18 year Walgreens diabetic employee fired over bag of chips

[Liberal_in_LA]

Walgreens sued over firing diabetic who took chips

When Josefina Hernandez, a longtime Walgreens employee with diabetes, felt an attack of hypoglycemia coming on in September 2008, she grabbed a $1.39 bag of chips and ate them to boost her blood sugar, she said.

Hernandez said she paid for the chips as soon as she could leave her cashier's post at the South San Francisco drugstore. She said she tried to explain her actions to Walgreens, but the company fired her.

"They said they had a zero-tolerance policy," said David Offen-Brown, an attorney with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which filed a federal court suit Thursday accusing the Illinois retailer of discriminating against a disabled employee.

Hernandez had worked nearly 18 years for Walgreens with no disciplinary record, the EEOC said. She told the agency she usually carried some candy in her pocket in case her blood sugar dropped, but hadn't brought any along that day.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/09/08/BU3L1L21E2.DTL#ixzz1XUQNI04T

[TwilightGardener]

1. 18 years of service--she wasn't fired for a fucking bag of chips. Was she

on their health plan? Costing them money? Needed a schedule change? I smell bullshit.

[Liberal_in_LA]

2. yep. Like that middle age stewardess who was fired over a juicebox

[TwilightGardener]

10. I have not heard about the stewardess and the juicebox. But I assume

that such petty shit undertaken by management towards honest long-time employees is usually an excuse to dump a "money-loser" and replace her with someone cheaper or less needful of accommodation.

[Liberal_in_LA]

16. It was end of a flight. Leftovers are thrown out. Long term flight attendant grabbed a milk or

juice box. Was fired. It was a pretty big story.

[Warren DeMontague]

17. I don't believe in hell

but if it exists, that's where these heartless corporate and insurance bean counters are headed.

[TwilightGardener]

18. I think there might be a hell. If so, they're going, all right.

[dtexdem]

27. Yeah, there's a definite need for hell.

Need don't make it so, but there really is a need.

[flor-de-jasmim]

28. The problem is that they want to drag us along, as well!

[liberalhistorian]

43. Well, I DO believe in hell, and I also believe

that you're right, that is exactly where these fuckers are headed. They'd better enjoy their cushy life now, 'cause it's gonna be a long slow slog through eternity.

[Warren DeMontague]

48. I don't. I guess I kind of believe in karma, in a sense, and that I = you = me = The Walrus

so what we do to others, we're really doing to ourselves.

[Auntie Bush]

156. Do you believe someone can do their time in hell and eventually work therir way out...or is it

for all eternity...depending on the crimes? Just wondering.

[The Doctor.]

56. They're already there...

and taking it out on anyone they can.

[druidity33]

58. I do... it's called rendition. nt.

[Hawkowl]

112. "Bean Stealers"

Instead of calling them "bean counters" we need to start calling them for what they are: "bean stealers". Words are powerful and if we can get a substantial number of people to call these people for what they are, thieves, we are a big step closer to social justice.

[MedicalAdmin]

159. +2.

Thieves they are and thieves they should be called.

[MedicalAdmin]

157. And I say a just society would help them pack for the trip. n/t

[Pooka Fey]

21. + 1

[KamaAina]

8. Or did they have dead peasant insurance on her?

:grr:

[TwilightGardener]

20. Yikes--she croaks from dangerously low blood sugar, they collect?

I think it's how it appears--she was becoming burdensome/expensive and they were looking for a reason to let her go. I can't believe they'd be as dastardly as you suggest, but who knows.

[Wind Dancer]

84. That was my first thought.

It wouldn't surprise me, sad to say.

[Mimosa]

57. That's probably it. Health care costs! Which is why we need universal single payer.n/t

[area51]

94. +1 n/t

[PatrynXX]

152. that sounds like my uncle

and B Dalton. fire after 19 yrs. Store Manager. perfect record.

Cept they had no reason to fire him. zero tolerance my ass. how's dead sound to you guys. CVS has a horrid selection but at least they are nice. Walgreens? Are they even a Pharmacy anymore??

[Blue_Tires]

3. so who fired her? the manager?

the manager would have known about her health issues, right?

[1monster]

35. Quite often the corporate office will have video cameras installed on people whom they

want to get rid of and then use the first excuse that comes up. That was done to me nearly twenty years ago when I was fired for a thirty-seven cent overring that I did not handle according to the rules. Mainly because I was alone with a long line of people and the manager was in the back room and not responding.

I was fired on my ten year anniversary.

Oh. I didn't mention that I was pregnant. And another young womany who had worked there two years longer than I was fired the same day -- she was just back from maternity leave. They didn't have any proof of wrong doing, although they tried to convince the Unemployment Office of that. They didn't succeed.

And everyone who had minor children in that store were gone within a year and a half. Some were harrassed to the point of walking off the job. Others took a look at the situation and the harrassment they were enduring and found other employment. Another highly placed employee asked for a leave of absence when her husband attempted suicide. She was told that, if she was gone too long, they would have to replace her. She came back to work five days later and her job had already been filled by someone else. She had two preschoolers.

While we all had worked at the store for five plus years, the store had been sold to another corporation a year before. And some of us had the company insurance coverage for our families.

[catrose]

68. My son almost got caught in something like that

He was trying to make change, but the till didn't have it exactly. He looked in the take-a-penny plate, put his hand in his pocket to see if he had any change--and the manager said he had put money from the till into his pocket. Fortunately, no one else who saw the video agreed with the manager. A lot of pressure was put on my son to confess," though.

[MedicalAdmin]

160. For fucking packet change.

I let me employees just dip into the till if they need a "loan" as long as they don't abuse it and as long as we don't need it for a customer.

WTF? Who the fuck would want to live that way?

[Shrek]

4. Zero-tolerance policies are often silly

There's no way to anticipate every possible exigency.

[bullwinkle428]

5. +1. "Zero-tolerance" policies make a great excuse for "zero thought process".

[Qutzupalotl]

40. Zero-sense policy

if you ask me... which you didn't.

[LarryNM]

115. And Zero Humane Policies n/t

[MedicalAdmin]

161. Z tolerance = zero brains. n/t

[LonePirate]

9. The only zero tolerance policy that is acceptable is the one for employee deaths.

Evidently Walgreen's doesn't mind if one of their employees dies on the job.

[catbyte]

6. Now, now, now. If they let one drone get away with trying to save their life

by eating product then EVERYBODY will try and we'd never see the end of it.

Everybody's replaceable, especially sickly, diabetic ones.

:puke:


Fucking corporations. I guess the Supreme Court IS right--corporations ARE people because I sure hate Walgreen's guts right about now.

[TalkingDog]

12. Then they'll ALL think they deserve better treatment. I agree with you. Quash it now.

n/t

[saras]

41. If corporations were people, we could kill them, and should.

The fact that they won't die seems to disprove the Supreme Court's theory pretty conclusively.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. A wrongful death lawsuit would have been better I guess

[pipi_k]

51. I can tell you from experience...

that someone who can FEEL a "low" coming on, who is able to walk over to the chips aisle and grab a bag, open it up, eat most or all of it, then do whatever else she did before going back to her cashier station is in no danger whatsoever of dying.

You know who is in danger of dying?

The diabetic who has had so many extreme lows that s/he is unable to feel one coming on. The ones that hit with little or no warning and strike the person down unconscious. Not someone who can diddle-daddle around eating a bag of chips...


Luckily, Mr Pip, who is a diabetic,can still feel when one is coming on, even the ones that strike suddenly. The time his Bg was 29, he was gray. Absolutely gray, with sweat pouring off of him like he'd been out in the rain.

That's what someone close to dying looks like.

[Occulus]

85. And not a note of defense for or sympathy toward the subject of the OP.

[pipi_k]

155. Of course, I would be remiss

if I didn't say I'm sorry she has diabetes.

It sucks. Big time.

People can lose their toes and feet and kidneys and eyesight and all sorts of other nasty stuff can happen.

I'm truly sorry she has to deal with that.

[uppityperson]

229. and again you miss the point of the OP.

[pipi_k]

253. No, I get the point of the OP...

I just don't happen to agree with all of it.

[Occulus]

240. day late, dollar short

[hyphenate]

99. I can still feel going low

Now that I've normalized to a decent degree, I can tell when I've gotten to a point of discomfort. My mind gets thicker, I begin to sweat, and I lose all urges to move. A sense of what I call "dread" descends on me, and I probably turn pale, though I have yet to see that last. I tend not to eat breakfast, which means it's a race to the clock to get food into me before I get too low. Lately, my numbers for hypo are in the 50s and low 60s when I begin to feel that sensation. When I DO go low, I have been known to binge, trying to take in an enormous amount of calories to level out my numbers.

[pipi_k]

203. You're lucky...

Some people can't feel themselves going low. I have a friend whose son has to wear a monitor all the time because he goes low without even knowing it...

Anyway, you say you ingest all kinds of food in an attempt to raise your Bg level, so tell me...

if you ever felt yourself going low and knew you needed to act quickly, would your choice of food be one bag of potato chips?

[Raster]

119. This wasn't about you or your husband. I am a T2 diabetic. Each person's hypo experience is unique

... to them. The hypo threshhold is different for each person, contingent on THEIR typical average blood glucose level. You know what your husband looks like during his hypo events. Period. And that is all you know.

"I can tell you from experience..." No you can't. Shut it.

[smokey nj]

120. Thank you.

[pipi_k]

142. "Shut it"...

How mature.

:eyes:

What I'm referring to is the supposition by some in this thread that this woman was "trying to save her own life" by eating those chips. If she was that dangerously low, then the symptoms would have gone far beyond the more common symptoms like shakiness and anxiety. If she was at Death's Door like some suggest, she would not be functional enough to care for herself.

If not totally unconscious, she most certainly would be in a stupor of some kind.

By her own account, she was aware enough to grab SOME kind of food and gobble it down, returning, one presumes, to whatever activity she had been about beforehand.

That doesn't constitute an "emergency".

which was one of my points here.

She must obviously have been at one of these levels listed here

http://diabetes.webmd.com/tc/hypoglycemia-low-blood-sugar-symptoms

Even if you have mild symptoms, you don't treat them with potato chips. You take a glucose tab every few minutes and test if possible so that your Bg rises but doesn't go too high.

