Spokane7
41°
Item: Hero praised — and fired: Employee who tackled Shopko robbery suspect dismissed by company/Tom Hasslinger, Coeur d’Alene Press
More Info: What happened next is why Gunderson lost his job at the Shopko pharmacy, a position he had held for nearly two years: Gunderson tackled the gunman. He was put on suspended leave right after, then was notified around a week later by the store’s corporate office in Green Bay, Wis., that he was fired. When Gunderson asked why, the office sent him an explanation letter. What got Gunderson fired also earned him a hero’s praise.
Question: What do you make of this situation?
D.F. Oliveria is a columnist and blogger for The Spokesman-Review. Huckleberries Online was judged the best 2008 Idaho newspaper blog by the Idaho Press Club. And the best 2007 news blog in the Pacific Northwest by the Society for Professional Journalist. Print Huckleberries is a past winner of the Herb Caen Memorial Column contest by the National Association of Newspaper Columnists. The Readership Institute of Northwestern University cited this blog as a good example of online community journalism.
999 W. Riverside, Spokane, WA 99201
P.O. Box 2160, Spokane, WA 99210
Main switchboard: (509) 459-5000 • (800) 338-8801
Newsroom: (509) 459-5400 • (800) 789-0029
Customer service: (800) 338-8801
© Copyright 2012, The Spokesman-Review
Terms of use • Privacy policy • Copyright policy
Find DFO on Facebook
DFO on Twitter
Phaedrus on December 19 at 12:03 p.m.
Standard corporate policy.
Charlie on December 19 at 12:20 p.m.
The only thing we can do is to take our shopping elsewhere. True, it may be corporate policy but they could have put a note in his file that stopping a robbery is dangerous. A lump of doggy doo to the CEO’s.
MusicalChair on December 19 at 12:49 p.m.
Company policies protect the company, not the employee. There is liability written all over this incident.
hhuseland on December 19 at 12:50 p.m.
Justice isn’t always served in the corporate world. Charlie is correct. Short of suing for being fired without just cause, just encouraging customers to boycott may be effective.
florined on December 19 at 12:58 p.m.
Chair, I understand the problem of liability, but I don’t quite see how firing a person lessens any liability.
And Herb, unfortunately, boycotting is effective only if the company is aware that there is a boycott. So it has to be massive, or advertised or at least made known to decision makers. Otherwise reduction in sales gets attributed to Obama.
Phaedrus on December 19 at 1:22 p.m.
Short of suing for being fired without just cause
Actually he was fired for cause, the company has a written policy against what he did.
moscow_minidoka on December 19 at 1:42 p.m.
So let this be a lesson to everyone who works in corporate retail - if someone is robbing your store, be sure to grab a bag and help him fill it. What’s that? More oxycontin? Got another sack?
Joker on December 19 at 2:03 p.m.
Shopko should be ashamed of itself. Where’s the common sense to go with policies and procedures? This man should have been hailed as a hero for his actions. Instead we have blind corporate robots who must follow all the rules and a good man who gets punished for doing the right thing in the face of evil.
Shopko should get a lump of coal this Christmas!
hmoffsuite on December 19 at 2:37 p.m.
Just speculating, but the written policy that they have may be tied to some insurance language. Corporate might not have much flexibility with the ‘policy’, nor the consequences to an employee, should they not follow policy. It could very well be a big liability issue.
Phaedrus on December 19 at 3:38 p.m.
The pharmacists should have stayed behind his counter and let the guy leave, that is corporate policy, he violated the corporate policy the moment he went to follow the guy. I’m glad he was not hurt and I’m glad he’s found other employment, but the simple fact of the matter is he violated a company policy (they probably have his signature on file where he acknowledges this policy) and the stated consequence is termination.
Cindy_H on December 19 at 3:45 p.m.
Dumb move on Shopko’s part.
Every time this happens the employer pays the price of public loathing.
I hate Shopko anyway, due to the horrible frequency of them advertising hot items for sale and stocking one or two of the advertised items.
They’ve long been on my poop list. This just makes them stay there.
Bah.
Humbug.
hhuseland on December 19 at 4:25 p.m.
Rite-Aid should hire this guy. With all of the push over robberies they have experienced, they could use a tough guy image.
Roger_Young on December 19 at 4:33 p.m.
Sell your Shopko stock. All felons being released from the Jail/Prison be given free bus ticket to Shopko. Boycott and Picket.
Phaedrus must be on the BOD.
hmoffsuite on December 19 at 4:35 p.m.
As I sort of said above, ShopKo may have a zero tolerance clause in their policy for the following reason: If an employee pursues a robber, it may make the unbrella liability policy nil and void. They are called ‘specifically included exclusions’. Then if another shopper happens to be injured, and sues ShopKo for the standard $100 million, it could severely damage the company and its stakeholders. By having an automatic termination assigned to the situation, it may mitigate rate increases or whatever by the insurance company. In short, ShopKo might not get a vote on this termination, from a practical point of view.
nic on December 19 at 4:51 p.m.
“Company policies protect the company, not the employee.”
Sometimes, but not always.
Having once worked for a company with a do-anything-to-stop-a-shoplifter policy, a no chase policy aims to protect the company from lawsuits (injury to the thief, employee, bystanders, etc.) But there is motivation to protect the employee.
What if the shoplifter is armed. Or runs into traffic. One night in the store I used to work at, a drunk woman stole a case of beer and sprinted for the doors when my brother started to follow her. He ran after her through the parking lot and onto the main street through town. (imaging a punch drunk 40something running into traffic at 95 & Ironwood during the 5pm rush.) She didn’t give a damn about the cars blitzing by her. This attempt to stop a shoplifter quickly turned into a public hazard. My brother pulled her back to safety. And she thanked him by biting his arm. The only damages that night was my brothers arm (required a trip to the doctor), but it could have been worse if the drunk had been hit by a car.
