Walgreens
- Thread starter ColdDeadHand
- Start date
- Status
Carl N. Brown
Member
If an employer allows carry by an employee at work, I suspect the legal ramifications are that they are almost as liable as if they had an armed guard (read responsible for the armed employee's actions). Anyone got a detailed knowledge of the laws and court case rulings on this issue? I bet they vary widely state to state.
Personally, I think employers should have a hands-off policy on whether an employee chooses to lawfully carry in compliance with state law for personal self-defense as long as they are not doing it as a condition of employment or on the behalf of the company.
If an employee defends against a robber, it should be a matter of defense of themself, not a matter of defense of the employer, and should be treated as a personal matter of self-defense, with liability on the robber and defender. Lawyers wouldn't like that though since those are very shallow pockets.
Personally, I think employers should have a hands-off policy on whether an employee chooses to lawfully carry in compliance with state law for personal self-defense as long as they are not doing it as a condition of employment or on the behalf of the company.
If an employee defends against a robber, it should be a matter of defense of themself, not a matter of defense of the employer, and should be treated as a personal matter of self-defense, with liability on the robber and defender. Lawyers wouldn't like that though since those are very shallow pockets.
Last edited:
jcwit
member
How'd that logic work in the Air Force, Vet?
I read law review articles that suggest, I think I said this before, that the employer may be seen as liable for the employee.
Think for a second about the Oklahoma pharmacist who shot the kid on the floor. That wasn't a big chain - just a single owner, IIRC. There was a suit filed against the pharmacy owner and pharmacist. Since the latter was found guilty - betcha the suit will be successful or settled.
If it were Walgren's or CVS, you can bet that there would be a very, very expensive suit against the company.
The easiest solution is legislation that removes liability from employers for the actions of employee in self-defense unless the employee is explicitly charged with resisting robberies.
Think for a second about the Oklahoma pharmacist who shot the kid on the floor. That wasn't a big chain - just a single owner, IIRC. There was a suit filed against the pharmacy owner and pharmacist. Since the latter was found guilty - betcha the suit will be successful or settled.
If it were Walgren's or CVS, you can bet that there would be a very, very expensive suit against the company.
The easiest solution is legislation that removes liability from employers for the actions of employee in self-defense unless the employee is explicitly charged with resisting robberies.
USAF_Vet
Member
Pretty well, in fact. Sometimes waving the BS flag because of a stupid policy gets that stupid policy changed. Especially when local policy goes against overall USAF policy.
Those who accept the status quo have no reason to complain when the status quo bends them over. Those who reject the status quo just as often get bent over by it, but on rare occasions are able to make changes.
where did my bucking the status quo get me? A third tour of duty in Iraq.
jcwit
member
All I can say is I'm glad I didn't try to buck the system during my assignment to the Pentagon during the early 60's.
Sure beat sloshing thru the jungles.
Sure beat sloshing thru the jungles.
oneounceload
member
In certain areas where thefts of all kinds are high, they DO have armed guards
Which is why it won't fly - that basic stumbling block to common sense - lawyers - it would lessen their payday
.............
Personally, I think that idea would be very viable to a lot of employers who are looking at liability issues. I remember working construction for a large international company - there was an accident where one worker died, the other was basically ruined for life. As far as the economics went, it was cheaper for the company if the worker died - the payout was once and done; if the worker was paralyzed or similar, the payout was continuous - that was over 30 years, and I imagine that scenario has only gotten worse over the decades unfortunately
IllHunter
Member
why is this not a civil rights issue?
Why is this not a civil rights issue? Where is the ACLU? IF the employee was within the law, and the rule violated his rights, what don't I see? Why aren't there lawyers stumbling over themselves to sue?
Why is this not a civil rights issue? Where is the ACLU? IF the employee was within the law, and the rule violated his rights, what don't I see? Why aren't there lawyers stumbling over themselves to sue?
IllHunter
Member
Another point.
Went over to my local suburban Social Security office as a favor to a relative. If there are no cash or drugs in the building, why do they have a private armed (Glock 19) guard in the lobby? The lobby was crowded but I could've knocked them all down with a kick. Yet we're paying for an armed guard ostensibly against the belief that we citizens will be so enraged at the actions of this administration that armed guards are required. I gotta look into the history of violence at that location, oh wait it's a block from my home and there are never any problems there!!!!
Went over to my local suburban Social Security office as a favor to a relative. If there are no cash or drugs in the building, why do they have a private armed (Glock 19) guard in the lobby? The lobby was crowded but I could've knocked them all down with a kick. Yet we're paying for an armed guard ostensibly against the belief that we citizens will be so enraged at the actions of this administration that armed guards are required. I gotta look into the history of violence at that location, oh wait it's a block from my home and there are never any problems there!!!!