But I call bullshit on the notion here that she was "trying to save her own life" by eating those chips.

[Horse with no Name]

166. Sorry but in an emergency you treat them with ANY carb that is available

carbs break down to sugar and obviously she didn't have her glucose tabs available.

What degree did you say you have?

[pipi_k]

194. Oh, sorry...I thought the article said she worked in Walgreens

you know...where they sell things like soda and milk and candy and even those glucose tabs.

But maybe this is one of those Walgreens that only sells potato chips and greeting cards.


Yeah...that's it.

That poor woman was working in one of those Walgreens with only two products.

My bad.

[uppityperson]

230. As you have written...

How mature.
:eyes:

[Pithlet]

242. You never fail to amaze me

:eyes:

[MedicalAdmin]

169. YOu don't know if it constitutes an emergency...

... or if she knows her own signs well enough and was working short-staffed and unable to leave the area. Perhaps she was trying to avoid an emergency.

Your compassion is underwhelming. And I think that is the issue that most here have with your (IMO indefensible) post. Instead of assuming that this woman may have known her own situation and medical condition and worked to keep going in the circumstances WITHOUT intent to steal, you assume that she is either guilty or an idiot or a liar.

Go roll your eyes somewhere else. When did you stop maturing? Junior High?

[smokey nj]

175. .....

:applause:

[pipi_k]

196. You lose, honey

You are making this about ME.

Launching a personal attack because you don't like what I have to say.


I have tried to stick to THE ISSUE throughout this thread, but some of you seem to be having a lot of trouble doing that. If it's necessary to attack someone, then that means your argument has failed.

Insult me all you want...that doesn't strengthen your position. It doesn't make you "right".


Oh, and something pretty funny here....

a couple of others here...actual diabetics who have said nearly exactly the same thing I have...are they being attacked as well?

I'm not seeing it.

Oh, hey...here's a fun game, guys! Let's all pile on the person who isn't a diabetic but is saying the same thing the diabetics are. Because....

uh... uh....


We don't like what she's saying. That's a good enough reason!

Boo-yah!!!

[uppityperson]

231. Oh puckey. WHERE have you "tried to stick to THE ISSUE"? The issue of this thread being about her

getting fired? Where? Nowhere.

How mature.
:eyes:

[pipi_k]

261. Let me put this another way...

There isn't just ONE issue here, much as many here would like to think there is.

I see another issue, and I'm doing my best to stick to discussing that issue while others are taking potshots at me and my character just because they don't like what I'm saying.

Even as others are saying the same thing I am, but not getting blasted all to hell and back.

I'm trying my best to stick to that issue and not insult others because they don't agree with me.

Is that better?

[uppityperson]

277. Hi Jack! 18 year Walgreens diabetic employee fired over bag of chips

Hernandez said she paid for the chips as soon as she could leave her cashier's post at the South San Francisco drugstore. She said she tried to explain her actions to Walgreens, but the company fired her.

"They said they had a zero-tolerance policy," said David Offen-Brown, an attorney with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which filed a federal court suit Thursday accusing the Illinois retailer of discriminating against a disabled employee.

Hernandez had worked nearly 18 years for Walgreens with no disciplinary record, the EEOC said. She told the agency she usually carried some candy in her pocket in case her blood sugar dropped, but hadn't brought any along that day.

[pipi_k]

278. And?

yeah. That's the article.

I thought this was a discussion board.

You know...where people have various thoughts and ideas and share them...

How does that translate to a bunch of people all posting basically the same thing...the same theme...how awful Walgreens is (based on one side of the story).

You mean to tell me that 150 people all agreeing with each other is a "discussion"?

[Mimosa]

224. I just talked to my med prof buddy about this

He said Lance's P'nut butter crackers beat the hell out of candies or sugar intense juices for hypoglycemic incidents. (But he's looking at my type of hypoglycemia.)

Another member described the method which works for me and certain friends. Candy can just be too much, too fast, and lead to a sugar induced crash where one PASSES OUT!

BTW, I am appalled at the harsh judgments directed at a working woman of 18 years duration! It sounds like what I'd expect on a Rethug board. *Grrrrrr*

If you are a non-insulin dependent type 2 diabetic, the chances of you getting into real trouble with low blood sugar is almost zero. It's uncomfortable but you are not going to die. And playing blood sugar yoyo is indeed damaging which is WHY someone might choose potato chips over a candy bar. If I eat chips, my blood sugar will rise slowly. If I eat a candy bar when I'm first feeling the symptoms, my BS will skyrocket, then crash if I don't have a good meal soon after the candy bar and I'll be in even worse shape than I was to start with and will need another candy bar. If you do indeed have a diabetic spouse, you will know that the recommendation after using rescue glucose is to immediately find proper nourishment. If she knew she would be unable to find proper nourishment within the next hour, then her choice was valid, as pure sugar would likely exacerbate the problem. When she said she felt the need to treat it quickly, she may have meant she needed to eat something now to raise her blood sugar over time and not have it crash again in an hour. You are equating quickly with 'if she didn't eat pure sugar at that moment she was a goner, so why did she choose potato chips?' when it was actually likely, "I'm feeling like my blood sugar is going down, I"m feeling kinda shaky and my break isn't for 1.5 hrs, so I need to eat this bag of chips immediately if I don't want to have an episode." Potato chips are a carb. They are somewhat low on the glycemic index, but chips still raise your blood sugar substantially - especially if they are a type that has sugar in the flavouring. It just tends to have more staying power than candy.

[pipi_k]

259. Actually, anybody worried about a crash

should follow up the immediate treatment with something else...like the peanut butter crackers.

I'm not a diabetic, but I do occasionally have episodes of reactive hypoglycemia. The peanut butter crackers work fine. Sugar is like poison to people with reactive hypoglycemia, because, like you pointed out, it raises the Bg quickly but then there's the eventual crash and you can end up feeling worse than before.

[MedicalAdmin]

162. It is better to keep one's mouth shut and have others think you are fool ...

... than to open it and remove all doubt.

The fact that the woman in the OP may not have the same kind, expression, or form of diabetes as your SO doesn't seem to enter into your mind. I'm sorry your SO has it that bad, but at our clinic we don't try to judge a persons sickness. Disease isn't an isolated island, it exists within the multiplicity of genetics and environmental factors that combined make each human unique.

In short, your rush to judgement without knowing that woman's medical history and dx wass ill advised.

[smokey nj]

164. Don't bother.

I tried to say the same thing down thread.

[MedicalAdmin]

184. Evolution is self selecting, no? n/t

[pipi_k]

204. Having fun, dear?

Oh, so many constructive things that could be done on a Saturday afternoon/evening...

Activity of choice? Following someone around and insulting her at every opportunity.

sigh...

:eyes:

[smokey nj]

205. Get help because you need it badly obviously. You're arguing with yourself now.

[pipi_k]

206. No, dear...

as long as you keep replying, I'm arguing with you.

And as long as you keep running around being the cheering section for someone else against me, I'm going to point out how juvenile it is.

Oh, and in case you hadn't noticed...

I haven't said anything much different from what some ACTUAL diabetics here have said.

Nobody is piling on them. Only me.

For saying the same thing.

Like I said in another post...

that is fucking twisted.

[pipi_k]

199. I never diagnosed anyone

I said I suspected something because she said she needed to act quickly and decided to grab the chips.

People here decided that she was only trying to "save her own life".

Are you going to tell me that someone who is in danger of dying, as some of the people here decided she MUST be, is going to "save herself" by eating chips?

Seriously?

Other people...actual bona fide diabetics agreed with me. As well as information from quite a few online sites on diabetes and treatments for hypoglycemia.

so. Diabetics who say the same thing I do are right, but I'm wrong because I'm NOT diabetic?

WTF???

That's just fucking twisted.

[Horse with no Name]

165. And, as a nurse, I can tell you that what you said is 100% false...

EVERY single diabetic is different. Every one of them. Dying looks different on each patient. I've seen enough of them crash and burn to tell you some of them just go down after the initial sinking feeling and the pallor/diaphoresis can come at different times for different patients.

How your husband experiences his crashes are going to be different than how others experience their crashes.

My guess is that they might have had those chips on an end-cap so I am assuming she might have grabbed the closest thing.

I sincerely doubt she wandered down the aisle choosing her favorite salty snack to steal. After 18 years of service to one company.

And while you might have seen what your husband looks close to dying..dying looks different on lots of different people.

[pipi_k]

201. I NEVER said she was dying

OTHERS claimed that she was trying to save her own life and that is why she ate the chips.

They assumed she was at death's door.

And the woman herself said she needed to act quickly.

People here telling me I'm assuming lots of things, yet right there in your own post, you state:

"My guess is that they might have had those chips on an end-cap so I am assuming she might have grabbed the closest thing.

I sincerely doubt she wandered down the aisle choosing her favorite salty snack to steal. After 18 years of service to one company."


I don't like being accused of assuming things when others who accuse me are doing the same damned thing. Guessing. Assuming. Doubting.

Nobody here knows the true story. I only presented another side. People here are apparently so caught up in believing what they want to that there IS no other side. Only their own. And if that's not bad enough, they have to be rude and insulting to me on top of it.

[Mimosa]

293. Bless you for your kindness.

You sound like my med prof buddy who is cold as ice to people who don't know him but says never judge people by what one observes at the surface.

BTW, Walgreens is a mean greedy company. Here in GA they are informing patients that they may stop =accepting Blue Cross Blue Shield Rx coverage (which i don't have anyway but my friend does). Apparently the two greedy health care 'providers' are at odds re: compensation.

[Generic Other]

313. I just got the same letter from Walgreens

I was shocked they would refuse to fill prescriptions for all state workers. That must be a lot of lost revenue for them.

Rx for bankruptcy?

[nadine_mn]

315. Try reading the article again - she COULDN'T LEAVE HER CASHIER POST

Which meant she WASN'T skipping down the aisles looking for a snack, or glucose tabs or milk, or whatever you suggest

SHE PROBABLY COULD ONLY GRAB WHAT WAS WITHIN ARMS REACH! Which at a Walgreens is a Cosmo mag, candy, or CHIPS

ffs - read the damn article, imagine being a cashier who can't leave her station for fear of getting fired.

