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.
I also shop at Whole Foods for certain items and I'm far from being a liberal! I also dislike this aspect of FR. That a few posters here believe it's ok to dis with blanket statements other members who have different views, tastes, habits, etc.
As for this employee who was fired...he was off the clock, but it doesn't specify as to what kind of break. Was it a 15 minute or lunch break? If it was a lunch break, then yes he was not an employee at that time. From what I've been told, in some states, employers are not required by law to give 15 minute breaks. If it was a 15 minute break, depending on the state, he was still technically "on the clock" and an employee at the time.
That is one shoplifter who better be glad the one threatened was you -- and not a licensed-to-carry citizen. His armed 'shoplifting' "career" would have come to an abrupt end...
Did he sell alewife?
The dude was off the clock when this happened, seems to me he was acting as a private citizen.
The next thing that popped out was the store manager and another employee “cornered” the shoplifter, which may have encouraged the off duty employee to do what he did.
IN any event, chasing after thiefs is always a bad idea and not the job af any employee except security personnel. Nothing but trouble there. If the business wants to catch them, have cameras installed so cops have a pic to go off of.
Oh, I paid attention; it’s just that the “better” tools out there still condone the behavior in the end. The only tool is each and every individual at the end of the day. I know you are trying to find away to mitigate the risk to ones self, but it still has the effect of condoning the behavior since it removes the individual as an influence at least in part or in whole depending on the tool. Freedom is not free nor are we free from everyday risks despite all the ways we try to prevent it. We have taken risk mitigation to levels that inhibit common sense whether by legal means or what is taught. We have yet to learn where one must stop and individual responsibility begins, and in essence we are trying to pursue utopia over reality. This is never good for society as it leads to an inevitable breakdown.
1 The guy was not an emplyee at the time he made the arrest. He had clocked out for a break and was acting as an ordinary citizen. So he has not broken the stores policy.
2. He was called by his manager to assist him. This cannot be used to say that he was at work as any citizen may have also responded to the managers call.
3 The manager had already grabbed the guy or had given intrcutions to grab the guy so in effect he had broken the sotres rules and had co-opted our ‘hero’ into helping him. If anyone should be fired it should be the manager.
4 The store does not have the right to sack someone for soemthing they did on their break unless they committed an offense under the law and the job requires the employee to have a clean criminal record.
5. Citizens right to arrest is a core right and may I say duty of a citizen of a country. If more people excercised this right we might have less kids growing up to be arseh*les.
Cheers
Mel
The sacked employee should take the store to court!
Albertson’s had a similar policy years ago. Saw a kid run out of the store with a case of beer and pointed it out to the clerk. He could not have cared less.
Mind if the cops don't chase anyone burglarizing your home? Someone may get hurt
If people steal your stuff, you kick their ass and get your stuff back. Period. You should have been more aware of your surroundings and lent a hand to the good guy chasing the thief.
Satisfied now?
Shoplifter makes off with $100-$1,000 worth of goods: It's a shame, but it's no real loss.
Shoplifter is injured during apprehension, sues retailer for $100,000-$1,000,000: Genuine loss.
Guess which scenario is more likely to raise prices, folks? In retail, it's ALL about profit and loss. Retailers expect, and even PLAN for, a certain amount of loss through sticky fingers, dishonest employees, mishandling of merchandise, etc. In the biz, it's known as "shrink." Most retailers keep their shrink to under 5% of their annual gross. One lawsuit could blow your entire annual profit. Retailers can make up for the loss in a number of ways:
>Cutback in payroll hours
>Staff layoffs
>Higher prices
>Store closure
Sure, the "hands off" policy sounds stupid. It goes against what most of us believe to be the correct course of action--righting a wrong as it is occurring. From a financial standpoint, however, the policy not only protects the retailer but also protects consumers from the higher prices which invariably follow a lawsuit.
I think it's stupid this guy lost his job, primarily because he was off the clock. He's a shoo-in for any security or assets protection job he might want, however.
They make better money than fishmongers, anyway.
Think about what you're suggesting. I wouldn't expect a salesfloor associate to know how to do a police officer's job any more than I would expect a police officer to know how to process inventory for the health and beauty department.
Yep, that makes sense, if every single retail associate is a moonlighting police officer.
Same here. I have been posting to FR for several years and have noticed a move by many to "dis" those they do not agree with on various issues.
I think Whole Foods has turned me into a coffee snob. I use their "365" brand of organic beans and get raves from everyone who drinks it on the great tasting coffee we serve. We have tried beans from various sources, including roasting and grinding our own from a mail order gourmet supplier, and nothing we have found can compare to these.
Dis them if you must but they are successful because
they have great selection and quality in all departments.
I wouldn’t buy everything there, but they do have quality stuff.
I'd do what I could to make your dream a reality, but I just don't care enough for tofu to steal it.
LOL! Well..., I wasn’t asking for that...
I work in such a place where self-defense is limited. We have have to pass through a card-activated vehicle gate, pedestrian gate, and 3 doors to get to our work station One of the doors requires the key card and a code for passage). The building has 24 hour guards. But there's a big fat sign on the front gate and all of the doors claiming the site to be "firearms-free" or some such nonsense. Even the guards don't carry a weapon.
Apparently, the facade of security is superior to real security.
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.