Folks,
I'll remind everyone that the topic is the OP's call for action against Walgreens and other companies that prohibit employees from carrying when they have state authorization to carry. Other discussion doesn't help refine or reinforce the OP's call for action.
I'll remind everyone that the topic is the OP's call for action against Walgreens and other companies that prohibit employees from carrying when they have state authorization to carry. Other discussion doesn't help refine or reinforce the OP's call for action.
Deltaboy1984
Member
Walgreens in TX have no signs I have seen yet. I only go there after hours when I had to get meds after hours since they have the only 24 hour Pharmacy in Town.
TexasBill
Member
If you really want to affect Walgreens' policy, you're going to have to do more than write, phone call, or e-mail. To be honest, and I am not singling out Walgreens here, the letters are filed and a canned response may or may not be sent; the phone calls are endured and the e-mails are either deleted or get a robot response. You might feel good, having done your part, but the reality is the policymakers aren't going to be bothered.
First: If you are a resident of the area, see if the story about the firing was covered in the local media. If not, bring it up. Always room for a good human interest story, especially if the person is still unemployed and had a good employment history prior to the incident. This can cause public embarrassment and companies really don't like that.
As I mentioned in a previous post, it's all about money and liability. Don't base your arguments on Second Amendment rights; they are not the issue. Base your challenge, instead on the cold calculations that allow money to outweigh an innocent human life. There is no shortage of incidents where non-resisting employees were murdered and the presence of an armed employee might have made a difference in the outcome.
After a long battle, Texans finally got a law that allows them to lock their weapons in their vehicles while they are at work. The same legislation, from the beginning, absolved employers of liability. Nevertheless, employers fought tooth and nail to kill the legislation. Expect nothing less in response to this issue.
Next: Walgreens is a publicly traded corporation (WAG on the NYSE). Buy stock and attend the stockholder's meeting. There should be an opportunity for stockholder questions and comments. Come with prepared comments and speak your piece. Be aware there is usually a short time limit.
This requires more commitment, but the Revolutionary War wasn't won by burying George III with e-mails.
First: If you are a resident of the area, see if the story about the firing was covered in the local media. If not, bring it up. Always room for a good human interest story, especially if the person is still unemployed and had a good employment history prior to the incident. This can cause public embarrassment and companies really don't like that.
As I mentioned in a previous post, it's all about money and liability. Don't base your arguments on Second Amendment rights; they are not the issue. Base your challenge, instead on the cold calculations that allow money to outweigh an innocent human life. There is no shortage of incidents where non-resisting employees were murdered and the presence of an armed employee might have made a difference in the outcome.
After a long battle, Texans finally got a law that allows them to lock their weapons in their vehicles while they are at work. The same legislation, from the beginning, absolved employers of liability. Nevertheless, employers fought tooth and nail to kill the legislation. Expect nothing less in response to this issue.
Next: Walgreens is a publicly traded corporation (WAG on the NYSE). Buy stock and attend the stockholder's meeting. There should be an opportunity for stockholder questions and comments. Come with prepared comments and speak your piece. Be aware there is usually a short time limit.
This requires more commitment, but the Revolutionary War wasn't won by burying George III with e-mails.
Sav .250
Member
Their no "carry policy" while working is company wide. Fair enough.
Funny thing though. If that same guy had been a customer (with a carry permit) and did the same thing, all would have been forgiven. Go figure.
Funny thing though. If that same guy had been a customer (with a carry permit) and did the same thing, all would have been forgiven. Go figure.
USAF_Vet
Member
I just reread this thread, and I know exactly where that walgreens is. I used to work not far from there. Not the most friendly area, glad I moved and got a better job.
DaisyCutter
Member
Nobody put a gun to Hoven's head and forced him to work at Walgreens.
If he doesn't work by their rules, then they can fire him.
He can extend his option to find an employer that cares more for his personal safety.
Walgreens presumably doesn't want the laiability of a representative of their company popping off with a handgun, under any circumstances. If you want a paycheck from them, then that's what you sacrifice.
It's freedom to choose.
MisterMike
Member
I understand that these policies may be somewhat common, but they're also policies that are administered by human beings who should have the good sense to react appropriately. There are myriad other ways that Walgreen's could have responded, and they chose to react--in light of an act that may very well have saved lives--by terminating the guy.
I, too, have the opportunity to choose how I'll react. In my case, it will be be patronizing any pharmacy other than Walgreens and by urging everyone I know to do the same.
I, too, have the opportunity to choose how I'll react. In my case, it will be be patronizing any pharmacy other than Walgreens and by urging everyone I know to do the same.
Drug stores have become an increasinglly dangerous target for addicts who can't get their pills anymore due to the passage of Floridas new law that made it much more difficult as of July 1st, 2011. If they can't go to the pill mills and get their fix,they are being shut down daily, why would it seem unusual that they will go directlly to the source? I hear just about every week of a major pharmacy being robbed by crews of armed men.
