Walmart Greeter Punched By Customer Gets Fired

[Incitatus]

PALM BAY, Fla. --
A Walmart greeter who was shown on video getting punched by a customer has been fired.

Ed Bauman, 69, said the act of defending himself cost him his job.

Bauman went into Walmart hoping to get back to work for the first time since police said he was punched by a customer. Instead, Bauman said he was fired. His termination notice called the incident an act of "gross misconduct" and accused Bauman of fighting with a customer.

"They told me I did a good job of defending myself," said Bauman. "Then they turned around and fired me. I guess they just wanted me to stand there and get beaten."

On Dec. 26, a customer in red shorts set off an alarm while leaving the store. Bauman followed the man to get his license number. The man got angry and took Bauman's clipboard. Bauman said he tried to get it back and leaned into the customer who took a swing. Bauman said he swung back in order to defend himself.

http://www.wesh.com/news/22190479/detail.html

[Ter]

1. I can't believe this

Hope he sues their asses off.

[vadawg]

2. pretty standard, if you interfere with thieves in any way and you are not loss prevention

it opens up all sorts of liabilities for the companies, now fair dos for the old geezer for giving as good but he could have been seriously hurt. Unless you get paid to fight people its best not to indulge in fighting people...

[Incitatus]

3. I guess a lot has changed.

I used to work for Winn-Dixie about 10 years ago and when a shoplifter tried to run away, there would be several of us, from managers to baggers, chasing them down the road and tackling them to the ground. There were never any issues from corporate.

[vadawg]

4. yup times have changed, everyone nowadays gets sued at the drop of a hat

hell i got sued by a shoplifter i apprehended, his case was thrown out but it might not have been if i was the greeter and i hurt him...

[jobycom]

7. When I worked retail 20 years ago we were told not to chase anyone.

This was a smaller company. Most larger companies had strict policies to fire anyone who tried to chase or apprehend a shoplifter. The reasoning is obvious--if a company allows an employee to pursue shoplifters, then they are considered to be encouraging it, and this can lead to dead employees, even dangerous confrontations. A shoplifter could pull out a gun and start randomly shooting. If that happened, everyone struck by bullets or traumatized by the event would sue the store whose employee triggered the event. So, anyone who chased a shoplifter, even if they caught them and didn't get hurt, had to be terminated, or else the company gave the appearance of encouraging such behavior, which would eventually get someone hurt or killed.

I'm stunned Winn Dixie didn't have that policy ten years ago. I suspect they did, and your store just ignored it. It was standard policy in most companies 20 years ago, and was usually required by insurance companies, and advised by security firms and law enforcement. My manager chased a shoplifter once, and almost wound up with a broken arm. The company was small enough that they just yelled at her a lot for it, but afterwards the memoes went out to all stores reinforcing that anyone who chased a shoplifter would be fired.

[dickthegrouch]

8. What criminal Judge allowed this to happen?

You said "A shoplifter could pull out a gun and start randomly shooting. If that happened, everyone struck by bullets or traumatized by the event would sue the store whose employee triggered the event".

No employee triggered the event. The criminal shoplifter triggered the event.

This peculiarly American form of abrogation of personal responsibility is offensive and wrong.

[Selatius]

10. There's always somebody to abuse the system in such a case as that.

Obviously, the shooter would likely face a lawsuit, but if he is shoplifting, he probably does not have a lot of money to pay in punitive damages. However, the store probably has a lot more money. If chasing down a shoplifter is a violation of company protocol and the store ignores the company protocol anyway, one of the victims could find out and then sue the store hoping for a payday because it also did something wrong.

[jobycom]

16. I'd sure as hell sue, but right or wrong, that's how it is.

If my child was killed by a stray bullet because some Wyatt Earp wannabee chased a shoplifter over a 20 dollar wallet because some megacorp thought it would rather put my kid in danger than lose the pennies it would lose over the wallet, you're goddamned right I'd sue. I'd own the company, then I'd break it apart and donate the money to charity just to put the moneygrubbing SOBs in charge out of business.

THAT's why stores discourage it. Because some of us care more about our kids than about making corporations like Walmart richer.

[47of74]

5. And Wally World wonders why I want nothing to do with them anymore

And my family wonders why I won't shop there. Well, ladies, gentlemen, and Republicans - here's why.

[vadawg]

6. hate to break it to you, but its pretty much every store out there that has this policy

no point just blaming wally world...

[emilyg]

17. You shop at all? Most stores

have the same policy.

[spoony]

21. But how many places are as PR tone-deaf

as to fire someone shown across the world being attacked on the job?

[RedCloud]

9. republicans have trained us to be permissive of thievery

hence the "laws" allowing that so corporate theft can get away with the real murder.

[WVRICK13]

11. Too Much Concern For His Employer

if I worked in a retail store and saw theft I would report it to security. If I worked in a store that was being robbed I'd give the armed thief(s) what they want. I would never risk personal safety for any corporation anymore than the corporation would defend me.

[madrchsod]

12. wal mart weaseling itself out of responsibility....

what the hell, walmart knows there`s a hundred people out there just waiting for this guys job.

walmart sided with the criminal.

[Danger Mouse]

13. When I worked for Ames nine years ago, they had a similar policy.

I feel bad for the guy, but these policies are in place for a reason - somebody could get hurt.
As evil as Walmart is, they didn't do anything wrong here.

[pipi_k]

14. Yep, and the potential problem would be

what if the greeter had connected so well with his punch that he knocked the other guy out and caused him to hit his head on something and the guy goes into a coma, or even dies.

Not only is the greeter in trouble, but perhaps the guy's family would end up suing WalMart as well.


Not to mention what would happen if innocent bystanders (kids, even) were injured in the fracas.

Or what if the other guy is carrying a gun and gets really pissed and starts firing it all over the store.

I agree with you...Walmart sucks, but they're not doing anything wrong.

Potential fist fights in the store between employees and customers....not good.

[TexasObserver]

15. Employees who violate company policy against violence with customers get fired.

When the greeter is out there, he's not some guy standing in park, free to defend himself as he sees fit. He's an employee of a store and that store has a firm policy against their employees tangling with customers.

This employee may have been well intentioned, but he violated a very well known and understood company policy, and in doing so, he opened the company to liability. What happens when the perp or the employee smacks some other customer in the eye in the fracas? A big ass lawsuit against the store that they WILL lose, for failing to control their employee, and for the employee failing to follow company policy.

A big company has to have a firm policy regarding dealing with suspected shoplifters, and it must be a written policy that all employees are charged with knowing. When an employee exposes the company to liability by violating such well known policies, they're gone. They have to be. Failing to discharge them will result in a claim against the company for discriminating among its employees in the enforcement of rules.

Walmart is detestable for many reasons, but in this instance, their conduct was not only expected, but required. The greeter took it upon himself to engage physically a customer, and now he's lost his job, just as they told him he would if he ever did that.

[jmowreader]

18. What really got him fired was following the customer out of the store

That's what we were always told: following a shoplifter out of the store is a termination offense.

[Vidar]

19. K&R.

[havocmom]

20. Perhaps WalMart had a Peasant Policy on the man?

If the employee had let the attacker kill him, WalMart may have received a payoff. Maybe that's why they fired the man, he didn't die and let them profit from it.

[crazyjoe]

22. he should not have confronted the customer,

any large company or bank for that matter would have this strict policy.
It is a fire-able offense, and it should be. someone could have got seriously hurt
including innocent bystanders.You don't know who you may be dealing with these days.