The article said she couldn't leave to pay for them - so she was probably doing the best she could.

[devilgrrl]

321. "Not someone who can diddle-daddle around eating a bag of chips..."

:spray: :eyes:

[KamaAina]

11. Josefina Hernandez is the 21st-century Jean Valjean

[Liberal_in_LA]

14. +100

[Aerows]

13. My word

What is Walgreen's management thinking? Did they instead prefer that she drop dead at the counter?

[CurtEastPoint]

15. Tell Walgreens here:

http://www.walgreens.com/topic/marketing/contactus/default1.jsp?foot=contact_us

[Liberal_in_LA]

22. thanks for the contact info

[Yo_Mama]

26. Thank you.

I am using your link now. There is an address for snail mail:
Walgreen Co.
200 Wilmot Road
Deerfield, IL 60015

[Left Coast2020]

125. YES,YES,YES! Call these slimballs on it!!

:argh:

[era veteran]

181. Done

Thanks for the link.
I will not spend money there.

[stuntcat]

207. TY!

I wrote to them! I never forget this kind of thing. If I have to avoid Walgreens forever I'll do it, that's just how crazy I can get.. this was horrible what they did.

[Habibi]

19. Would be nice if

the local patrons of that particular Walgreens switched their prescriptions to another pharmacy. And maybe held a few protests outside that particular store.

[Shagbark Hickory]

25. Would be nice if they stopped selling all that candy and shit too.

It's a fucking pharmacy. It's supposed to help make you healthier not unhealthier.

[dixiegrrrrl]

29. I am so mad at Wal-greens I could spit.

They bought out our small town pharmacy, which SOLD to Wal-greens ALL the patient prescription records.

Without patient consent or knowledge.

Nobody knew about the sale until after it was a done deal and the local pharmacy had closed.
Then Wal-greens, who charges 3 times as much for a script as any other place in town, filled the scripts and called the patients.
" You can come by and pick up your refilled script anytime".
I know because they called ME.

"And why did you fill MY prescription without being asked", I wondered.

" Oh, it is our new "convenience policy".

I told them where to put the prescription.

Found another place to get re-fills WHEN I NEED THEM for less than the old pharmacy prices.

We will never set foot in that place, not ever.
grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

[indepat]

38. I now have a zero-tolerance policy with respect to Walgreen's

:patriot:

[Yo_Mama]

23. I think she has a good lawsuit

You couldn't fire an employee for leaving his or her post because of any health cause, so I don't think you can fire one for eating a bag of chips to avoid winding up on the floor.

There has got to be more to this story. Insane manager? Looking for cause to fire? Long time grudge? Trying to get rid of all employees with health conditions?

Sure hope it goes to jury trial! I would PAY to be on that jury. It makes it even better that this is a pharmaceutical chain - they're going to have some trouble convincing anyone that they don't know what diabetes is, and how dangerous it is for a diabetic to let sugar go too low.

[MedicalAdmin]

170. It depends on the state, doesn't it? n/t

[dtexdem]

24. Zero tolerance policy = zero tolerance of disability.

Zero tolerance of protecting employee health.

Maybe it's time for zero tolerance of Walgreens.

[Contrary1]

30. Wow, just wow.

One day, before I was diagnosed, I was shopping at a Kmart. All of a sudden, I started shaking and sweating. I became very disoriented, and ended up walking into a pole. I couldn't even remember where I was, or what I was doing there for a minute or two.

When a diabetic has a situation like this, they need to get something to eat ASAP. I would have gone for candy, myself. Sometimes, when a diabetic's sugar gets too low, their thinking process becomes distorted. Maybe she can use that as a defense.

[Generic Brad]

31. She paid for it and still got fired?

Guess I'll have to shop at CVS Pharmacy from now on. I don't do business with a**holes if I have another option.

[spin]

32. So she sues and wins and I have another reason not to shop at Walgreens

I did shop at one of their stores but now I go to CVS.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

33. A friend of mine worked there for 6 years.

At that point, they brought in efficiency experts and ended up firing General Managers all over the country....to replace them with lower paid, less experienced ones. She was really upset. This was her career. It was really ridiculous. I'm moving all of my prescriptions as soon as I can.

[baldguy]

34. And the RW wants to end all govt regulations on corporations

Since, of course, we can always trust them to do the right thing.

[Sirveri]

36. Does she have a union rep?

If she had one we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.

[Tesha]

37. This is easy.

She sues or files a complaint with the authorities
(regarding her diabetes as a disability), Walgreens
corporate management *INSTANTLY* over-rules their
local management, and they spend whatever money it
takes to rehire her and/or make the problem go away.

She's on very safe ground.

Tesha

[Dude111]

39.

Totally disgusting!!!!!!!

@ least she didnt try to steal them,its thier loss i guess!! (She may be replaced by someone WHO DOES RIP THEM OFF)

[pipi_k]

42. Something smells fishy about her story

I've been dealing with being the spouse of a diabetic for 15 years.

He has had some very scary hypoglycemic episodes over the years. His lowest Bg was 29. That's near dead. That's when you forget the glucose tabs and orange juice and glucogel. That's when you get out the glucagon pen and shoot it into the person's ass and then call the ambulance.

There have been other incidents where it was in the 50s. I can tell you all that not once in 15 years have I ever tried to "save his life" by feeding him potato chips.

Potato chips do contain carbs, but the fat in them slows down the absorption of the glucose.

You want to feed the person pure glucose. If that woman was THAT badly off, one stinking bag of potato chips isn't going to cut it...sorry!

I can't even count how many nights I've stayed up for two hours or more feeding Mr Pip cookies and orange juice and checking his Bg level every 15 minutes hoping it will eventually go up.


So I call bullshit on her claim that the reason she took those chips was to "raise her blood sugar". As a diabetic, she knew enough to carry candy with her on other occasions, and there's a reason for it. Sugar is the FASTEST way to raise blood glucose level. Had she scarfed down a couple of candy bars instead, then I would believe her.

[Raine]

47. Yeah the chips seems kind of strange

I am close to a couple people who are diabetic and right away I thought "chips?!?!?" :wtf:

I even had a dog that was diabetic and I gave him Karo Syrup, no way would I have given him "chips"!

[pipi_k]

49. Exactly! Even a candy bar

made of chocolate wouldn't have been the absolute best thing to eat because the fat in the chocolate would slow down the absorption of the sugar, but it would be a bit more believable than potato chips.


Lots of ignorance in this thread, which is scary. I can just see some here in the presence of a person having a serious hypo episode....oh, hey! Let's give him some....potato chips!!!

Besides the fact that chips wouldn't do shit to raise someone's glucose level quickly, there would also be the chance the person could go unconscious and end up choking on those chips.

[Mimosa]

77. People who are having a hypo attack don't always think clearly (brain fog)

Personally I hate the taste of sugar. And I'd pick nuts over something salty over something sugary.

[pipi_k]

86. Well like I said below someplace...

she apparently does not mind the taste of sugar, since the article states that she usually carries it with her but didn't have any that day. She was also not so badly off that she didn't somehow think to herself that she would pay for them as soon as she could.


It doesn't say in the other articles I've read whether or not she left her post, just that she grabbed a bag of chips and gobbled them down. Those exact words..."gobbled".


And then she paid for them "as soon as she could the same day".

What does that mean? She was too busy to grab her purse from her locker? If she was too busy, then I question how she managed to survive the 15 or 20 minutes it would probably take for those chips to start working on her Bg. They would not work immediately. And if her judgement was so impaired that she couldn't make a logical choice as to what would bring up her Bg, then how on earth did she manage to stay at her cash register checking people out? Assuming she did, I mean.

If she requested a break and then grabbed the chips, that must mean she had at least ten minutes to get money from her purse and pay for them right then and there.

Sorry...there is something fishy about her tale.

[markpkessinger]

234. Exactly.

I am a fairly recently diagnosed Type II diabetic, which so far (knock on wood) I've been able to manage fairly well. I have an older sister, though, who has been diabetic for over 20 years. She is very disciplined about here diet/exercise/insulin regimen, but nevertheless, she is what is known as a "brittle diabetic," meaning that it is just extremely hard to control even with the best efforts. As an example of what can happen when a diabetic is having a hypoglycemic episode, my sister woke up one night about a year or so ago, and knew she didn't feel right. She tested herself, and she was in the mid-40s (extremely dangerous territory). But in the fog created by her low blood sugar, she started preparing an insulin injection (which at that point could have been fatal at that point). Fortunately, one of her children woke up and realized what she was about to do, and gave her some orange juice instead.

It never ceases to amaze me, with respect to diabetes, that it seems to be the only disease in the world where everybody and his brother who does NOT have the disease nevertheless believes himself/herself to be an expert in it!

[pipi_k]

270. Nobody is questioning brain fog except

with respect to the suggestion by some that the woman was so "out of it" she couldn't even choose a reasonable food to handle a low...even while she was apparently "with it" enough to stay at her post, checking customers out, bagging, making change, etc.

If she's too "foggy" to choose something besides chips, then she's too foggy to stay behind the counter doing more complex tasks. Yet there's no suggestion that she had to leave her post.

Ya can't have it both ways.

Are you going to tell me that your sister who was so out of it she nearly injected insulin could have handled anything more complicated?

This is the problem with the excuses people have given for that woman's bad choice, and why her story has a bit of a smell to it.

[bhikkhu]

111. And that checkout areas are usually loaded with candy and sugary snacks

At least in the stores I've been to, chips seem not space-efficient enough to stock very near the registers where margins are highest and impulse purchasing is encouraged.

[Horse with no Name]

171. A lot of the ignorance is coming directly from you. n/t

[pipi_k]

193. Oh geez...

you know what really sucks?

People who think they're being so clever with their snarky little one-liners.

No discussion.

Just a one line insult.

Now there's intelligence.

:eyes:

[slackmaster]

64. Even a beer would make more sense than potato chips

:beer:

[pipi_k]

66. Hah...you're right!

:7

[IDemo]

67. You'd think so, but no

http://www.medicinenet.com/alcohol_and_nutrition/page4.htm

Drinking as little as 2 ounces of alcohol on an empty stomach can lead to very low blood sugar levels. This makes alcohol an even bigger problem for anyone with diabetes. Along with the impact on blood sugar, studies have also shown that alcohol can impact the effectiveness of the hypoglycemic medications, so extreme caution needs to be taken when consuming alcohol by anyone with diabetes.

