Walgreens

Status
Not open for further replies.
my job or my life?

fire me!

yes it seems wrong. and i think it is. but it is what it is, if nothing happends, then its a moot point, its concealed carry for a reason, if something does happen, then you get shot or loose your job (yes, i understand that you can be robbed and not injured or killed, but if im being robbed, im not going to assume the gun is for show).

i choose loose my job everytime. at least my wife and daughter will see me at the end of the day, and the same goes for everyone else in the store at the same time.

besides, the guy on eisle nine might just be owner or hiring manager of a company. and for saving his life, you got a replacement job. not likely but possible!

Here's something even easier - do NOT go to work for them - when you agreed to work for them, you agreed to their employee rules, so stop the macho BS and realize that kind of thinking is irresponsible - it is simple, go work for another company where you can carry or whatever. Better yet, start your own company and deal with the insurance liability issues
 
If you have a prescription there simply go somewhere else and ask to have it transferred. Let the Pharmacist know WHY because when a Walgreens Pharmacist transfers a prescription out, there is a section asking why the patient doesn't want to use Walgreens anymore.
If enough people transfer it might get corporate's attention.
 
I support private property owners right to control what they allow their employees to do on their private property. This employee willingly gave up his right to carry when he took the job. I am 100% positive they gave him a employee manual. I am also 100% positive he signed an agreement to follow the company policies and guidelines or be subject to termination.

I am willing to be that all the big chains CVS, Walmart, Walgreens, Rite Aide etc..... have the same policy.

Look for a smaller locally owned pharmacy that supports your rights if you do not want to support these larger corps but IMHO they have every right to have that policy.
 
NO - employers do not have the right in an abstract moral sense to control the behavior of the employees beyond those things directly related to the job. Protecting yourself is not under their domain.

As far as working somewhere else - nice thing to say in this job market. I also remember when employers could demand that you belong to specific church or register for a specific political party. Or you could work somewhere else during the Depression or maybe not and starve.

If the issue is liability, legislate to remove liablity from employers for the actions of legally carrying employees. If the employee screws up, let the victim of such pursue criminal or civil action against the employee.

Those who want the employer to be king of his or her little castle for more than work issues have more of control issue concerns than true civil liberties concern. It's MY little domain - Prince ME!
 
NO - employers do not have the right in an abstract moral sense to control the behavior of the employees beyond those things directly related to the job. Protecting yourself is not under their domain.
They have a right to tell employees how to dress, how to conduct themselves and so on on the job.

However, I take the position if anyone -- employer or government -- deprives you of the means of self-defense, they assume an absolute liability for your protection.
 
Bill O'Reilly featured this story the other night. His legal team said they would check in later to see if the corporation had offered the R.Ph's job back to him after their intercession on his behalf. If they do that, perhaps he will drop the federal suit.
 
As far as working somewhere else - nice thing to say in this job market

SO, when it changes job-wise, you change your view and attitude?

WOW

Makes you a hypocrite - either you are in it for the long haul or not

Want to remove liability? - kill the lawyers
 
NO - employers do not have the right in an abstract moral sense to control the behavior of the employees beyond those things directly related to the job. Protecting yourself is not under their domain.

You must live in a vacuum.... Employment by its very nature requires that you give up your "abstract moral sense of control" over your own behavior. Carrying and using a gun on company property when it was expressly prohibited is clearly within "things directly related to the job."

They have a right to control your behavior in the work place especially behavior that could put them into a position of liability.

If you do not want to submit to their rules "at work employment" entitles you to choose a different employer. This is a agreement or contract between willing participates. A job is not a right. It is a choice which we are all free to choose or abstain from.
 
Last edited:
Im calling BS here, Lets be honest here how many of you guys can carry a gun on the job?? Im betting 80 percent can't!! I work for a cable company and I can't!!
 
This has evolved into a basic philosophical argument of the employer's vs. the employee's rights and hasn't developed into a discussion of any sibilance the development of a plan of acton to support RKBA.

These sorts of discussion are better suited to General. I encourage anyone interested in continuing the employer's rights vs. employee's rights argument there to do so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top