Walmart firing

[wolfie]

Posting this here instead of "check it out" on CS because it's likely to be controversial. Note that with his earlier finding of $5, he turned it in (can you see a pattern?). When he first went to turn in the $350, there was a customer yelling at a manager (as if it's the manager's fault that she misplaced a pile of cash). I'm sure you've all encountered SCs - if he'd turned it in at that point, the SC would have probably accused him of stealing the money. Anxiety issues - can you say "ADA"?

As for demanding he sign a statement and not giving him a copy, once the company is at the point of demanding he sign the statement it's clear they're going to fire him regardless of what he does. That's when you DON'T sign anything without having YOUR lawyer review it first. Sooner or later, someone's going to be bullied into making a written confession that they supplied Mr. Booth with the gun he used to shoot the President.

As for the comment at the end, he's got it right on. I wouldn't be surprised if Wally World wrote someone up for taking time away from their assigned task to turn in money/property they found, and then fired them for waiting until they completed their assigned task before turning in another batch of money/property. If it had been a LARGE amount (i.e. bag with several thousand dollars), and he had wanted the police present as witnesses when he turned it in (on the assumption that it might be associated with a crime), would he have been fired for not turning it in immediately rather than waiting (with manager) for the police to arrive?

[Gravekeeper]

This is a murky one. Yes, Walmart is evil and likely happy to have an excuse to fire him and hire someone cheaper. But conversely, he handed them the excuse on a silver platter.

The problem is the pattern in question as it occurred on camera. He found $5, turned it in right away. He found $350, counted it on camera and stuffed it in his pants. He says he froze when he came back into the store and heard the commotion. But you could likewise say from the tape that he intended to keep the cash until he saw someone was looking for it and his conscience or fear got to him. He could have gone to another manager / asst manager that was not currently dealing with a distraught customer for example.

As for the customer, you're making a pretty gross assumption that they're an SC. If she's shopping at Walmart I doubt she's rolling in cash. That could have been her entire monthly budget she lost. Maybe that was all she had to buy groceries for her kids that day. There are plenty of valid reasons she could be freaking out and by avoiding the situation he left the customer to continue to freak out and the manager to continue to try and handle a hopeless situation.

Its not fair of you to argue his actions, regardless of possible cause, were justified because you assume with no basis that the customer is a terrible person. I don't know anyone who could just brush off losing $350 like its nothing.

[s_stabeler]

actually, it's irrelevant if the employee intended to steal the $350 or not. Why? simple. Walmart never gave him a chance to defend himself. (that, and I would argue that said employee turning the money in when he realised someone had come back for the money could easily be a crisis of conscience if he was originally intending to keep the money- if so, it argues for a lesser punishment.) Even IF someone has apparently committed gross misconduct, they should be entitled to explain their side of the story.

Oh, and as for him putting the money in his pocket? I can think of an innocent explanation for that, too. (large amount of money, employee doesn't particularly want to get robbed before he can turn the money in) - it's not as if the employee stuffed the $350 into his wallet.

There's a similar point to why he might not have gone to someone else- I have had anxiety issues before, and the employee's description of how you feel is spot on. you don't want to risk a confrontation, even if it might cause trouble later. You also don't normally think rationally. (he probably thought that if he spoke to someone else, he would be referred right back to the manager dealing with the customer.

the issue is more-or-less that they decided to assume he was a thief, rather than it be an imperfect return of the money.

[Gravekeeper]

actually, it's irrelevant if the employee intended to steal the $350 or not. Why? simple. Walmart never gave him a chance to defend himself.

I'm not saying that's what happened. I'm saying that the evidence could be interpreted that way just as easily as it can be interpreted as a woe is me story. There's nothing supporting what he was really intending to do except his story after the fact.

Even IF someone has apparently committed gross misconduct, they should be entitled to explain their side of the story.

But again, we only have his side of the story of what happened when he was pulled into a meeting with the manager. Considering that this was potentially employee theft from a customer that is serious, serious shit. You don't get a warning and a slap on the rest for that. Depending on state and local laws an employer can be open to legal liability if an employee steals from a customer.

This Walmart is also in an at-will employment state on a side note.

There's a similar point to why he might not have gone to someone else- I have had anxiety issues before, and the employee's description of how you feel is spot on.