[slackmaster]

70. OK, how about a White Russian?

Or a Long Island Iced Tea?



Or a Zombie?

[IDemo]

74. I generally have a Screwdriver

minus the vodka, of course

[pipi_k]

76. They're talking about liquor...

not beer.

Beer will actually raise the Bg, although only slightly.

Liquors like gin, vodka, etc., they will cause a drop.

[IDemo]

80. No, this applies to beer as well

A big part of the equation is whether the alcohol, beer or other, is taken on an empty stomach.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-relationship-between-beer-and-diabetes.htm

Much of the time the real danger with beer and diabetes is that the beverage may induce hypoglycemia. Alcohol can shut off sugar production in the body and when this is combined with medications for diabetes that do the same, people can end up with dramatically low blood sugar. The symptoms of low blood sugar can be mistaken for intoxication, and the more beer a person drinks, the less likely he or she is to notice the hypoglycemic state to take medications that can correct it. For this reason, doctors recommend that patients not consume much of any type of alcohol in one sitting, or at any time, and they should especially not drink beer on an empty stomach or after taking medication to lower blood sugar.

Approaching the 50 year mark with Type 1.

[MedicalAdmin]

173. Argue not padawan. The all wise ObiWan has spoken...

She knows all, she sees all and she smells something fishy.

[pipi_k]

192. Someone's having a social problem today, I see...

Actually I was going to thank the previous person for the information and remark that we learn something new every day.

I'm really sorry you're having such a shitty day that you have to dump on someone you don't agree with.

I'm here to talk about a different viewpoint.

You seem to be here only to shit on people who don't share your ideology.

How wonderfully mature and Democratic.

[markpkessinger]

282. Right. Like that would be an option at work. n/t

Potato chips make perfect sense: they are CARBS which metabolize into glucose.

[MedicalAdmin]

172. Most chips, depend on brand...

are a highly processed, easily digestable simple carb. While not as good a glucose, it is a reasonable alternative in a pinch. If the chips were flavored this is even more true.

[pipi_k]

198. What "pinch" was there?

She worked in WALGREENS

Not the Potato Chip factory.

I will go out on a limb here and say that Walgreens stores are pretty standard as far as layout.

I have NEVER seen a potato chip display near the checkout lanes. NEVER.

It's usually all gum and candy and cheap little toys and trinket things.

Which means a person working the registers would have to leave the area and go to the chips/snacks aisle.

Lots of options there, and she says she needed to act quickly, so what does she choose? Something that even you say will not be that great of a choice for quick relief.

Oh, and just wanted to add...

that the person you replied to is saying much the same thing I have, yet you are able to treat the person with a level of respect. Hypocrisy and double standards really suck.

[MedicalAdmin]

243. You're right. She's wrong. Glad you cleared that up for me. n/t

[markpkessinger]

236. Unless you have the disease or are a medical professional, you shouldn't presume

I have the disease. As others have pointed out, it's different for every diabetic. And in an extremely low blood sugar episode, one cannot necessarily think clearly enough to grab the "right" food.

PLEASE, PEOPLE -- DIABETES IS AN EXTREMELY COMPLICATED DISEASE. JUST BECAUSE YOUR CLOSE FRIEND, OR SPOUSE, OR PARENT, OR CAT HAD IT DOES NOT QUALIFY YOU AS AN EXPERT ON THE CONDITION. AND THIS KIND OF THINKING IS EXACTLY THE SORT OF THING THAT CONTRIBUTES TO THE KIND OF INSENSITIVITY TO THE NEEDS OF DIABETICS THAT WALMART DISPLAYED IN THIS STORY.

[pipi_k]

265. Here's the problem...

She was working in Walgreens, and unless it was closed at the time, there were people in the store.

She was a cashier. That means having to check out customers. That also means it takes a certain level of awareness to carry out more complex tasks than choosing candy over potato chips.

Apparently she was able to do that.

I find it hard to believe that anyone who can function at that level hasn't the awareness to choose a more suitable food.

Or call for help from a fellow cashier.

Had she been found wandering around the store in a stupor, then that's a whole different story.

Anybody "feeling an attack of hypoglycemia coming on" (as was written in one article I read) is not going to know how quickly, nor how far, her Bg is likely to fall. She usually carried candy, because she apparently knew it worked well, but didn't have any that day.

So, while continuing to do relatively complex tasks at the register, she is apparently, according to some, too foggy-brained to choose the best option.

I don't believe it for a second.

[Blasphemer]

50. I also thought it odd that she chose chips

Usually, there are candy bars right up front. If this case goes to court, she'll most likely be grilled on that point.

[pipi_k]

52. And I have no doubt whatsoever...

that Walgreens will have an expert there to testify on the glycemic value of potato chips and their unsuitability for quick treatment of a hypoglycemic episode.

But anyway, you're right. Any Walgreens I've ever been in has all sorts of candy right there by the checkout aisle.

[pschoeb]

62. Potatoes are much higer glycemic than table sugar

Potatoes are one of the highest glycemic foods, and you don't know if they were baked chips which are very common now. Even potato chips that are fried would be as good as sugar, but baked potato chips would be even better

[pipi_k]

71. Read this....

http://www.carbs-information.com/glycemic-index/potato-chips-gi.htm


Potato chips have a low glycemic value.


Even a baked potato would have been better.

A baked chip would no doubt be higher on the glycemic index, but still not as good as a straight "shot" of some form of glucose.


I'm not going to get into speculating whether or not the chips were low fat. Even if they were, if she were having a true emergency, the time it would take for her to eat the entire bag of chips would be wasted as opposed to chewing on a glucose tablet or drinking a small bottle of grape juice, unless she shoved the entire bag of chips into her mouth at one time. Even then she has to chew and swallow them, then wait for her body to extract the carbs.

With a glucose tab or juice, there's no need for extraction. The carbs are immediately processed by the body.

[MedicalAdmin]

176. Your basic concern is sound.

The best way to deal with this is with a good source of glucose that is readily digestible. Chips should not be ones first choice.

But any port in a storm. We don't know the circumstances or her health history or dx. But you assume she is wrong and many of the rest of us give her the benefit of the doubt. You aren't in corporate management by any chance, are you? Maybe you have an MBA from Harvard? Golf with Blankfein?

[pipi_k]

190. "any port in a storm"?

She worked in Walgreens for petes sake!

It's not exactly a desert island!

It's not like she's the only person in the store.

"Any port in a storm" is for when someone is having a low in heavy traffic and the only thing at hand is a bag of chips.


If she's aware enough to know she is having a low and that she needs to fend it off, she must be aware enough to know that there are people who can help her.


And you and others assume that she is right. On no other "evidence" than her own story.

Tell me, please, how that is any better than assuming she is wrong.

Really.

Everybody in this thread is assuming. Not just me.

PS..your last sentence was unnecessary. If you can't discuss a topic without personal attacks, then don't bother.

[MedicalAdmin]

244. If you don't want to be associated with MBA's or Blankfein...

Then perhaps you should be adopting their talking points. Just a suggestion.

[pipi_k]

257. One person's "talking points"

is another person's "I refuse to graze on the same grass as the rest of the herd".

[MedicalAdmin]

271. Whatever you say... you are, of course, right n/t

[catrose]

72. oh, come on

You don't know how low she was or what was immediately available to her or how fuzzy her thoughts were or what her doctor had been advising her. A lot diabetics have a "must not eat sugar" mentality. When my husband (diabetic of 12 years starts nibbling from the breadbasket at a restaurant, I go find the waiter and say that we need food now. Another friend, who had turned gray and sweaty, fought off a blood sugar drop with an egg roll. It worked.

In planning events and parties, I've discovered that every diabetic will tell you something different on the subject of what diabetics should be eating.

[pipi_k]

75. some people turn gray and sweaty

without even being diabetic.

Some people have a condition called "reactive hypoglycemia". I have it myself.

At times I can have all the symptoms of a diabetic low except that my Bg is well above 70. A bit of milk and a couple of peanut butter filled crackers will stop the symptoms within 15 minutes. But that's a whole different story than being a diabetic.


So this friend who "fought off a blood sugar drop with an eggroll"...is this friend a diabetic? Lots of other conditions cause grayness and sweating. Anxiety, for one.


the point here is that so many people in this thread are mistakenly assuming that the woman was at death's door and would surely have croaked if she hadn't "saved her life" with a bag of chips.

And I say that's bullshit. Someone that ill is going to be incoherent. Unable to walk. Certainly not able to help herself. Her condition would have been readily apparent. You don't go from death's door back to your cash register in the time it takes to eat a bag of chips.


And, as has already been shown in the story, she was in the habit of carrying candy, but apparently forgot that one day. So she knows that candy will work. She doesn't HAVE an aversion to sugar. If you carry candy because it works, you don't change your M.O. to chips to "save your life".

[catrose]

186. yes, he is a diabetic

I wouldn't have given him an example if he weren't. He'd shot insulin before leaving the house, thinking he'd be eating soon. (No, he doesn't do that any more.) So there wasn't any guessing about the problem.

Low blood sugar could mean anything between near dead at 30 and 80. If you feel yourself slipping--my husband can predict pretty accurately where his blood sugar is just by the way he feels (hand tremors are the first sign)--that's the time to do something. And, yes, just eating a little bit of something can bring you back to normal in minutes. Other people have mentioned that a squirt of sugar can send blood sugar soaring. I'd hate to be with any company or person that thinks you should let yourself pass out rather than address the condition immediately by whatever means were at hand.

A friend's 10 year old granddaughter died at school because her teacher was convinced that the girl was faking an asthma attack. So I tend to believe people when they say they're sick. I'd hate to be the teacher who called "bullshit."

[karynnj]

101. Walgreens is a drug store -

It would seem that she could have asked to take a quick break, bought the tablets that work best, paid for them - probably with an employee discount.

A sensible supervisor would rather have an employee take the 2 or 3 minutes needed to get a package of the tablets and a bottle of juice and take it then have the disruption of an impaired employee.

