I'm White so a good chance I get seized and searched
OT: WHAT is happening to society???? Make it make sense.
- Thread starter 18IsTheMan
- Start date
I'm getting 2 pillows and my niece some Play-do....I'm leaving now....wish me luckUnder $900 seems to be an acceptable amount
Might be a diversion for the member of their group that's pushing out 2 full cart loads while they prove that they did indeed pay for their chewing gum.
HaHa I'm back....the lady at the door sooooo wanted to check my receipt....as I approached she stepped over in front of me but while making steady eye contact I veered over into the area she just vacated and on by her I went....I really wanted her to say something but she didn't....I was ready to play
They have a possible out with regard to any potential WC claim in that she was injured violating policy.
Yep. That’s what I’m saying. Without that policy they’re staring at a 5 figure WC payout for $2k worth of product. It’s not worth it.
As a atypical hierarchy this would go from Store Manager, District, to Regional HQ. In this case, since now this has become a public issue, Corporate HQ has been aware. If not for publicity Corporate would not have been involved.
I'm speaking from experience.
Not arguing with you bc neither of us have any clue how it happened. I’m speaking from experience as well. And in my experience if an employee is injured on site corp is always involved (District managers included as corp). However, if it’s a zero tolerance policy she may have been termed on the spot. My gut tells me at least the DM was involved…they may even have regional HR managers under the DM, not sure.
Nothing. Lowe’s put this into policy mid 70’s. It was a safety measure for employees. I can only guess how it might be indoctrinated into management material.I can't even begin to make sense of this story.
GA Lowe’s worker punched 3 times trying to stop thieves. She’s now been fired after 13 years on job
Police are still looking for some of the thieves.www.wsbtv.com
Hope you don’t work at a bank. If you don’t have the ability to rationalize the potential risks of your actions before you act, you’re likely to get some people including yourself hurt if the situation arises
I would not equate robbing a bank with robbing a Lowe's. For one, bank robbers typically have guns. These people at Lowe's apparently did not.
If it was put in place in the 70's it has surely been enforced rather inconsistently, to say the least, which gives this lady grounds to sue over her dismissal. Unless Lowe's has consistently fired every employee who has stopped a shoplifter.
Ask yer local Lowe’s sales rep……..even better ask a contractor salesman. Probably will have a few good stories.
Believe the issue is physical confrontation………..sure more will come out on this.
As Isaiah articulated, we have come to an age where people ascribe goodness to what is evil and evil to what is good. The prophet says that those who juxtapose right and wrong in such a way are deserving of "woe". As a society, we are courting "woe" and are close to "achieving" it.
Last edited:
Good call! That's where crime is still crime (for all), the law is still the law (for all), and justice is still justice (for all)!
Even if you support this misguided policy, could there not have been a more even-handed discipline of the employee than firing? Goodness, in a day when retail stores are desperate for workers, you fire a 13-year employee because she acted justly and tried to help the store?
Again, make it make sense.
Again, make it make sense.
Yes, but that does not take away from the main point. They only buckled to negative PR in this instance. Even at that, it's embarrassing how long it took them to rectify the situation.
Correct. They did what they did because the public had to correct them. That's how messed up things have become.
Being a manager in a retail store....corporate tells you not to interfere, or you will lose your job. Corporate America will enforce rules, the government will not. Why try to stop this when you are getting paid piddly money and your trying to stop it. You get punched, knifed, or gunned down for what? Now you are a liability for the company, because they care about profits, not you.
Counting on good, moral citizens to pay for their merchandise, and at a higher price to cover those who don't pay, shows how sick we are as a society. 
Why is theft accepted and unpunished behavior? If fear of being sued by criminals is the reason, then immunity from such action during criminal activity needs to be implemented to correct a problem that is seriously out of control and getting worse.
Why is theft accepted and unpunished behavior? If fear of being sued by criminals is the reason, then immunity from such action during criminal activity needs to be implemented to correct a problem that is seriously out of control and getting worse.
Crazy that we went from stores having loss prevention officers to firing employees from trying to stop thieves.
Company policies are usually based on the law. Companies overpay lawyers all the time to button down policy to be in line with the law. Law has a history based in morality, but morality and the law don't always align. My father gave me one of the wisest pieces of advice growing up that has served me well. You can't have your hands out for someone else's money if you can't abide by their rules. When that day comes, you go out and create your own and you set the standards. If you are willing to break society's rules, based on your standard of morality, then it all comes out of your pocket. We have too many wannabee he/she(roes) still in society. Let people, Law Enforcement in this case, do their jobs.
Last edited:
Most of us, including me, can tend to forget two things can be true at once.
In some cases this absolutely comes down to liability and in others it absolutely comes down to intentional destruction of the social contract. We could provide examples all day and make this a 100 page thread. Hell CNN just did a story in SF to complain about a Walgreens locking the freezers up and filmed 3 robberies in 30 minutes. Well they decriminalized theft…intentional destruction.
If people weren’t so polarized they’d see our tort system is destroying the social contract and maybe make it an issue as opposed to say all the other BS on any candidate’s issues page. That hey everyone else you pay more for us tolerating theft because our laws make destroying safety cheaper for the company.
San Francisco can be San Francisco, but allowing a person committing a crime the right to then sue for damages is a nationwide phenomenon.
The 90s and early 2000s were the snowflakes falling on this stuff. Remember the crazy news stories that were rare back then. The McDonalds coffee. Now it’s a big snowball and without some common sense changes momentum will just keep going and it will get worse.
The most incisive statement in the recent history of this thread. The kicker is that, in most instances, only one of the truisms can be acted upon. It's important, therefore, to select the one that is more comprehensively advantageous, provided some tyrannical entity has not already removed the option.