Yes, I have PTSD remember, I am intimately familiar with anxiety issues. But did he ever make his coworkers and supervisor aware of these issues? Has he had trouble before at work because of them? Did they not buy his explanation because he left and went back to doing his job instead of waiting for the manager to finish with the customer? We don't know.

Personally, with my issues I grit my teeth through the horror if its something professionally important as I don't want other people to suffer or be burdened because of my disability. Then I run away somewhere curl into a ball and cry. -.-

the issue is more-or-less that they decided to assume he was a thief, rather than it be an imperfect return of the money.

So he says. Which is the crux of the problem here. Everything in this story is his side of the story alone. Not the manager's or the customer's. We haven't seen the tape. We don't know what the manager said or what the customer did or how they reacted to how the money was recovered.

Walmart is an easy target when it comes to stories like this and while Walmart is undoubtedly evil at a corporate level, it doesn't mean everyone with a position above parking lot custodian is a heartless goblin at every store. Yes, corporate could have leaned in on this and pressured the store to reduce payroll. But so could have legal due to possible liability. Or it could just be that the video doesn't match the story and the manager didn't buy it. Or it could be that the customer was going to go to the cops and firing the guy was better than having them involved.

We don't know and Walmart isn't going to tell us because publicly airing out a fired employee's dirty laundry is grossly unprofessional.

TL;DR I'm not saying Walmart isn't evil I'm just saying take things with a grain of salt when working from only one side of a story like this.

[HYHYBT]

I think it's well past time the "we don't discuss employee relations" excuse was ended.

He could have gone to another manager / asst manager that was not currently dealing with a distraught customer for example.

Is it really reasonable to expect people to think of a good solution immediately on the spot just because one exists?

Considering that this was potentially employee theft from a customer that is serious, serious shit. You don't get a warning and a slap on the rest for that. Depending on state and local laws an employer can be open to legal liability if an employee steals from a customer.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "potentially," but it very definitely WASN'T theft: he did not take the money from the customer in the first place, nor did he keep it. That he may have considered keeping it changes nothing of relevance.

[Gravekeeper]

I think it's well past time the "we don't discuss employee relations" excuse was ended.

Really? You want employers to go to the press about their employees? That would be a shitstorm.

Is it really reasonable to expect people to think of a good solution immediately on the spot just because one exists?

Yes? I don't get what you're trying to say. Finding someone else in the chain of command is not complicated idea. Especially if you work at a retail / service business.

Regardless of his actual intentions the fact of the matter is a customer had lost something important, he was in possession of it, and he chose to not return it upon seeing how upset the customer was. Put yourself in the customer's shoes for a moment here. How would feel if you lost something important, but it was actually found however the person that found it saw how upset you were and walked away?

Like I said earlier, you can't just dismiss the customer as a person because you assume for no reason that they're an SC. This story could just as easily have been "I lost $350 and an employee didn't return it" and an entirely different PR shitstorm for the store.

Then we would all be going on about how terrible Walmart is for what they did to this poor woman. All because the customer went public instead of the employee. Now, instead, the person who was actually in a real crisis, the customer, is reduced to a footnote in this guy's sob story.

That he may have considered keeping it changes nothing of relevance.

Its extremely relevant from the position of an employer.

[BlaqueKatt]

The problem is the pattern in question as it occurred on camera. He found $5, turned it in right away. He found $350, counted it on camera and stuffed it in his pants.

I'm wondering why he felt the need to count it.

[CriminalMindsRocks]

honestly, if that $350 was this woman's entire grocery budget, then you would think that she'd be grateful that it was turned in at all. not everyone is as honest as this guy was sadly, so you'd think instead of her freaking out at everyone that she'd have been on her knees kissing this guy's feet.

But I guess that's too much to expect anymore

[Canarr]

honestly, if that $350 was this woman's entire grocery budget, then you would think that she'd be grateful that it was turned in at all. not everyone is as honest as this guy was sadly, so you'd think instead of her freaking out at everyone that she'd have been on her knees kissing this guy's feet. But I guess that's too much to expect anymore

She was freaking out at a manager, which is why the employee didn't return the money immediately. From what I understand, the two never met.

[Gravekeeper]

I'm wondering why he felt the need to count it.