As she had worked their 18 years, the story does not make sense. I really don't get why she didn't tell her co-workers what was going on to get the help needed.

[catrose]

226. I don't know for sure

But a lot of those kind of Macjobs don't allow you to leave your post except at managerially appointed break times. I'm suspecting that might have been the case because she couldn't get away to pay for the food until later. The same would have applied to any worker near her.

[pipi_k]

256. Any of the Walgreens I've ever been to...

I've often seen the cashier off doing something else when the store wasn't terribly busy. At times I've had to wait until the person saw me at the register, or after I've rung the little bell.

I think it might be part of the job to straighten shelves or fold T-shirts (the ones near me sell some clothing) or some other "make work" sort of task.

Even if they can't leave the register, though, they do have those phones connected to wherever they connect to for checking prices or asking for help at another register...

[Odin2005]

78. Prehaps her low BSL affected her judgement, brains run on pure glucose, after all.

[pipi_k]

81. If her judgement were that badly affected...

then she should have been hospitalized.

But her judgement and coordination were not so badly affected that she couldn't get herself over the chips aisle. Her judgement was not so badly affected that she couldn't think to herself, "Well, I'll pay for these when I get back to my cash register".

Seems like she has a bit of selective judgement...

:eyes:

[smokey nj]

79. The article doesn't specify what kind of chips she took.

She could have eaten a bag of dried apple chips for all you know.

[pipi_k]

82. It didn't but...

dried apple chips have a low glycemic index.

http://www.dietandfitnesstoday.com/glycemicIndexDetails.php?id=702

Any diabetic would know that, I would think, and choose something more appropriate.

Like glucose tabs. Hard candy. Juice.

In any case, I think I'm in the majority in that when I hear the phrase "a bag of chips" the first thing to come to mind is...

potato chips.

Seems like most everyone in this thread thought the same thing.

Potato chips.

[smokey nj]

83. I don't care what the glycemic index of apple chips is.

I merely pointed out that you're calling this woman a liar based on what may very well be false assumptions.

[pipi_k]

88. I'm calling her tale suspicious

Lots of other people here are calling Walgreens a bunch of dirty stinking bastards based on their false assumptions as well.

That the woman was "trying to save her own life".


People with diabetes don't "save their own lives" by eating potato chips.

Yet that's what others in this thread are assuming. That she was at Death's Door and ready to keel over but for being saved by a bag of potato chips.


She "usually carries candy" but on this day, she just forgot. :eyes:

Is she still working at the register when she feels a low coming on so quickly that she grabs a bag of chips and gobbles them down? Really? In front of customers? And if her judgement is so bad she didn't know to grab candy or juice instead, how the hell did she manage to check out customers for the 15 to 20 minutes it must have taken for those chips to have an effect? Because they would not work immediately.

Or did she leave her post and walk to the chips aisle where she ripped open the bag of chips and gobbled them down (an article I read said exactly that!) She knows enough to carry candy, usually, but this day she chooses to treat with potato chips.

I smell bullshit here.

[smokey nj]

89. We know Walgreens fired a long-time employee for a minor infraction, that

does make them greedy bastards. That's a fact not in question, no assumption is necessary. You, on the other hand are making grand statements based on information not contained in the article.

[pipi_k]

214. We "know Walgreens fired an employee for a minor infraction"

based on the employee's side of the story.

but whatever...that's all it takes, right?

One side of the story.


I see a lot of that around here. People read a news item and there's only one side of the story and bigod, that's IT. They "know" all the facts, and the guilty party is usually always the side they hate anyway.

Just like Breitbart and Anthony Weiner. People who disbelieved Weiner were assholes. Breitbart was nothing but a scumdog lying piece of shit.

Until he was proven right.

Then people hated him more because he WAS right.


But whatever. We have one woman telling her side of the story, and that's the end of the matter. She couldn't possibly be lying... And there's no chance in hell that she never took anything without paying in the past, either.


:eyes:

I really and truly hope they have video footage of her shoplifting shit in the past.

[MedicalAdmin]

247. Holy fucking shit. Are you serious?

"I really and truly hope they have video footage of her shoplifting shit in the past."

Wow.

[pipi_k]

255. Yes, I am fucking serious, actually.

I would seriously love for there to be a backstory to all of this.

Just to demonstrate that there's nothing wrong with doubting the veracity of any story told from only one side.

There are always two sides, yet people seem to insist on believing whatever they're told without question as long as it matches their own prejudices.

If someone were to (falsely) post that Walgreens was butchering innocent Americans in the stockrooms, I bet there would be tons of "Those bastards!!!" "Assholes!!!" and "Let's boycott Walgreens!!!" posts. Only one or two would have the sense to check out the truthfulness and tell others it's a lie, but they would be called all sorts of filthy names by those who want to believe the story is true.

[MedicalAdmin]

272. The first person who called anyone a liar in this post was you... dear. n/t

[pipi_k]

276. Well I'm not sure I used the actual word "liar"

but if you say so, then it must be true.

In any case, I'm sure poor Ms Hernandez must be crying her eyes out in misery at my judgement of her.

Just like Walgreens must be crying its eyes out after being called whatever vile names they were called by people who think they suck because they read a one-sided story.

[Bluebear]

307. Sociopathic

[laundry_queen]

96. And I'm going to disagree with you

I have mild reactive hypoglycemia as well. Except, in my case, even if my blood sugar isn't that low and I'm just starting to get hypoglycemic symptoms sometimes I'll just black out. No real reason. My dr thinks it's some 'short' in my system, could be related to the anxiety feeling you get when you have an episode.

Sometimes if I start feeling a tad shaky, but not too bad yet, I know I have about 10 minutes to eat something before I start feeling really really sick. In that 10 minutes, I try to have something that's not super high sugar. If I have something that is high in sugar and I am not able to get some real food in me within an hour or so of eating that high sugar snack, I will crash even worse. So, I try, in that first 10 minutes, to eat something that is high in carbs but not so high on the glycemic index that I will have a huge crash again before I'm able to eat a proper meal. I only resort to high sugar stuff when I feel the black out coming.

So, I think it's important for people like you to not assume (just because you know someone with diabetes) about why this woman would have chosen potato chips instead of a candy bar. Maybe it was the only food within reach of her post. Or maybe she's like me, knew her break was more than an hour away and tried to stave off the blood sugar roller coaster by eating something not super high in sugar. The choices aren't between fine and drop dead. There's a large area in between in which you can feel sick, be unable to concentrate, feel frantic, have heart palpitations etc that would interfere with doing your duties.

You know, even if she wasn't diabetic, but for some reason didn't eat that morning and was really hungry and grabbed a bag of chips, that is still NO reason to fire someone. This is what happens when the corporations control you. We are nothing more than slaves when someone can be fired for eating a few chips on shift. It's akin to the not allowing people to use the bathroom rules some places have. My guess is they were looking for a reason to fire her to save a few bucks on insurance given that she's been there for 18 years and is likely older, plus has diabetes. Yet another reason there needs to be universal, single payer health care, and laws against firing people for medical reasons.

[smokey nj]

97. Well said.

[pipi_k]

106. It's a little more than just

"knowing someone with diabetes".

If you live with someone who has it, you live with it as well.


If she didn't leave her post, but grabbed the chips where they hung, how did she manage to deal with customers for the time it took for the chips to have an effect? Could have been 15 to 20 minutes or more.

If she is newly diagnosed, then OK. She wouldn't know.

But if she's been diabetic for a while she is being irresponsible in allowing people to believe that diabetic lows that must be handled quickly can be treated with potato chips. Apparently she knows enough to carry candy with her every day.

[laundry_queen]

128. If we're going to play that game

I had gestational diabetes with all 4 of my pregnancies so technically I lived with it for 3 years. In addition - type 2 is very different from type 1 - if you are somewhat newly diagnosed, chances are your hypo episodes aren't going to kill you. That only happens after years of living with diabetes. ETA: I should have said if you are type 2 and not insulin dependent. Obviously insulin can trigger deadly lows.

[cwydro]

149. yeah, I'm with you pipi...

something odd here. I had a gf who was a brittle diabetic...I'm not seeing this story.

[MedicalAdmin]

179. Wow.

"A little learning is a dangerous thing;
drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again."


Alexander Pope

[Name removed]

197. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Claudia Jones]

114. excellent post

Thanks very much for posting that point of view on the topic of diabetes, and for bringing the discussion back to the topic at hand - "this is what happens when the corporations control you. We are nothing more than slaves when someone can be fired for eating a few chips on shift."

[MedicalAdmin]

177. Didn't you know that Doc Pipi is up for the Nobel Prize in medicine...

... for her pioneering work in assumptive medicine?

[pipi_k]

185. yeah, just like many here are up for Nobel prizes

for their work in the field of the paranormal.

Knowing without all the facts what the REAL story is. Just going by one side of the story until ALL the facts come out.

Poor downtrodden woman (who took a bag of chips and just MAY have taken other things in the past as well) is "right".

Big Evil scum of the earth corporation just HAS to be "wrong" because people want them to be



Assumptive medicine vs Crystal ball readers

guess we're all fucked, aren't we?


PS...when you have to personally attack someone without provocation, you have officially lost all credibility.

[MedicalAdmin]

249. Then may I have the honor of nominating you for a charter membership...

... In the Incredulity Club.

[pipi_k]

252. Go for it, hon....

And while you're at it, add a few other people as well.

You know...actual diabetics who have also posted the same things I have. People who know what they're talking about who agree with what I've posted.

I don't see you arguing with them. Nobody is insulting them. I post the same things they do, and get blasted.

If it weren't so pathetic, it would be pretty hilarious.

[MedicalAdmin]

273. Back when I was working maximum security...

... we would spend a few minutes defusing riots by talking to the ring leaders. It was about finding the real reason that the precarious balance of peace that existed and finding out who and why they were tipping the balance. Most times by focussing on the real leaders, problems were resolved without violence. While not completely analogous to this post, YOU are the person who hijacked this tread and you are the person who keeps it up.

I thought of mentioning the vagaries of medical knowledge and the hubris of assumptions to other posters but frankly they aren't in your league in terms of this post. Had you brought up your concerns or questions about the story about this woman (as opposed to this woman's story which is how you seem to characterize it although assuming (there you go again) the veracity of reported statements is naive IMO.

