Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Again, it is an asinine policy. You can achieve the same outcome by telling employees not to put themselves in danger by confronting a shoplifter yet if someone does confront a shoplifter or tries to stop them, you don’t fire the employee.I did not say it was a great policy, just that it was policy.
The policy is there to protect the employees, since they are worth more than the merchandise
Again, it is an asinine policy. You can achieve the same outcome by telling employees not to put themselves in danger by confronting a shoplifter yet if someone does confront a shoplifter or tries to stop them, you don’t fire the employee.
Thank you for agreeing on the policy. If Lowe’s has such a stupid policy of firing an employee for giving a shit about shoplifting, then Lowe’s deserves to be looted.I agree firing is a tad over the top, but it is the policy and the person should have known it was the policy. Lots of employers have asinine polices that their employees still have to follow
Their employers are terrified of being labeled as "racists."Doesn't surprise me one bit. I feel sorry for retail people, their employers have no respect for them and throw them to the wolves over any excuse.
This is true. The pendulum has swung so far that criminals feel entitled to shoplift. If I were in charge, I would put more controls in place…. Cameras, increased security, and receipt checks. Would it be 100 percent effective? No, but it would at least return to the level where criminals didn’t feel entitled.Their employers are terrified of being labeled as "racists."
they need asset protection even there not allowed to do anything half the time.Again, it is an asinine policy. You can achieve the same outcome by telling employees not to put themselves in danger by confronting a shoplifter yet if someone does confront a shoplifter or tries to stop them, you don’t fire the employee.
If they aren't going to pay them they get what they DERSERVE. Easy easy call.Two thoughts:all.
1. It’s horrible that they fired him.
2. It’s horrible that their “security” is an unarmed 68 year old guy.
www.foxnews.com
It's probably the insurance company behind the employer. More often than not I find they make decisions based on their liability policies and the decision is made not by the immediate upper management but by somebody there at the insurance company.One of the odd times I'll agree with you. Its never made sense to me that you outright dismiss an employee for these types of things. Usually one of the harder parts of being in management is getting employees to actually care.
The part that irks me is that they make her a victim of the crime also..
Companies now say, loudly and clearly, "Come and steal our merchandise and our shoppers will be happy to pay for it".
This is why I do not shop at Lowes any longer.
.
Ok....I get that the company needs to manage risk. But pray tell what's wrong with a simple reprimand? A 68 year old woman is working most likely not by choice....and now you fire her? Seems stupid to me.
Sixty-eight-year-old Lowes employee fired for attempting to stop theft at Georgia store
Former Lowes employee Donna Hansbrough, 68, was reportedly fired for attempting to stop thieves at a Georgia store.
You folks voted in the woke leaders of these blue cities, and you've been pushing the woke agenda for years. Stop complaining that you've gotten what you asked for.One of the odd times I'll agree with you. Its never made sense to me that you outright dismiss an employee for these types of things. Usually one of the harder parts of being in management is getting employees to actually care.