Yeah that little detail on camera probably didn't look good.

honestly, if that $350 was this woman's entire grocery budget, then you would think that she'd be grateful that it was turned in at all. not everyone is as honest as this guy was sadly, so you'd think instead of her freaking out at everyone that she'd have been on her knees kissing this guy's feet.

Really proving my point here. >.>

[AmbrosiaWriter]

I'm wondering why he felt the need to count it.

Habit, and curiosity.

I've found money on the ground before. I pick it up and count it, for no other reason than because I'm curious how much is there.

When I was in school, I found a wad of cash on the floor of the locker room after everyone else had left. I picked it up, counted it out of curiosity, then stuffed it in my bag and brought it to the office.

You're seriously going to use the fact he counted it as some kind of proof for what his intention was for it? Humans are curious by nature. I would put money down that most people who found a wad of cash would first count it before anything else.

[s_stabeler]

Gravekeeper, I was not assuming the employee was innocent. I was saying that him being fired without being offered an opportunity to defend himself- regardless of if he intended to keep the money or not- is unfair.

Also, gravekeeper, may I point out that issues like your PTSD and the employee's anxiety may not actually be comparable? You can't, in fact, say that the employee should have ignored his anxiety issues because you could. (for all you know, his anxiety issues may be much worse than your PTSD. The POINT is that the employee was apparently crippled with anxiety when he saw the- probably emotional- customer. The employee, however, may well have turned the money in at the next opportunity. Which- allowing him to turn money in at the next opportunity when his anxiety causes issues- may be a reasonable accommodation for his disability. (the disability being the anxiety issues)

and the reason why we are dismissing the customer is because, to be blunt? the customer is only relevant insofar as it was her money that was found. Was the customer distressed? Certainly. Was that distress extended because of the actions of the employee? No doubt. HOWEVER, that was unintentional on the part of the employee. It should NOT matter when debating if the employee should have been fired without the opportunity to defend himself.

again, the issue is he was fired with NO opportunity to explain his side of the story. Innocent until proven guilty is the rule for a reason- it is not innocent until proven guilty unless the victim is distressed.

[Canarr]

again, the issue is he was fired with NO opportunity to explain his side of the story. Innocent until proven guilty is the rule for a reason- it is not innocent until proven guilty unless the victim is distressed.

The problem is - that's the legal standard. To convict someone of a crime. He's not being charged with theft, is he? He's being fired by his employer.

And thanks to the beauty that is At-will employment, they don't really *need* a reason to fire him, right? In theory, they could just tell him to pack it up and leave, and that's it, right?

[s_stabeler]

a) I'm arguing morals, not if they are legally allowed to fire him. (legally, they can fire him for breathing the wrong way. That doesn't make it moral)
b) it matters if they tell future employers he was fired for stealing, since then, they have to prove he did. the situation is sufficiently unclear that they would probably lose such a lawsuit. (in a civil suit, the rule is balance of probabilities- and, to be blunt? the employee's story is reasonably credible, and is probably the truth.)

[Gravekeeper]

I was saying that him being fired without being offered an opportunity to defend himself- regardless of if he intended to keep the money or not- is unfair.

And I was pointing out that the only claim that he had no chance to defend himself comes from him talking to the press. It's not a point of fact. Its part of his side of the story.

Also, gravekeeper, may I point out that issues like your PTSD and the employee's anxiety may not actually be comparable?

You just mentioned your own anxiety issues in the same breath as his. Why am I not likewise allowed to talk about mine? I never tried to claim they were comparable. I brought up relevant points about the matter: Did his employer know he had anxiety issues? Have they affected his job like this before? Did they not believe him about said issues?

If, for example, this is the first time they heard about it in his near 20 years of working there they might have thought it sounded dubious.

and the reason why we are dismissing the customer is because, to be blunt? the customer is only relevant insofar as it was her money that was found.

The customer is relevant to this story because the employees actions caused the customer further distress and his employer problems as a result. I was also specifically objecting to people dismissing the customer based on an assumption that she is an SC and thus unworthy of consideration. And then using that as a sympathy card for the employee.

again, the issue is he was fired with NO opportunity to explain his side of the story.

And again, him having no opportunity to explain his side of the story IS his side of the story.