Safeway Appears To Have Learned Its Lesson

[Gravekeeper]

Guard got fired this time around for ignoring common sense. -.-

Completely silly this time, however. No real wiggle room on it just being bad interpretation of policy or anything. Straight up stupidity.

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

Guard got fired this time around for ignoring common sense. -.-

Completely silly this time, however. No real wiggle room on it just being bad interpretation of policy or anything. Straight up stupidity.

You see, this is the kind of stories I like to hear. Safeway realized that their employee went too far and took the proper steps.

There is a difference regarding intent. At age 4 they really do not understand that doing that is bad. Especially if (as I have done with my children) they have a selection of foods at hand so they can go and grab one to keep themselves going until meal time.

And dried fruits was the big one I left out for them too.

So it can be confusing to a child at that age that while getting a couple of apricots and putting them back when she is done at home is ok, (especially the putting it back neatly when they're done) doing it at a store is not.

To their minds, food is food and what is the difference? So the parents need to keep an eye on such things and try to explain it as it happens. It may not sink in at first, but they will eventually get it.

A store should know that such things happen and that there is no real intent to "steal" the food. To the mind of a child at that age, certain foods are ok for snacking, and this is just the place that the permitted food comes from. There is no intent to commit theft, just a misunderstanding on the rules of society that they will learn as they get older.

To the store, this should be a shrinkage incident. IT was a package that was damaged by a child. And shit like that happens all the time. Do they ban-hammer a child for dropping the bag of sugar? No they do not. Do they ban-hammer adults who slip and drop a jar of spaghetti sauce? No they do not.

Because there is no intent to deny the store of the revenue generated by the sale of the item in either case...even though that is exactly what happened.

In the case of the child eating a few, same thing. No intent.

What should have happened is that the store security should have informed the parents of what happened and given them a chance to pay for the damaged item since it was partially eaten.

I'm also glad to see that Safeway saw that the guard was a little...overzealous.

[HYHYBT]

In the store, putting it back makes it far worse. I hope the guard at least took the item off the shelf.

[FArchivist]

Guard got fired this time around for ignoring common sense. -.-

Completely silly this time, however. No real wiggle room on it just being bad interpretation of policy or anything. Straight up stupidity.

And I have a problem with this because the guard was just following exact orders from corporate. If these were the orders issued by corporate, than they should be followed exactly to the letter. The guard isn't paid to think or interpret the policy; he's there to enforce it exactly. The only reason why he shouldn't have done the policy is due to the manager ordering him not to. You do not disobey a superior officer.

[Boozy]

A "superior officer"? What kind of grocery store do you shop at? This isn't a life-or-death situation where disobedience can cost the lives of the entire "platoon" of cashiers.

Corporate policy isn't the law.

[jackfaire]

You do not disobey a superior officer.

That is a dangerous attitude.

Even in the Army if an unlawful or dangerously stupid order, ie put down your gun and build a wall while being shot at, you will ignore it for the safety of your self and your fellow soldiers.

Here we are talking a grocery store. Quite frankly the security guards should be free to alter their actions as the situation changes.

Corporate will hear about these situations in 24 hours and what is the guard supposed to do keep enforcing a policy that doesn't apply until coorperate finds out and adds, "by the way in situation A don't apply situation B"

It is the responsiblity of ever individual everywhere to use their own judgement.

If you refuse to use your own judgement because your "just following" orders then you deserve whatever you get.

[FArchivist]

A "superior officer"? What kind of grocery store do you shop at? This isn't a life-or-death situation where disobedience can cost the lives of the entire "platoon" of cashiers.

Corporate policy isn't the law.

No, corporate policy isn't the law. But you should never be fired for obeying corporate policy. You're paid to do what you're told and corporate policy is how you're told.

That is a dangerous attitude. Even in the Army if an unlawful or dangerously stupid order, ie put down your gun and build a wall while being shot at, you will ignore it for the safety of your self and your fellow soldiers.

Key words: unlawful and dangerously stupid. This policy was really neither.

It is the responsiblity of ever individual everywhere to use their own judgement.

If you refuse to use your own judgement because your "just following" orders then you deserve whatever you get

I disagree entirely. In my own supervisory position, I discourage "using your own judgement" simply because there is no need to do so. I am being paid to think, supervise, and give orders, enacting and implementing corporate policy from those above me on the hierarchy. My subordinates are not; they are simply there to obey the policy and carry out their job requirements. Top-down management.

If they're using their own judgement and carrying out whatever policy they so feel is best, then they should be the ones above me in the hierarchy and I should be doing whatever they say.

[jackfaire]

If they're using their own judgement and carrying out whatever policy they so feel is best, then they should be the ones above me in the hierarchy and I should be doing whatever they say.

I am not talking in corporate policy I am talking in life.

If no harm would come of following corporate policy then I would obey you in following corporate policy. However if doing so meant that a person would come to some sort of harm I would ignore you and do what I feel is the right thing.

Many companies corporate policy would say, "NO matter what stay at your register and continue checking customers out" "Do not use company resources for anything non work related"

I would violate both if I saw out the doors that someone was having a heart attack, being attacked etc and I would call 911 and render any aid that I am capable of rendering I would not call over my supervisor and say, "Sir that person was being attacked and is now dead,wounded etc should I travel back in time ten minutes and call 911?"

That is what I mean. Yes I shouldn't be making my own decisions on if we are going to haggle over the customer on the price of things but there are somethings a person should make their own decision on and not just be a drone because they are waiting for you or anyone else to make a decision.

[Duelist925]

No, corporate policy isn't the law. But you should never be fired for obeying corporate policy. You're paid to do what you're told and corporate policy is how you're told.

Obeying corporate policy, maybe. For being a fuckwit like this? Its called commone sense. You dont question a 4 year old--you get his bloody parents. Theres following policy, and then theres being a blindly obedient drone asshole. This was the latter.

I disagree entirely. In my own supervisory position, I discourage "using your own judgement" simply because there is no need to do so. I am being paid to think, supervise, and give orders, enacting and implementing corporate policy from those above me on the hierarchy. My subordinates are not; they are simply there to obey the policy and carry out their job requirements. Top-down management.

If they're using their own judgement and carrying out whatever policy they so feel is best, then they should be the ones above me in the hierarchy and I should be doing whatever they say.

Im sorry, but this is a rather "corporate mascot" way to think. Yeah, one should follow policy, but there also common sense to consider. Im not saying a cashier should be deciding to change prices drastically, or give away lotterly tickets or whatever, but they should be able to excercise basic logical thinking skills. In a situation like this? The guard should have used some common sense, and ignored policy, since it was a freakin 4 year old.

Hell, I barely understood theft as a concept at 4.