Rather you used your post to imply that the story of this womans dismissal as told by the OP was BS. No one attacked you about (as far as I can tell) about your viewpoint and experience with another's genetic variance, but rather with you political position on the side of management.

I too would like to see more about this story, but given the current political and economic circumstances of most people today, I will assume her innocence while you are free to assume the innocence of the owners who fired her.

Cheerio.

[pipi_k]

275. I never thought I would see the day

When someone with a different opinion would be compared to a criminal.


This isn't prison, and I don't appreciate being equated to a criminal.

Having an opinion, and expressing it, is not a crime. I am not a "ringleader" of a revolt. I am merely someone who has thoughts on a topic...thoughts that are shared by others.

None of us has committed a crime, much as many here would like to believe we have, by not following the herd, as someone else put it.

So forgive me if I wasn't aware of the rule here which states that all DUers must never express thoughts that differ from those of the mob, at great risk of being confused with robbers, rapists, pedophiles, murders, and other criminals residing in our prison system.

[MedicalAdmin]

281. You are right. You ARE a victim. n/t

[pipi_k]

289. Oh, how sweet! And you are...

the most lovely, reasonable, caring, compassionate, polite, respectful person I've ever had the extreme pleasure of knowing.

I'm sensing a really close friendship in the making here...

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

319. Didn't you just wish out loud the Walgreen's employee turns out to be thief? So that

you can prove whatever crazy ass point it is that you that you think you're making? That sounds awfully close to comparing someone you don't know to a criminal because they have a different opinion about dealing with their illness.

" I never thought I would see the day..." Think about that next time you're clutching your pearls tightly and feel you're about to faint on your gigantic 1950s couch.... "Why I NEVAH!!!" :rofl:

[uppityperson]

95. cast judgement on the person involved rather than discussing the issue of firing her.

Good job! Bet that is how the defense will do it also.

SHOULD she have been fired for eating a bag of chips before paying for it?

[SammyWinstonJack]

117. Amazing, isn't it?

:shrug:

[grantcart]

118. I am guessing that her bs was 90s and not in danger of a severe event

but rather hit a point of 'extreme hunger'.


I'll be going along fine and then when my bs hits below 90 my stomach flips a switch and I get a severe hunger cramp. I am not in danger of fainting but the feeling of a hunger pang is just overwhelming.

At that point I will eat the nearest thing available. If I was in a park with no food I would consider munching on some grass. If a bag of chips were the closest thing available I would grab that and worry about my sugar later.

When I hit that point I can feel hunger about to erupt and sometimes I'll take my wife's hand and put it on my stomach so she can feel my stomach start to growl. It does and it really freaks her out.

So I am guessing that it was a severe hunger pang related to a sudden drop of blood sugar and not a near diabetic faint.

I think if it was not diabetic related then she wouldn't have fought so hard. If she was prone to stealing I don't think she would have lasted 18 years.

I think Walgreens made a terrible mistake and unless there is another part of the story that we don't know about then they should have been willing to accept this explanation.

[Zhade]

129. Let me clear something up for you: YOU AREN'T QUALIFIED TO QUESTION HER STORY.

You weren't there.

You don't have diabetes -- and no, even being married to someone with it doesn't count. Unless you live with the disease, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

When I feel a crash coming, *nothing* is off-limits foodwise. You can't think straight when in that state. FOOD NOW is the only operating principle sometimes.

Fuck your excuse-making for corporate bullshit, and your hand-wringing pretenses about "understanding" diabetes.

You. Don't. Know. Shit. Especially when you just start making assumptions.

/rant

[pipi_k]

174. Of course, I'm sure you also know

how lucky you are to even be here if any old food is good enough to treat a low.

From the NDIC

http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/hypoglycemia/#symptoms

Prompt Treatment for Hypoglycemia

When people think their blood glucose is too low, they should check the blood glucose level of a blood sample using a meter. If the level is below 70 mg/dL, one of these quick-fix foods should be consumed right away to raise blood glucose:

3 or 4 glucose tablets
1 serving of glucose gel-the amount equal to 15 grams of carbohydrate
1/2 cup, or 4 ounces, of any fruit juice
1/2 cup, or 4 ounces, of a regular-not diet-soft drink
1 cup, or 8 ounces, of milk
5 or 6 pieces of hard candy
1 tablespoon of sugar or honey

Recommended amounts may be less for small children. The child's doctor can advise about the right amount to give a child.

The next step is to recheck blood glucose in 15 minutes to make sure it is 70 mg/dL or above. If it's still too low, another serving of a quick-fix food should be eaten. These steps should be repeated until the blood glucose level is 70 mg/dL or above. If the next meal is an hour or more away, a snack should be eaten once the quick-fix foods have raised the blood glucose level to 70 mg/dL or above.

Oh shit. What's not on the list?

Potato chips!!!

But hey...they're only experts. What the hell do they know...

:eyes:

[Name removed]

180. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cwydro]

246. Tad harsh. nt

[Horse with no Name]

168. And I would tell you that keeping your husband up feeding him cookies and juice

"hoping" his blood sugar would go up was irresponsible. You are lucky you didn't kill him. Perhaps you should update your education level, especially since you are proclaiming to be "the expert".

http://www.medicinenet.com/hypoglycemia/page3.htm#tocf
The acute management of hypoglycemia involves the rapid delivery of a source of easily absorbed sugar. Regular soda, juice, lifesavers, table sugar, and the like are good options. In general, 15 grams of glucose is the dose that is given, followed by an assessment of symptoms and a blood glucose check if possible. If after 10 minutes there is no improvement, another 10-15 grams should be given. This can be repeated up to three times. At that point, the patient should be considered as not responding to the therapy and an ambulance should be called.

The equivalency of 10-15 grams of glucose (approximate servings) are:

Four lifesavers
4 teaspoons of sugar
1/2 can of regular soda or juice

Many people like the idea of treating hypoglycemia with cake, cookies, and brownies. However, sugar in the form of complex carbohydrates or sugar combined with fat and protein are much too slowly absorbed to be useful in the acute treatment of hypoglycemia.

[pipi_k]

211. I didn't just "hope" his sugar would go up

I checked it every 10 to 15 minutes. After giving him OJ he wanted a cookie with raisins in it. I gave it to him. We don't have regular (non diet) soda here. He refused to take water with sugar in it. What am I supposed to do? Tie him up and shove it down his throat?

I checked his sugar. It stopped falling.

More OJ. Another cookie. Ten minutes check Bg. Stable but no rise.

I did this for 45 minutes. I give him what he will take. At some point I got the glucagon kit out and set it up, ready to inject. He told me not to, and we took another reading. His Bg was finally starting to rise.

We did the OJ and cookie thing for another hour and saw his numbers rise slowly but steadily.

This episode where his Bg was 29 was some years ago and I have learned a lot since then, and when he told his doctor, she was not happy and made it clear that anytime his Bg dropped below 55 I was to inject the glucagon and call the ambulance. I took a lot of shit for that, and really, I don't need any from you.

It was a long time ago, and I don't need to be reminded by you, or anyone else, that I could have killed him.

I learned my lesson, thanks very much.

[markpkessinger]

235. As a diabetic myself, I can tell you that you shouldn't extrapolate from your husband ...

... to all other diabetics. I have a sister who is also diabetic. She had an instance a few years back where she woke up in the middle of the night, not feeling well. She tested herself and was in the low 40s. Now, normally she would have known exactly what to do, but in the fog of her confusion created by the low blood sugar, she began to prepare an insulin injection, which could have proved fatal at that point. Fortunately, one of her children happened to realize what she was about to do and took the insuline away from her and gave her some OJ instead.

I really just love the way, when it comes to diabetes, that everybody and his brother who doesn't have the disease believes himself/herself to be an expert on those who do have it. You know your husband's diabetes; you do not know mine, nor that of the young woman in the article.

[pipi_k]

251. There's a big difference between

waking up with low Bg and working in a store where, presumably, there are customers to take care of.

This woman in the story either ran over from her station to grab the chips and then immediately ran back, or she grabbed the chips from a nearby stand right by her register and continued working.

Nobody can convince me that she was so fogged up she couldn't tell what food she was eating, but was able to service/check out customers without anyone suspecting she was ill.

You are helping me make my point, which is that people who think she was eating chips to "save her own life" (see beginning of thread) are wrong. She was not near death. Not if she could function without anyone seeming to suspect she was ill.

The other point is that all experienced diabetics know that you do not ingest potato chips to quickly fix a low serious enough to cause concern.

[geardaddy]

323. Delete

[The Backlash Cometh]

44. Bastards!

What was she suppose to do? Pass out and hope that someone called the paramedics?

[southernyankeebelle]

45. Wow. WalMart gives points off to people. I have a dear friend who went to

the ER with pain to his side. It woke him up out of a dead sleep. He ended up having a kidney stone. He was out for 3 days and still had not passed the stone. He went to work and one night was in pain but stay at work. He was able to see a specialist finally and he ended up with surgery and was out 4 days after. He ended up with 3 points. They called him in to tell him. Well he told them that should have been 2 points and they corrected it. How sad when a person gets sick and has a legal proof yet they get points. I think what they are trying to do is get rid of their full time employees. They don't want to give people health care. This guy doesn't even use their health care. It is way to expensive.

[hunter]

46. Why are diabetics taking jobs from ordinary Americans!

Huh? Answer me that!

.

.

.

.

.

:sarcasm:

[Lucian]

53. I was hypoglycemic...

and I carried glucose tablets with me. But when I didn't have them, I would reach for a sugary drink, like OJ, or a candy bar. Potato chips were never on the list.

[MedicalAdmin]

182. Never?

They are on every list. What if you lose your tabs, or can't get to your OJ or if your mind fogs up and you can't make a solid decision. Or perhaps they were shortstaff, her boss was a prick gunning for her job (as may be the case) and she know that if she left the floor for any reason she would be fired? What if?

The answer to that question is what constitutes an emergency.

[pipi_k]

202. Potato chips are on every list?

Um, would you mind very much linking to some lists where potato chips are an accepted quick treatment for hypoglycemia?

[Lucian]

238. No one with hypoglycemia would reach for chips.

For a quick remedy to low blood sugar.

