultz said he told the shoplifter he was making a citizen's arrest and to wait for the police to arrive, but the shoplifter broke away from the group and ran across the street toward a gas station.

Before the man could cross, Schultz caught up and grabbed the man's jacket and put his leg behind the man's legs. When the manager arrived at the intersection, Schultz said, the manager told him to release the shoplifter, and he complied.

Schultz said he was called to the store's office the next day, on Christmas Eve, and was fired because he violated a company policy prohibiting employees from having any physical contact with a customer.

Kate Klotz, a company spokeswoman, said the policy is clear and listed in a booklet that all employees have to acknowledge that they received before they can start work.

"The fact that he touched him, period, is means for termination," said Klotz.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-112 next last
The PC doctrine of nonjudgmentalism strikes again as a thief is transformed into a "customer." Figures it would be Whole Foods.
1 posted on 12/29/2007 6:08:48 AM PST by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: madprof98

I bet he was wearing a multicolored knit cap and had a goatee.


2 posted on 12/29/2007 6:11:00 AM PST by johniegrad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

I would wonder what the proof is that the thief was a customer? Did he have a store receipt?


3 posted on 12/29/2007 6:11:54 AM PST by stayathomemom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

The shoplifter was NOT a customer. He clearly violated the ‘custom’ of the economic exchange of value for value. He was a thief.


4 posted on 12/29/2007 6:12:15 AM PST by nonsporting
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: johniegrad

The thief or the fishmonger? (At Whole Foods, probably both.)


5 posted on 12/29/2007 6:12:15 AM PST by madprof98 ("moritur et ridet" - salvianus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

Meanwhile, the real customers pay for this stupidity in the form of higher prices. Why would anyone shop there?


6 posted on 12/29/2007 6:14:03 AM PST by LilAngel (FReeping on a cell phone is like making Christmas dinner in an Easy Bake Oven)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
The thief or the fishmonger?

Yes.

7 posted on 12/29/2007 6:14:47 AM PST by johniegrad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
working for Whole Foods would be like working for the DNCC branch of starbucks inside a borders bookstore... Just not a good “life choice”
8 posted on 12/29/2007 6:15:53 AM PST by xcamel (FDT/2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

Now Now, we can’t be hurting shoplifters’ feelings. It’s all Bush’s fault that they’re poor and have to steal. If only the government gave them a safety net...


9 posted on 12/29/2007 6:15:55 AM PST by varyouga ("Rove is some mysterious God of politics & mind control" - DU 10-24-06)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: varyouga

I was nearly killed in August by an employee trying to stop a shoplifter. I was walking PAST the store, when the shoplifter ran out. He plowed into me and threw me several feet, then the employee trying to stop him ran over me and I was tossed into a busy intersection. First time that I can recall that there were NO cars in that intersection! Thank you, Lord, or I’d have been killed. As it is, I spent some serious time recovering. I understand this policy and applaud it. DO NOT CHASE SHOPLIFTERS!


10 posted on 12/29/2007 6:19:56 AM PST by freepertoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

As much as I think this worker should not have lost his job, I still can’t help but wonder why someone would put his life on the line for such a job.


11 posted on 12/29/2007 6:19:57 AM PST by pnh102
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nonsporting
"The shoplifter was NOT a customer. He clearly violated the ‘custom’ of the economic exchange of value for value. He was a thief."

Precisely, hope he gets a better job and stops by for a visit to his former employer.

I know what I'd tell u'm.

12 posted on 12/29/2007 6:23:10 AM PST by #1CTYankee (That's right, I have no proof. So what of it??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
"But the company says he went too far and violated a policy that prohibits employees from physically touching a customer —- even if that person is carrying a bag of stolen goods."

First, a thief is not a "customer". Second, the employee is with his legal rights to apprehend said thief. Third, this policy will have the expected effect - many employees will remember this incident and will ignore acts of theft. Why bother doing anything about it when the store policy grants higher status to the thief than to the employee?

13 posted on 12/29/2007 6:29:02 AM PST by meyer (Illegal Immigration - The profits are privatized, the costs are socialized.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
He said he came to the aid of the manager who yelled for help in stopping a shoplifter.

The companany can't have it both ways.

It cannot have company management "yelling for help in stopping a shoplifter" and then firing the employee who responds to that request because the employee did not make the mental leap that the company would still consider a shoplifter a "customer".

14 posted on 12/29/2007 6:30:40 AM PST by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepertoo

Good reason for a no chase policy for police too.


15 posted on 12/29/2007 6:34:32 AM PST by Balding_Eagle (If America falls, darkness will cover the face of the earth for a thousand years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
I would assume the policy is in place to prevent lawsuits against the store. It's fairly wise...why risk injuring a shoplifter who might have at most a few hundred bucks worth of merchandise versus having him sue you for thousands or millions?

Reform the legal system and make it so people in acts of crime can't sue and this too would go away.

16 posted on 12/29/2007 6:35:02 AM PST by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
"The fact that he touched him, period, is means for termination," said Klotz.

Ah, Mr. Klotz, you will eat those words. Better learn a little about the political/PR side of your job. Firing an employee on Christmas Eve for being a good Samaritan, well....good luck with that.

17 posted on 12/29/2007 6:35:09 AM PST by randog (What the...?!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nonsporting
The shoplifter was NOT a customer.

Couldn't you argue it the other way too? He punched out, so technically he wasn't an employee at the time.

To argue that the company can control your conduct 24-7, even off-work, is equivalent to slavery.
18 posted on 12/29/2007 6:39:42 AM PST by canuck_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
Kate Klotz

Ya can't make this stuff up.

19 posted on 12/29/2007 6:40:11 AM PST by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

Wow, a story like this is enough to make an honest person consider shoplifting...


20 posted on 12/29/2007 6:44:21 AM PST by cake_crumb (Merry Christmas to all, wherever you are; God bless our troops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-112 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson