Walmart firing

[Gravekeeper]

b) it matters if they tell future employers he was fired for stealing, since then, they have to prove he did.

But they didn't fire him for stealing and didn't claim he stole anything. He was fired for gross misconduct. You can't say you're arguing the morality of this instead of the legality then one breath later argue legal burden of proof.

[Shangri-laschild]

What I'm not seeing mentioned is if this woman got her money back reasonably soon after this happened. I don't mean at all because odds are if they didn't contact her, she would have seen this on the news and been able to go in again. But if they didn't have any contact information for her then half an hour later, him turning in the money doesn't really help her. Yeah, she's lucky anyone found it at all but that doesn't mean she has to be grateful without question despite the fact that as a result she spent time panicking about the lost money well after it was found. If someone saw me panicking about losing that much money and they just walked away and did nothing to inform anyone that they had already found the money, I'd be kinda pissed if I found out later.

I would say that my employers trust me a lot. Despite that I still have to follow certain procedure when we get a wallet turned into us. Money gets counted in front of someone, wallet gets sealed in an evidence bag. His excuse that he wasn't told exactly what to do with money found in the parking lot doesn't gain a lot of sympathy on my part. How often have we all heard a coworker give the excuse of "well that wasn't exactly spelled out to me so it's not my fault" when really how to handle the situation was fairly common sense?

There are some offenses that don't really need an explanation because it doesn't matter what the reason is. I don't know that I would necessarily say this is square in the middle of that grouping but whether he meant to do something wrong or not, he did not handle the situation well. There are a lot of solutions he could have chosen and instead he just walked away. The story does look a lot worse when looked at from the customer's point of view and we have nothing but his word on any of this. We don't even know if there had been other problems with his performance at that point. Instead it's being judged as if there has never been any problems before with anything like this or anything else.

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

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

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.

And once that rule ends, then so does rules like how much your vindictive ex boss can say about you to a new potential boss. Right now, all these stories are started by employees because employers aren't allowed to make statements. Taking that away also allows for the employers to be the ones starting the stories and how much of a shit storm does that become?

Technically he kept it when he knew who the owner was and that the owner was looking for it. That doesn't do a lot for the argument that it doesn't skirt the lines there.

[s_stabeler]

But they didn't fire him for stealing and didn't claim he stole anything. He was fired for gross misconduct. You can't say you're arguing the morality of this instead of the legality then one breath later argue legal burden of proof.

ah, sorry, I think I wasn't clear. what I am arguing is that wal-mart acted immorally in firing the guy without asking him for an explanation. My reference to what the guy did was intended to illustrate that the situation wasn't cut-and-dried "he tried to keep the money, fire him"

and as for the customer being relevant because his actions caused her further distress: actually, they didn't. The customer was distressed over the loss of the money- a delay in it being returned (assuming it was) probably didn't make her any more worried. That, and there's a difference between thoughtlessness and malice.

Oh, and as for you mentioning your PTSD, there's a difference. I used my anxiety issues to illustrate that the employee might be telling the truth about his anxiety issues being why he didn't return the money. At no point did I say he was definitely telling the truth. you said, after that bit:

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.

which, to me, was saying that because you are able to grit your teeth when your PTSD causes a professional issue, that he should be able to- with the implication that therefore, any anxiety issues are irrelevant.

oh, and I think what HYHYBT means is that employers really should respond when an employee brings things like this to the press, giving their side.

to sum up: I don't know if the guy tried to steal the money or not, but Wal-Mart should not have dismissed him immediately, without giving him a chance to explain himself. if, after listening to him, thye decide to terminate his employment, that is fine.

[HYHYBT]

Thank you; I'm amazed that at least two people on this site apparently see no room whatsoever between an employer "running to the press" and their, once the other side is already a news story, answering reasonable questions honestly.

[Rageaholic]

So his only crime was that he waited 30 minutes after he found the money to turn it in?

Sounds like he worked for a bunch of twats. He's better off elsewhere.

[KabeRinnaul]

Sounds like he worked for a bunch of twats. He's better off elsewhere.

Well, yes. It was Wal-Mart.

[Rageaholic]

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. -.-

But who was burdened here? The money was returned shortly after and he ended up doing the right thing. You'd think they'd be grateful he found the money instead of punishing him for a human mistake.

I bet he wishes he never found the money now.

[Gravekeeper]

ah, sorry, I think I wasn't clear. what I am arguing is that wal-mart acted immorally in firing the guy without asking him for an explanation.

And, yet again, it's the guy in question saying that he was fired without being asked/being able to explain/being able to defend himself. Your argument is based on hearsay. It cannot be substantiated. It is not a fact. Please stop arguing as if it is.

and as for the customer being relevant because his actions caused her further distress: actually, they didn't. The customer was distressed over the loss of the money- a delay in it being returned (assuming it was) probably didn't make her any more worried.