[pipi_k]

248. Exactly...not unless...

The person actually took a reading and found his Bg was dropping a little bit, like maybe to 70 and a few minutes later it's the same, so it's not an emergency and the person eats the chips for the long term effects, not expecting anything to happen within five or ten minutes.

But anybody who thinks chips are going to provide a quick fix to dropping Bg...especially not even knowing for sure what his Bg is at the time, or how low it could go... is delusional.

[Lucian]

258. And anyone who says it can help never was diabetic.

I know this stuff firsthand.

[Lucian]

237. If there were chips, there was candy.

This is an excuse from here because she was caught stealing. No one with hypoglycemia would reach for potato chips.

End of story.

[Odin2005]

54. That has to be an ADA violation.

[otohara]

69. ADA Is Great for Access

not so much for employer discrimination.

I sued Clear Channel and it was a nightmare - they have unlimited funds and everyone lies for fear of losing their job too.

[AverageJoe90]

55. I can't fucking believe this.

This poor woman got fired over a BAG OF CHIPS!?!?!!?

Yep, it's official: Corporate Fascism has come to America.

[Ilsa]

59. If someone was bleeding to death in the first aid aisle

would Walgreens have them arrested for opening a package of gauze? Would they fire a pharmacist for giving aspirin to someone started to have a stroke?

The employee's situation is no different from either of those: an emergency must be taken care of. There is no excuse for not being a good Samaritan and saving lives.

[pipi_k]

60. Sorry, but...

it was NOT an "emergency".

A true emergency with regard to hypoglycemic episode is NOT treated with potato chips.

An emergency like that is treated with some form of sugar. Juice is the best way if the person is conscious. Hard candy. Gluco gel. Then the person's Bg should be monitored every 10 - 15 minutes until it reaches normal levels.


If the person is unconscious (which qualifies as a true emergency), an injection of glucagon is given and an ambulance must be called.

[MedicalAdmin]

183. There is an excuse now.

I would have helped but if I did my boss would fire my ass. That is the excuse now and it is real.

[SmileyRose]

61. CHIPS? She took chips to save her life? Bull feathers.

An 18 year veteran at Walgreens knows where everything is in the store and can quickly get to it. An 18 yr employee has been a solid reputation and if they became ill, had to get help from co-workers or their workplace, it will be taken care of except in the most abusive of workplaces.

Not to mention Walgreens has Glucerna and Glucotabs for diabetics in trouble. She didn't take chips because she was ill. There's more to the story.

I'm usually the first one out of the gate to condemn abusive employers and managers but this story just doesn't pass the smell test with this fellow diabetic.

[slackmaster]

63. I thought people with hypoglycemia were supposed to take glucose pills

Not snack food, not candy.

[pipi_k]

65. Well, it's not a "rule" or anything, but yeah...

Glucose tabs are best for minor lows. They raise the Bg quickly but don't contain so much glucose that Bg will spike to dangerously high levels.

One thing a diabetic doesn't want to do is set him/herself up for the yo-yo effect.

But in the absence of glucose tabs, a simple sugar like hard candy or fruit juice will do just as well.

Diabetics experiencing true lows do not treat it with foods that contain lots of fat, as the fat slows the absorption of the carbs into the bloodstream.

So anybody claiming she's "treating a low" with chips is full of shit.

[Claudia Jones]

90. what the hell?

You are hijacking the thread. You have cleverly turned suspicion away from the employer and onto the employee with a lot of pseudo-medical speculation.

[smokey nj]

91. Someone has to look out for big corporations.

You know, they just can't catch a break in this country.

[pipi_k]

98. It's not even about that, dear...

If I were a diabetic, I would be incensed at the idea of someone claiming that a low can be treated "quickly" with potato chips.

It's a waste of time, and if the person is low enough, s/he could pass out with a mouth full of chips and aspirate them. Also, the time wasted chewing the damned things could be put to better use, like ingesting something that will act more quickly.

This woman is putting out the false idea that a low requiring immediate treatment can be treated effectively, and quickly, with slow-acting carbs.

People here apparently believe that.

And ignorance can kill.

I don't give two shits about Walgreens. I care about the numbers of people who might be misled into believing that a bag of potato chips is a suitable treatment for a low requiring immediate action.

[smokey nj]

100. First, don't call me dear.

Second, you don't know what this woman felt because you weren't there. You're making assumptions based on facts not in evidence.

[pipi_k]

107. Ooooh....prickly!!!!

:cry:

Anyway, I am going on FACTS.

She stated that she felt a low coming on and knew she had to act quickly. FACT from the article.

It is scientific FACT that potato chips, because of the fat in them, will NOT bring up someone's Bg level quickly.

Will. Not.

Fact.

And so, since potato chips will do nothing to quickly aid someone who is having a diabetic low, her insistence that it was what she had to do will give the ignorant the wrong idea about how to treat a diabetic low.

Ignorance can kill. FACT.

[smokey nj]

110. You're not going on facts you're going on assumptions.

You weren't there, you don't know what she felt. Laundry queen and hyphenate, who also have personal experience with diabetes, both offer plausible scenarios that counter your assessment of the situation.

[laundry_queen]

131. Yes! First, 'quickly' is subjective.

second, reminds me of my narcissistic father. If someone else has had a different experience, it is invalid because it wasn't HIS experience.

[pipi_k]

139. If one is having a diabetic low...

"quickly" is NOT subject to interpretation.

No more than stopping severe bleeding quickly is subject to interpretation.

If you feel your Bg drop quickly enough to be worried about it, then you don't futz around. You do something about it.

Immediately.

[laundry_queen]

146. Bullcrap

I can feel my blood sugar go down over the course of 10 minutes to a half hour. I know I have to quickly eat something because by the time my body digests it and my blood sugar starts going back up, it will be even longer. Read the post down thread from a type 1 diabetic. You are so misinformed.

[pipi_k]

154. And if you feel your blood sugar go down

and know that you have to bring it back up again quickly, you choose something that will ACT quickly.

If that woman felt her Bg go down to the point where she felt she needed to treat it quickly, then she didn't have time to wait the 15 or 20 minutes it might have taken for the chips to work.

Yeah, you can feel your Bg dropping, but you have NO idea of how low it COULD go. You don't wait over the course of 10, 20, or 30 minutes to find out how low it may go.

you take care of it immediately. You know why? Because playing blood sugar yo-yo will damage the body.

The goal here is to keep Bg as stable as possible. Not play games with it.

[laundry_queen]

167. You still are not getting it.

If you are a non-insulin dependent type 2 diabetic, the chances of you getting into real trouble with low blood sugar is almost zero. It's uncomfortable but you are not going to die. And playing blood sugar yoyo is indeed damaging which is WHY someone might choose potato chips over a candy bar. If I eat chips, my blood sugar will rise slowly. If I eat a candy bar when I'm first feeling the symptoms, my BS will skyrocket, then crash if I don't have a good meal soon after the candy bar and I'll be in even worse shape than I was to start with and will need another candy bar. If you do indeed have a diabetic spouse, you will know that the recommendation after using rescue glucose is to immediately find proper nourishment. If she knew she would be unable to find proper nourishment within the next hour, then her choice was valid, as pure sugar would likely exacerbate the problem. When she said she felt the need to treat it quickly, she may have meant she needed to eat something now to raise her blood sugar over time and not have it crash again in an hour. You are equating quickly with 'if she didn't eat pure sugar at that moment she was a goner, so why did she choose potato chips?' when it was actually likely, "I'm feeling like my blood sugar is going down, I"m feeling kinda shaky and my break isn't for 1.5 hrs, so I need to eat this bag of chips immediately if I don't want to have an episode." Potato chips are a carb. They are somewhat low on the glycemic index, but chips still raise your blood sugar substantially - especially if they are a type that has sugar in the flavouring. It just tends to have more staying power than candy.

Look, you are beginning to move the goal posts. The point is, the woman wasn't feeling well because she felt her blood sugar going down. She figured chips were a good choice since obviously she didn't think she was in serious trouble to the point of falling into a coma or anything and this is a valid choice as evidenced by other diabetics on this thread. And this woman was fired for attempting to 'fix' herself so she could continue on with her job. You are completely missing the point here and I have no other choice than to think you have some other motive.

[pipi_k]

178. I would believe that scenario more

if the person took a couple of hard candies (one or two won't cause a huge spike) AND the chips.

Candies to raise the Bg a bit IMMEDIATELY.

The chips to keep it up for a while.

That sounds like a reasonable treatment plan.

And what nobody else here seems to be thinking of...this account was written from HER point of view.

She claims she has no disciplinary problems in 18 years. How do we know that is true?

Also... how was she discovered gobbling down those chips? Did a manager or coworker catch her? Someone see her on camera?

And, since she didn't pay for them immediately, whether she had the money on her or not, how is the company supposed to know she wasn't taking other things with the intention to "pay as soon as possible"?

Tell you what...if I caught someone taking something, I would really wonder if the person had done it before.

[pipi_k]

134. FACTS

She said she had to "act quickly".

She did. She gobbled down a bag of chips quickly enough.

FACT: Potato chips are low glycemic. They do NOT act quickly.

What is not factual there?

[smokey nj]

136. FACT: You weren't there, you don't know what she felt.

Please don't respond because I'm done with you and your nonsense.

[cwydro]

150. NOBODY knows what happened.

That is what is so funny about DU...jump on the bandwagon without the facts.

Never fails.

[smokey nj]

151. We know Walgreens fired a long-time employee.

We also know that the EEOC thought her case was strong enough to sue on her behalf.

[pipi_k]

187. Yeah, the EOC thought her case was strong enough

based on her side of the story.

That doesn't mean she's right or that she'll win.


I saw the results of a case where a relative's ex wife brought suit against her former husband to collect alimony, health insurance, and probably a whole lot more based on a marriage that lasted six months.

Her lawyer thought it was strong enough, based on HER story, to proceed.

She might have won, too, except...

Oh...too bad. Imagine how totally embarrassed (and pissed) her lawyer was when a piece of evidence was presented by the defendant's lawyer showing the ex was LYING about a major part of the case. Wahhhhh!!!!! :cry: The plaintiff didn't think anybody would check her "facts", obviously.

