R.Ph fired for legally carrying

I didn't realize it had anything to do with being gun advocate/NRA lifetime member/Etc... or not. Mea culpa. ;)

LOL, you think being a gun advocate or NRA lifetime member or some such non-business-related title is going to have anything to do with a company letting folks carry at work? Companies don't care about such ancillary things anymore more than they care if you are a cake baking champ at the state fair. They aren't going to change a policy for you.

Now don't get your knickers in a wad. I was seriously trying to help you with your goal of comprising a list of pro-gun companies for which to work and not trying to usurp your authority in cheering on the development of such a list. Virtually nobody is going to find said list in this tangental thread. That is why you have a whole, count them, 2 listings thus far.

If you don't start a new thread on the topic, nobody is going to know that you are soliciting such information and the response in this thread, which has nothing to actually do with the fired pharmacy employee in the actual OP, will be rather anemic.

Of course if you want a lackluster pitiful response, then don't.
 
Fight!

Naw, I hear you Doublenaught, all true. It was just a question/conversation that I already know the answer to. Even gun advocates bow to their lawyers and insurance companies on such matters, and it's understandable. Such is life.
 
When do the actions of the company/entity in question begin to build a case of culpability or liability if an employee is harmed in an event such as a robbery?

You could do an entire law school semester on that topic and still have no clear answer.
Click to expand...

It should not take a semester since the law is pretty clear about liability for the illegal actions of third parties.

Reasonable care.
 
walgreens pharmacist fired for thwarting armed robbery with legal CCW

http://www.wgntv.com/news/wgntv-man-fired-by-walgreens-sept9,0,4169314.story

notice the comments at the end of the story: the first one lists a website URL for the Long Island pharmacy murders earlier this year. The link I posted above is from current news. I wasn't sure whether or not to post this in legal/civil forum(please move if necessary & thank you), and basically I am typing more and more just trying to avoid a driveby:Djust kidding!

No, in all seriousness, I back this guy 100 percent!! Having corporations, policies, and laws are one thing, but society still needs a place for basic common sense in my opinion! One far off example was the travesty that young kids faced during the Industrial Revolution where again corporations could basically get away with 'murder' in the workplace. Something needs to be done to protect this man and others like him who are law-abiding and need their careers(not jobs) to care for their families just like how something was done to protect workers way back when. Getting fired can drastically affect someone's future, not to mention the retirement this man hoped to have thru Walgreens someday. This is another example in my opinion of how the 2nd amendment rights of Americans can be taken away from us wrongfully. I always go to Walgreens; it is our pharmacy of choice with the rewards program, quick service, etc, but this kind of thing is making me upset there is no barf icon anymore so I guess I'll just go wide eyed instead:eek:! This whole thing is just inherently wrong to me. I'm hoping for more insights from fellow TFL Members.
 
Walgreens has a history of firing their employees over this.

Anyone remember what happened at the Walgreen's In Benton Harbor Michigan (xxxx edited xxxxx)?

same thing, and the worker got fired. I no longer shop at walgreens. I go to CVS now lol
 
Last edited by a moderator:
While I disagree with not letting employees carry legally, if he actually violated company policy that he knew about before he carried, then its kinda his fault. If I walk into an establishment that says no carrying guns, and I get busted, it's my fault. Is it actually company policy or are they lying about that as well? Do I agree with not letting employees carry on the night shift, especially after being robbed? No. I also think it is asinine for a state to assume that I am responsible enough to be issued a carry permit , but just not responsible to carry everywhere. Anyway,with the lie they did tell that there was no robbery attempt, and their policy of not supporting the right to carry, I will no longer do business with them. Not because he was fired though.
 
Yep, it's an update on the Benton Harbor, Michigan case, which has been under discussion here for a couple of months.

So, I'm going to merge the two threads this the news article seems to be an update.

Threads successfully merged.
 
Having corporations, policies, and laws are one thing, but society still needs a place for basic common sense in my opinion!
Click to expand...

And like your child labor of the industrial revolution example, the only way this guy is going to win is if the policy of Walgreens is found to be wrongful at some level, but thusfar, winning of such suits have been exceptionally rare.

So, lets say you the employee pull a gun and shoot a Goblin. Right or wrong there is the potential for a lawsuit. You are an agent for the Corporation and now the Corporation is liable. Lawsuits cost money, and since all Goblins have grieving relatives, any settlement will be big. Payouts decrease profits.
Click to expand...

I think the only way corporations are going to be willing to commonly allow people to have firearms is when the law changes such that the corporation is no longer responsible for the employees' actions while they are on the clock.

A Corporation exists solely to maximize profit. Profit now, not profit later.
Click to expand...