These pills, some of which go for 40 -100 dollars on the street, are more valuable than cash, so you really have to be crazy to work in a drug store with a no gun policy. They are soft targets, and the robbers are high, so it's a recipe for disaster. Again they only address half the probem. If you are going to restrict a drug that has been booming in FL the last 10 years, you better protect your employees. If you aren't a Floridian you may not know what's going on down here, but criminal enterprises, were sending bus loads of seniors down a couple times a month, to go to the pain clinics and paying them well for the trip. Thousands of people aside from the ones who live in the state. Another big problem that Govt half solved by passing a law.
Plus the guys who opened these places are not even doctors for the most part or pharmasists, two were brought to light recentlly, they had like 5 of these places making millions per month. Hiring doctors who were deadbeats to write the script and fill it right there. One stop shopping. Wallgreens in Broward had put up signs ,"no oxy" to fend some of this off. As many still use the drugstore. My buddy who had both shoulders replaced and a knee, had a real problem getting a legitamate perscription filled "he lives in Broward".
These pills, some of which go for 40 -100 dollars on the street, are more valuable than cash, so you really have to be crazy to work in a drug store with a no gun policy. They are soft targets, and the robbers are high, so it's a recipe for disaster. Again they only address half the probem. If you are going to restrict a drug that has been booming in FL the last 10 years, you better protect your employees. If you aren't a Floridian you may not know what's going on down here, but criminal enterprises, were sending bus loads of seniors down a couple times a month, to go to the pain clinics and paying them well for the trip. Thousands of people aside from the ones who live in the state. Another big problem that Govt half solved by passing a law.
Plus the guys who opened these places are not even doctors for the most part or pharmasists, two were brought to light recentlly, they had like 5 of these places making millions per month. Hiring doctors who were deadbeats to write the script and fill it right there. One stop shopping. Wallgreens in Broward had put up signs ,"no oxy" to fend some of this off. As many still use the drugstore. My buddy who had both shoulders replaced and a knee, had a real problem getting a legitamate perscription filled "he lives in Broward".
I dont take Walgreens side or agree with its stance. And I would certain have taken the position and made the decision the staff did BUT honestly, I can understand and see Walgreens side of it.
They are out for Walgreens and Walgreens $. ESPECIALLY if they are in a NON-Castle Doctorine state or an area (like NY or MA, NJ) where the person who did the shooting stands civil lawsuit, Walgreens doesn't want to be caught up in financial games and risk taking a large financial loss. The easiest and safest route for them is to terminate the employee.
Hes a PharmD, they are NOT easy to find, he will be re-employed shortly. AND the NRA very well may assist him in finding employment, and / or seeking loss of finances from Walgreens.....HOWEVER i know from having an education and much experience in Human Resources, if they had a no-gun policy, which I can GUARANTEE they do, then Walgreens Covered their Ass.
They are out for Walgreens and Walgreens $. ESPECIALLY if they are in a NON-Castle Doctorine state or an area (like NY or MA, NJ) where the person who did the shooting stands civil lawsuit, Walgreens doesn't want to be caught up in financial games and risk taking a large financial loss. The easiest and safest route for them is to terminate the employee.
Hes a PharmD, they are NOT easy to find, he will be re-employed shortly. AND the NRA very well may assist him in finding employment, and / or seeking loss of finances from Walgreens.....HOWEVER i know from having an education and much experience in Human Resources, if they had a no-gun policy, which I can GUARANTEE they do, then Walgreens Covered their Ass.
fulltanghalo
Member
Video was released by the pharmacist lawyer.
http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2011/09/video_of_benton_harbor_pharmac.html
Amazing how hard it is to secure those sliding doors, and a good job by the other employee securing the gun one of the guys dropped/threw.
http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2011/09/video_of_benton_harbor_pharmac.html
Amazing how hard it is to secure those sliding doors, and a good job by the other employee securing the gun one of the guys dropped/threw.
V1ROT8
Member
I can speak with my $. All of my family has moved their Rx to another location. Amazingly WalMart is less expensive. A bunch.
Cop Bob
Member
Moved my to an HEB.. I also saved some money... Go figure...
I have health ins, but it doesn't cover a lot of things like most popular drugs, Even "generic", Wag, "walgreens , has a card thats $25 for an individual and $35 for a family,"per year" that saved me $1000.00 dollars last year. I use my insurance for 50% and the WAG card for the stuff that isn't covered by AARP secure Horizones, it paid for a lot of stuff that the ins didn't.And they will give you a lot of things in 3 month supply so you don't even have to go in there armed like a pirate to get a prescription.
Zombiphobia
Member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2010
- Messages
- 646
I want to know how often this actually happens.
- Status
