Walmart Worker Fired After Helping Woman Under Attack In Parking Lot

reply to post by smurfy


I'm not saying they are right, only that there was a reason for the policy. I personally disagree with it, in some aspects. For theft, screw it, let em go. What's the most expensive thing they're going to get, a couple thousand dollars? Big deal. Each store brings far more than that in every day, a lot of times in an hour or less.

In the case of intervening in a physical assault, if it can be done safely, as in this case, then they should, without fear of repercussion.

reply to post by MrWendal


I have worked for them and they are anti women, According to the backhand comments I used to get and such. I know women are able to do all these things, for now...but that is something the governments and the whole Middle East is trying to interfere with. All the male employees at walmart make wages high above the women, the women are forced to go to nanny government to compensate. This is by design by GOVERNMENT. If it had been a guy getting attacked he (the employee) would maybe at best get a write up (which the first infraction is a write up not firing) Remember I worked there. I know FIRST HAND!

reply to post by ldyserenity


My other half worked for them twice, for several years, and she never had any problem, or ever said they were anti-women. She never had a problem, other than them treating everyone like crap, and the managers being idiots.

reply to post by ldyserenity

This world will accept Muslim rule because they love the submissive Beaten down woman, slavery is out, anti-feminism is in. This world is going to crap

your joking right?

badgerprints
I won't argue the anti-feminist issue as stated in the OP.
I think in some ways it has it's relevant points.

The "policies" that wal-mart and other multi billion dollar companies have are not based on attacking women but on valuing all human life as less important than the bottom line.

Since it;s not company policy to intervene in situations such as these, wal-mart is in a better legal position to fight lawsuits from the employee or the attacker.

It's all about the bottom line.

Apparently, 150 billion dollars isn't enough for one family to live comfortably. The Waltons need to fire employees who might get them sued.

If we changed the laws and made it harder for people to sue it might be different. Heck, people have gotten sued after saving someone's life. Well, he saved my life but he hurt my arm when he pulled me out of the drowning car lol.... Over and over good people trying to help are getting sued so you can't blame Walmart for the policy, now I think there should have been warning etc firing him just like that, we'll not sure that is the right way to go. Maybe verbal warning, then written, etc. Used to be you could not get fired for nothing on the first offense, oh Yea that was back when we had morals and cared about folks. Lol

The Bot

reply to post by hknudzkknexnt


Im also wondering how that got stuffed in, Walmart bad, OK I get that. Will lead to Muslim global rule though ?

You must really dislike those people to weasel that in there.

Dont sit on the fence, tell us how you really feel....

boycott walmart .

2nd boycott walmart .
boycott walmart .

they will get the message when they loose $ xxxxx a week then you ask for the raise and a promotion take to facebook people xxxxing protest it is your right .

go on you know you want to go on go on go on go on

Wal-Mart is now offering his job back.

www.foxnews.com...

He'd best demand a raise. Better yet, maybe he needs to talk to a lawyer first.

You just know they don't like the bad press and he'll be kicked to the curb at some other point in the future.

Zaphod58
reply to post by smurfy

 

I'm not saying they are right, only that there was a reason for the policy. I personally disagree with it, in some aspects. For theft, screw it, let em go. What's the most expensive thing they're going to get, a couple thousand dollars? Big deal. Each store brings far more than that in every day, a lot of times in an hour or less.

In the case of intervening in a physical assault, if it can be done safely, as in this case, then they should, without fear of repercussion.

I would agree with that, though the repercussions of doing nothing is...nothing.
I have to say though there could be much more going on as regards the so called policy toward employees.
I don't know about Walmart in the US, but I know that our local Asda supermarket (still under Walmart control) doesn't actually own the property. During a recent hard winter there was packed ice all over the area, and ASDA refused to even put down salt on walkways, or anywhere else for that matter with the reasoning that it wasn't their property, how uncompromising is that?

reply to post by smurfy


Yes it's true half the parking lots are leased, not owned by walmart here, too. Which means he had a valid offensive, the property wasn't Walmart's but also he was off the clock (on break). So technically he has a counter argument to keep his job, walmart employee not property of walmart while clocked out/in parking lot that is LEASED not owned by Walmart, so technically the policy really wasn't even broken.

ldyserenity

I have worked for them and they are anti women, According to the backhand comments I used to get and such. I know women are able to do all these things, for now...but that is something the governments and the whole Middle East is trying to interfere with. All the male employees at walmart make wages high above the women, the women are forced to go to nanny government to compensate. This is by design by GOVERNMENT. If it had been a guy getting attacked he (the employee) would maybe at best get a write up (which the first infraction is a write up not firing) Remember I worked there. I know FIRST HAND!

When placed under a microscope, one can find anything they are looking for. I would bet apples to oranges I could go back into your posting history and "prove" that you are "anti women".

Fact is, Walmart treats ALL it's employees poorly. They are not "anti women", they are pro money. Know why women make less than men at Walmart? Because they can get away with it and people allow it. Do you expect a company who only cares about the bottom line to take the moral high ground and spend more money on wages when they do not have to? Of course they wouldn't- that would be "bad business".

You can claim that the first infraction is a write up based on the one store you worked at, in your area, but the facts say differently. There have been several cases where employees of Walmart have been fired for intervening in any number of situations. A simple google search can provide you with what ever proof you seek.

ldyserenity
reply to post by MrWendal

 

I have worked for them and they are anti women, According to the backhand comments I used to get and such. I know women are able to do all these things, for now...but that is something the governments and the whole Middle East is trying to interfere with. All the male employees at walmart make wages high above the women, the women are forced to go to nanny government to compensate. This is by design by GOVERNMENT. If it had been a guy getting attacked he (the employee) would maybe at best get a write up (which the first infraction is a write up not firing) Remember I worked there. I know FIRST HAND!

That's such a foolish comment. I've worked at a walmart myself. Guess what? The store manager was a female. Infact all the manager but three were female. Atleast 70% of the store was female....so please drop this anti-woman stuff cause its a load of bs. I got fired because I was a single father of a premature baby, and my baby sitter called me to ask about his formula, and I answered my phone on the sales floor. Even though Ihad permission from the store manager to have my phone on the sales floor. And as far as males making more than females that's bs too. They hired another grocery sales associate that was female at a full dollar an hour more than me. So how is your argument in any way valid?

reply to post by ldyserenity


It was a good op til you threw the whole anti-women agenda in your there.