Corporations are profit oriented, no doubt, but they are not all "profit now" companies. First of all, you have not-for-profit corporations. You have startup and developmental corportations that don't expect to see profits for months or years, if ever (many pharmaceutical companies fall under this umbrella, such as Reatta that hasn't turned a profit since startup in 2002 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reata_Pharmaceuticals), and you have companies that are always working on long term or distant future developments, things costing them quite heavily now that don't make profits now that do so in hopes of having profits in the future.

Generally speaking, companies that live for profit now usually fail to have a sufficient business plan to allow for profit later and often die.
 
Last edited:
they need to make a law that supercedes company policy. If it takes making the corporation not responsible for the employee thru a waiver, then so-be-it. These guys work long hours dealing with the handling of numerous narcotics in abundance. THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO PROTECT THEMSELVES!! Same goes for convient store workers as far as I am concerned
 
Can we cease with the CAPs? We get the point.

BTW, the nonprofits also have the same liability concerns and analysis of costs. Universities have the same policies and reasons.

Another debate, yet again, over employer / property rights over the rights of the employee. My view is that civil rights (which should include self-protection) trump the former. It should be enacted into law. Of course, since government is a tool of money in the past and now - don't hold your breath.

It takes effort. Business put out a full court press to stop the parking lot bill in TX.
 
The business owners represent deep pockets.

If an employee uses a gun and another customer is injured, who do you think is going to be on the short list for the lawsuit?

The business owner most likely has far more money than the employee.

It comes down to liability.
The owners of the business is only required to take 'reasonable precautions' and cannot be held responsible if a robber shoots a customer, unlike if an employee does by accident.
 
1: Concealed means concealed. No one will know you have a gun unless you have to use it.

2: It is probably a good idea to carry if working in a high risk of robbery job. Working in a high rise office with limited access probably does not qualify as high risk, nor would a department store. However a drug store would qualify.

3: In the end there are two choices: One is follow the employers rules, get robbed/ threatened with a gun/ get shot. And the other is carry concealed, risk getting caught, get threatened at gun point, live to tell the tale, get fired.


If I was the R PH guy and was looking for a job after getting fired, I'd make it known that had he not had a gun, he would likely not be looking for a job. He also would not likely be able to wake up and go to a job either. . . .
 
Just an interesting story relevant to this discussion.

My son worked for a "financial" institution locally, while waiting to enter the US Army after he graduated from college.

They prohibited concealed carry at work. Later on he was asked to do "field calls" to those who had defaulted on their loans (you can see what kind of financial institution this was) and his supervisor asked him if he had a CCW (which he has) and then advised him to carry! :eek:

I thought the double standard pretty funny but he did carry and one of the "customers" he visited in some trailer park threatened to turn his pit bull loose on him. He didn't do it but my son said he was very glad he was armed when the guy made the threat.

I think he might find the Army less dangerous than his last job!:rolleyes:
 
Nice to know that american (spelled with lowercase on purpose) companies value their money WWAAYYY more than they value your life. Sad but true.
 
In some cases, if an employer bans carry - under local laws, carrying can be breaking the law. Thus, do not suggest concealed means concealed as a blanket statement. Nor can we recommend you take a risk of losing your job.

Anybody notice that the employment situation is in the toilet.

Cliches don't help many folks. Be reasoned in your approach.
 
Concealed means concealed. No one will know you have a gun unless you have to use it.
Click to expand...

Try that while working at a power plant............That cliched statement really is getting old, is meaningless and condones behavior that could get someone a long stint in prison in the wrong instance - it ranks right up there with "What part of shall not be infringed" in the same idiotic vein
 
they need to make a law that supercedes company policy. If it takes making the corporation not responsible for the employee thru a waiver, then so-be-it. These guys work long hours dealing with the handling of numerous narcotics in abundance. THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO PROTECT THEMSELVES!! Same goes for convient store workers as far as I am concerned
Click to expand...

As brickeye pointed out quite correctly...
And the employer has the right to fire them.
Click to expand...

The pharmacist knowing broke company rules before the shooting ever occurred. Employees need to realize that when they break the rules, that there are potential consequences for their actions that may include being fired and all the rammifications that may come from being fired.

The guy protected his life, but he lost his job. Sounds like he is a winner to me.

Nice to know that american (spelled with lowercase on purpose) companies value their money WWAAYYY more than they value your life. Sad but true.
Click to expand...

It isn't just an issue with corporations, but many people in general. They value money and possessions and will get into lethal force encounters over trivial matters. To condemn corporations is to also condemn the value system of the people in the country where the corporations exist.

However, it isn't just corporations. Many many many private businesses, sole prorpietorships and partnerships have the same policies. They can afford lawsuits even less so than corporations like Walgreens. Think about it. As a business owner, how much risk are you willing to endure for your employees, knowing full well that their actions may result in a lawsuit that may ruin you financially? It is a very tough decision to deal with. You are potentially screwed with either decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top