And this argument has no basis whatsoever. You have no idea whether or not it caused them further stress. You don't even know how long it took to return the money after the fact. Which could in turn be one of the problems that led to him being fired.

If she was upset to the point of "freaking out" I rather doubt that she just chilled out afterwards. That's not how panic works. Which, if you have had anxiety issues, you should be familiar with.

That, and there's a difference between thoughtlessness and malice.

And the difference in this case is irrelevant because the end effect is the same.

Oh, and as for you mentioning your PTSD, there's a difference. I used my anxiety issues to illustrate that the employee might be telling the truth about his anxiety issues being why he didn't return the money.

Even if that was my argument it would only be the opposite position to yours and you could not dismiss it simply because it doesn't sympathize with the employee's story.

oh, and I think what HYHYBT means is that employers really should respond when an employee brings things like this to the press, giving their side.

Why? How? Walmart has 2.1 million employees. If they got dragged to the press by every employee that badmouthed them they would need to set up an entirely new PR division just to handle disgruntled employee hearsay.

A company does not owe the public an explanation every time it makes an HR decision. That sort of shit is confidential. Both for the employee and the employer's sake. This isn't a playground fight, a company doesn't need to respond just because someone called them bad names.

You are asking a company for confidential information solely for the sake of your own curiosity and even contrary to some of your argument before. What if a company responded and it revealed an employee was an asshole/theft/whatever? You mentioned it mattering if the company told the next employer that the guy was a thief.

And yet you would like them to possibly tell the entire country?

[Shangri-laschild]

Thank you; I'm amazed that at least two people on this site apparently see no room whatsoever between an employer "running to the press" and their, once the other side is already a news story, answering reasonable questions honestly.

Where's the line? If a friend of mine goes to reporters without my consent because they feel I was fired unjustly and I don't comment to reporters, does the employer get to broadcast my job history? If it was without my consent but I make a statement just to get to reporter to go away, do they get to broadcast it? If I post a blog entry on a public blog that all of 5 people read, do they get to make a statement to the news? Yes, there is plenty of room between the two ideas however there is more risk of it going bad to the employees than to the employers. The only middle ground I would be at all ok with is if there was maybe an information release form that stated that the employee could sign stating that they didn't care if the information was public.

But lets say that the employer could make statements, what's to say they would anyway? They aren't required to release any of it, nor do I think they should be short of legal proceedings of some sort. If people don't want to shop at Walmart because of this, then they don't have to shop at Walmart. A company is more likely to do harm to their image by entering into this kind of public argument and there is little chance of it doing them much good anyway. I've seen situations where the company released information such as their policy on certain things to show that the thing the person is arguing went against company policy. It didn't help them any with public opinion and it mostly didn't change anyone's mind. Meaning if someone was going to boycott Walmart over this, Walmart releasing all of the information likely isn't going to change that in most cases.

[s_stabeler]

And, yet again, it's the guy in question saying that he was fired without being asked/being able to explain/being able to defend himself. Your argument is based on hearsay. It cannot be substantiated. It is not a fact. Please stop arguing as if it is.

and you are allowed to assume the employee is lying through his teeth? That is just as unreasonable an assumption. (especially when i was explicit in that my problem was that the employee should have been able to give his side of the story. If the employee is lying, then I will, upon such being proved, agree that Wal-Mart may have acted reasonably.

Also, if I may be blunt? if we are going to assume facts that aren't actually claimed by anyone involved, then it's just as reasonable to assume that the customer who claimed she had lost the money wasn't the actual owner of the money.

And this argument has no basis whatsoever. You have no idea whether or not it caused them further stress. You don't even know how long it took to return the money after the fact.

If she was upset to the point of "freaking out" I rather doubt that she just chilled out afterwards. That's not how panic works. Which, if you have had anxiety issues, you should be familiar with.

Are you questioning if I have had anxiety issues in the past?

Oh, and I was not saying she chilled out. I'm saying that the employee's actions weren't the cause of her distress.

And the difference in this case is irrelevant because the end effect is the same.

Yes it is In one situation- the employee withholding the customer's money to make her more distressed- Wal-mart would be justified in getting rid of him, because he would just be a bully. In the other scenario- where the employee hadn't thought of the distress to the customer- the employee isn't anywhere near as bad.

Even if that was my argument it would only be the opposite position to yours and you could not dismiss it simply because it doesn't sympathize with the employee's story.

I wasn't dismissing your argument- i was merely pointing out that the situation sdn't cut-and-dried, like your argyument makes it seem.