The company’s policy changed when one employee tackled a shop lifter and detained the thief by kneeling on his neck. The shoplifter’s neck was injured and he sued… and won.
florined on December 19 at 4:52 p.m.
hmo, what you say makes sense. Wouldn’t it have been nice if those doing the firing had talked with him personally, explained this reasoning (if it is indeed the rationale), thanked him for his intent (unwise and against policy though they might have been), and at least wished him well.
hmoffsuite on December 19 at 4:56 p.m.
Yes. Florined. The matter could have been handled better, imo.
nic on December 19 at 4:57 p.m.
One a funnier note…
When I was working at a record store, my manager and I were watching a kid try and slice through the thin plastic enough to pull unpurchased CDs from the jewel case. It looked like he had stuffed some merchandise into his pants.
We stopped him and asked him to come with us into the store’s office. The second the door to the back room closed, he dropped his pants and boxers down around his ankles, lifted his shirt up to his nipples, and started shouting “I’VE GOT NOTHING ON ME!”
I about peed myself laughing but I think my manager (an extremely conservative college-aged girl) was scarred. She locked herself in the bathroom for an hour and made me deal with the kid.
Joker on December 19 at 6:23 p.m.
@Phaedrus.. Staying behind the counter is safe, but nobody should judge this man. The pharmacist reacted like a hero. He saw danger and sprang into action. The cops said he saved lives. Life is not an encounter group. I pray nobody is counting on you to protect them in a life and death situation, cause I suspect you’ll be citing the employee handbook as the people you care about get hurt or God forbid killed.
Escapee on December 19 at 8:28 p.m.
I usually don’t say this, either verbally or in print, but in regard to the article about Shopko firing the employee who caught a robber, well, THAT SUCKS. I would suggest that no one buy anything from any Shopko Ever Again. How’s THAT, Shopko?
Phaedrus on December 19 at 11:00 p.m.
Joker nothing like making absurd assumption based upon…. i don’t know what are you basing your absurd assumption upon?
Joker on December 20 at 8:37 a.m.
Phaedrus your defense of Shopko is a shocking. Who knew a so-called Dem would turn out to be a conservative corporate raider? Maybe its time you take a long look in the mirror and realize you are actually a Republican. Maybe somebody will give you Sarah Palin’s book for Christmas.
Phaedrus on December 20 at 9:32 a.m.
LOL! Joker, first time anybody ever confused me for a GOPster!
ejs on December 20 at 10:01 a.m.
If people would behave fairly then there would be no corp policies. What if he had been killed? Could not the family sue Shopko? And then what about all the people like the gentleman who acted couragously, good hard working people, that would suffer as a law suit would or could bankrupt the company. While this looks like corp covering corp you have to admit it also covers employees everywhere within the company.
Would be like a solders family filing suit against the gov for getting killed in battle, I expoect that when they signed up it siad somewhere that you could die in battle.
Cabbage Boy on December 21 at 9:02 a.m.
Agreed EJS, there are lots of variables and I understand the reason for the policy. Wrestling for a gun isn’t a good idea in a public area.
However, this guy didn’t have the intention of doing that. He was just trailing to get information for helping the police. Then he encountered a surprise and made a split second decision. I would commend the guy for that. The robber reached into the pocket saying he had a gun. Gunderson recognized him as a trapped animal with a gun. Probably could have turned into a murder of one or more people. Kudos to him for recognizing that, protecting himself and subduing the criminal.
And for avoiding the spotlight since.
Phaedrus on December 21 at 9:23 a.m.
He was just trailing to get information for helping the police.—CB
Most retail corporate policies governing shoplifting/robbery state that employees should not pursue the bad guy, his intentions are irrelevant.
hmoffsuite on December 21 at 9:28 a.m.
There is another side to the coin with this one. If it is announced and widely known that employees will do absolutely nothing if being robbed, wouldn’t that be the first place you would go if you were a robber?
Phaedrus on December 21 at 10:21 a.m.
…wouldn’t that be the first place you would go if you were a robber?
The problem, as I see it, is that you are applying rules of logic to the mind of an oxycotin bandit or two bit robber. I doubt they put that much thought into it. Besides, I would bet that all major retailers have the same corporate policy about not pursuing thieves, even their loss prevention employees are only permitted to observe and follow discreetly, not chase.
ejs on December 21 at 10:26 a.m.
BC I agree and twas noble of him to do what he did, no doubt and I’m by no means doubting courage either. We could speculate for days whether or not he could have or should have backed off once the “I’ve got a gun” was announced.
Listen the policy says, and I’m paraphrasing of course, If robbed, do nothing and let them go. Pretty simple, this minimizes risk to all, employees and customers. They have video and it’s not worth anyone getting hurt.
I’m still wondering how don’t do anything and let them go is souly corperate protection it also perhaps by osmosis protects the employee and people standing around, Yes?
Cabbage Boy on December 21 at 10:38 a.m.
Whether he should have or shouldn’t have isn’t the question. Corp Policy about it isn’t either.
The question to me is, would you rather have this guy working for you or not? I would. Made a decision that went against the grain. Didn’t just stand around and say that isn’t my job.
Glad he found work elsewhere. Sounds like a stand up kinda guy.
ejs on December 21 at 11:13 a.m.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I’m glad he found work elsewhere, devine justice I suppose.
However lets say the thug started fireing at will while wrestling and innocent people got hit, theoretically, in this case everyone dodged a bullet and that risk never had to be taken if they just let him go.
I’m thanking God nothing like that happened but the debate as to whether or not he got fired stands on not doing anything. Had the event turned out more tragic hindisght would say, should have let him go.
Anyone have a copy of what the policy says as that would help clear the debate?