Why? How? Walmart has 2.1 million employees. If they got dragged to the press by every employee that badmouthed them they would need to set up an entirely new PR division just to handle disgruntled employee hearsay.

A company does not owe the public an explanation every time it makes an HR decision. That sort of shit is confidential. Both for the employee and the employer's sake. This isn't a playground fight, a company doesn't need to respond just because someone called them bad names.

You are asking a company for confidential information solely for the sake of your own curiosity and even contrary to some of your argument before. What if a company responded and it revealed an employee was an asshole/theft/whatever? You mentioned it mattering if the company told the next employer that the guy was a thief.

And yet you would like them to possibly tell the entire country?

a) my argument is that, the only word we have on the situation is what this guy has told us. What i would like Wal-Mart to say is, basically, if the guy was allowed to defend himself, or if he was fired out of hand.
b) Wal-mart saying the guy is a thief to future employers matters because it's slander if they don't prove it, in such a way that it damages his prospects to get a new job. If the company's response reveals the guy was able to defend himself, I would consider the employee to be a disgruntled former employee.

In short, Gravekeeper, kindly do not apply hypocritical standards to my posts. if you can assume that the employee is lying, I can assume the employee is telling the truth. they have the exact same level of assumption.

[HYHYBT]

It is not reasonable to demand a statement of which side of the line every, or even any, hypothetical you can come up with would fall in order to see that there is space between their answering questions in cases like this and their "running to the press" on their own in which a line may be drawn.

Meanwhile... that they let him give his side would, BY ITSELF, be worthless: it doesn't mean they hadn't made up their mind beforehand or gave it any weight whatsoever. So no, their having let him give his side by itself should not move this from wronged to merely disgruntled.

Also: even taking, as best I can understand it without their bothering to tell one, Walmart's side, if this qualifies as "gross misconduct" then there is no longer any room for lesser misconduct, nor for any offenses that don't warrant instant firing.

[Gravekeeper]

and you are allowed to assume the employee is lying through his teeth?

I assumed no such thing. Please try to follow the conversation. It was quite literally the first thing I said in response to you when you first posted in this thread. Where you declared part of the employee's side as fact:

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.

You continue to insist that the employee should have been able to defend himself / explain himself and I continue to point out that the only reason you think the employee was not able to do that is because the employee said so.

Also, if I may be blunt? if we are going to assume facts that aren't actually claimed by anyone involved, then it's just as reasonable to assume that the customer who claimed she had lost the money wasn't the actual owner of the money.

You're the only one doing that. Also, this line of argument is ridiculous. Even if somehow someone knew there was missing money to be claimed and tried to pull that off, it would still be irrelevant to matter.

Are you questioning if I have had anxiety issues in the past?

No, I am attempting to get you to acknowledge the customer as an actual human being. The employee's actions prolonged her distress. Simple as that. If you have a major crisis on your hands, you don't get *better* the longer the situation goes unresolved.

In the other scenario- where the employee hadn't thought of the distress to the customer- the employee isn't anywhere near as bad.

That doesn't matter. The net effect on the customer is the same. Even if it did matter the employee witnessed the distress himself firsthand.

In short, Gravekeeper, kindly do not apply hypocritical standards to my posts. if you can assume that the employee is lying, I can assume the employee is telling the truth. they have the exact same level of assumption.

Kindly read the damn thread.

[s_stabeler]

what I meant was that, considering that the employee was never allowed to defend himself, - that is, give his side of the story to his superiors, and have then judge on the basis of both sides if he should be fired or not- then their actions in firing him were unreasonable regardless of the facts of the case.

IF Wal-Mart had listened to the employee, and still determined that the employee acted in such a way that he deserved to be fired, then they would be justified in firing him. (in other words, if the employee had a legitimate explanation for his actions, allow him to keep his job)

as for the customer's distress: I am not saying he didn't cause the customer distress. It's more that she was distressed at having lost the money, and was still distressed at having lost the money. The customer, however, at the time, was ignorant that the money had been found. hence, it's not like the employee was holding the money just out of the customers' reach. that is what I was trying to say. Further, what I meant is that the customer's distress shouldn't mean that the employee doesn't get a chance to defend himself.

IF the employee is lying- and my issue is that Wal-Mart have not, as yet, contested what he said about his dismissal- then I agree the situation is sufficiently unclear that firing him may have been justified. I am NOT judging what actually happened- we don't know- I am saying that the procedure that was followed in firing him was itself inherently unfair on the employee.

What my point - which is actually identical you yours- is that we have no evidence the employee WAS able to defend himself either- and my original point was that, if the employee had no opportunity to defend himself the firing was inherently unfair regardless of if the employee intended to steal the money or not.