The judge expressed his disgust, and the case was dismissed.

Nobody knows what the truth is until both sides speak, yet so many here want to accuse me of god-knows-what things just because I'm presenting another viewpoint.

[smokey nj]

188. The only thing you've presented in this thread is bullshit.

[pipi_k]

191. If you say so...

And if that's the best you can come up with...insulting me because you can't discuss it in a mature manner, then please go away and stop replying to me, OK?

Go ahead and agree with everyone else who thinks the "facts" are exactly what she said they are.

It doesn't take a huge intellect to sit around agreeing with the status quo, and it takes an even smaller intellect to insult someone just because you don't like that person's position.

[cwydro]

210. Oh ok.

Then we're good to go.

Silly me for wondering about all the facts in the case.

[pipi_k]

163. Bandwagons seem to be pretty popular

around here.

Just like the one a few months ago involving a certain Democratic Representative who was accused of sending compromising photos of himself.

Oh NOOOOO!!!! The "he COULDN'T have done that!!!!!" bandwagon was out in force for many days insulting anybody who doubted his lame story.

Breitbart = Evil

Weiner = Jesus' younger brother, pure as fresh snowfall

Yeah. We all know how that worked out.

Bandwagons.

Gotta love 'em.

[cwydro]

209. Groupthink.

DU is really bad on that.

And yeah, lots and lots of bandwagons.

WAY too many people who could not form an independent opinion if their life depended on it lol - and omg if you do dare have one!...off to the DU whipping post with you!!!

[pipi_k]

212. Um...so I'm sort of wondering....

You and a couple of others are saying basically the same thing I was about chips not being suitable treatment for someone who wants a quick fix for a diabetic low.

How come I'm the only one some of them are calling out and insulting and being disgustingly rude to?

Not that I'd want everyone else who agrees with my position to get insulted or be treated disrespectfully, but I just notice a disturbing hypocrisy sometimes.

Which I pointed out a couple places above. Diabetics who deal with this daily have said the same thing I have and that's OK. When I say it, that's not OK and I get the shit. That's twisted.

I just don't get it.

Bandwagons sort of remind me of selective lynch mobs at times...

:(

[cwydro]

213. Oh hell pipi

I have been lynched a hundred times...they just grab on one and go for it.

Plus I saw the thread late and that might have something to do with it.

AND...lol, there is the possibility ya know...that it is just not as much fun if there is not just ONE to gang up on. I've been there and the DU lynch mobs like to work as a mob against ONE. When others chime in - well, they act like most mobs and disperse...muttering...into the night.

:hug: :hi:

[pipi_k]

215. Sniffle....

thank you....

:hug:

[cwydro]

216. Hey hon...

That's the price of thinking independently and not following the herd.

:pals: :fistbump:

You did well! I would have gotten pissed lol and had all my posts deleted!

Well, we'll follow this story and see what pans out. No doubt the woman will make a bundle and live happily ever after.

edit for typo

[pipi_k]

219. yeah, I'll be looking online every so often

for her name just to see what's happening with this.

I actually said somewhere above that I sort of hoped videos of her shoplifting on other occasions showed up. OK I am bad. ;)

sigh...it's not easy marching to a different drummer, is it...

[pipi_k]

158. Too bad

I'm going to respond anyway.

I never SAID I knew how she FELT.

I'm talking about what she said, and what she did.

[laundry_queen]

147. Fact: quickly is different for everyone

re-read my post upthread about how I need to eat something quickly, but that sugar would just make things worse if I'm not going to be eating a meal soon. Potato chips would get rid of the shakes and the heart palpitations for me in a few minutes and it will last longer than sugar would.

I think you need to acknowledge others have different experiences than you or your spouse. Otherwise I'm done with this convo - like my father there will be no point because only your experience is the right one. :eyes:

[Claudia Jones]

108. talk about missing the point

This is not about diabetes. Nothing would change about the story were the person not diabetic.

[smokey nj]

113. Seriously.

I feel like I've been beating my head against a brick wall.

[Honeycombe8]

141. I've had several people in my family with T2 diabetes. No, chips aren't recommended

for quickly acting on insulin in the body. It's fruit juice or other simple sugar.

Not that chips wouldn't work sooner or later. Or any carb. But simple sugars are what the body reacts to most quickly. As a nondiabetic, I can feel my body react when I eat honey alone (honey is absorbed into the body even more quickly than table sugar...it starts going into your body through the roof of your mouth).

But it doesn't really matter WHY she ate the chips and didn't pay for them for awhile. They fired her simply because she did eat the chips and not pay for them at that time. It didn't say how much later she paid for them, or if she only paid for them after someone told her to.

Could be like other posters have said; maybe they were looking for a reason to let her go.

I'm guessing that whatever the underlying facts, Walgreens has crossed its T's and dotted its I's. Because they knew they'd be at risk of being sued, since she's chronically ill.

[pipi_k]

93. Oh, really?

so the diabetics who have said in this thread that they would not treat a low with potato chips because they don't act quickly enough...

they're either lying, or they're stupid?

Please, educate yourself.

Any diabetic who says she needed to "act quickly" by eating potato chips is full of shit.

[Claudia Jones]

109. you are hijacking the thread

Start a new thread as a public service announcement if your concern is actually what you claim it to be. Post a link here to that thread saying "this is off topic and I don't want to derail the thread, or cast any suspicion on the fired employee, but I am concerned that people might get some misunderstandings about diabetes and wish to educate them on this." That would solve your "problem" with all of this in a way that did not derail this discussion.

[Raster]

126. What I find absolutely astounding are all the non-diabetic persons in this thread...

...that have assumed the mantle of "expert" because they know someone who is diabetic. Type 2 diabetes is NOT a cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all disease. In fact, far from it. Each T2 diabetic's epidemiology is as unique and varied as the diabetics themselves.

There's two types of non-diabetics I cannot tolerate:

(1) The "know it all," because they know or live with or are married to, someone with diabetes. All they know is their ANECDOTAL circumstances. Period.
(2) The second is the "food police." "You shouldn't be eating that...."

[pipi_k]

132. OK, hon...

There are at least three diabetics on this thread who say they would NOT treat a low with potato chips.

You know why?

Because it is a FACT that a low that requires immediate attention will not improve quickly enough when treated with potato chips.

That's not opinion.

FACT.

The word people apparently aren't getting here is "quickly".

That woman said she needed to act quickly. Well, yeah. SHE acted quickly. She "gobbled down" a bag of chips. Probably with both hands.

Unless she can detect a drop of only one or two points or it's not just regular old hunger, those chips are going to be useless to her in the respect of raising her Bg QUICKLY.

If chips were the best way to do it, they would market chips that way, wouldn't they? But they don't. They sell the glucose tabs and glucose gel BECAUSE they are effective.

[Honeycombe8]

143. Insulin acts in the human body in a certain way. You don't have to be diabetic to

know how insulin works. Most doctors who treat diabetes are not diabetic.

Being around diabetic people does give you some personal experience with it, and reading about it gives a person some knowledge about it.

I may know more about diabetes than my diabetic sister, actually, since I've read a bit about it over the years, and I've had other relatives with it...and my sister is not given to research or things like that. She just does what a doctor tells her to do, and that's all she knows. For instance, I'm sure she'd argue with me that her diabetes was caused by her lifestyle (it was). She likes to say it runs in the family. It sounds better to her, I guess. Denial.

But it doesn't really matter to that employee, because that Walgreens employee wasn't fired for having diabetes. She was fired because she took some food and didn't pay for it at the time she took it.

[pipi_k]

127. What "discussion"??

there's no "discussion" if everybody comes here to say what fucking assholes Walgreens is.

And on no more "proof" than this woman's side of the story, to be honest.

WTF?

Discussion happens when someone presents a different idea and people talk about it.

Not when everybody says, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep.

That's not discussion. That's a stroke job.

[Raster]

121. That is NOT true. I have felt my blood glucose drop, and I have reached for a bag of chips.

It can happen.

[pipi_k]

133. OK tell you what...

next time you feel your Bg drop, take a reading.

If it's dropping low enough and fast enough so that you have to act quickly like that woman says she did, go ahead and nosh down a bag of chips, then wait five minutes and take another reading.

I'd be interested in the results of that experiment.

:eyes:

[smokey nj]

135. Now you're just making a fool of yourself. I'm sure Walgreens appreciates your efforts, though.

[pipi_k]

153. And you obviously don't understand

the point I'm trying to make.

Whatever.

[Lucian]

239. You're absolutely right.

I would know because I suffered with hypoglycemia.

[edhopper]

73. This is the world

without Unions.

[October]

200. +1,000,000

[hyphenate]

87. I recognize that feeling

myself. If I go low, it's not always possible to grab some Skittles, Starburst, Jujubes, or pure sugar based candy. Sometimes, it's just the need to eat something regardless of where the starch comes from. Potatoes themselves are known for being high on the glycemic index, and are very capable of raising the glucose levels. Walgreens should be ashamed of themselves in this kind of a case, especially when it's a long time, valuable employee.

[the_chinuk]

92. I'll remember this the next time I have to use a Walgreens.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[avebury]

102. K&R nt

[avebury]

103. K&R nt

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Second Stone]

116. Let's all boycott Walgreen's

until they give this woman her job back with back pay. CVS is just about everywhere around here. We too can have a zero tolerance policy.

[man4allcats]

122. Fucking Assholes! n/t

[dembotoz]

123. walgreens is a pharmacy for christs sake. They must not watch thier own pr

pharmacists who care????

bullshit
bullshit
bullshit

[begin_within]

124. I'll remember this next time I have an expensive prescription to fill!

[dogmoma56]

130. just to get rid of an employee with benifits... to save money,

[Name removed]

137. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[luxmatic]

138. T1 diabetic with 39 years experience says...

Some of you have *no* idea what you're talking about here and make me honestly ashamed of being associated with this site.

1) If the Walgreens in question could be like the 3 near me, the only food available at the register - without leaving the register - is some sale potato chips and gum. Any other food would involve circling around to the front of the register or going to other parts of the store. Think about it. Perhaps she couldn't leave the register?

2) Low blood glucose isn't a binary thing. You don't suddenly feel low and near death. There's a trajectory, and you know what your body is going to do. Over time you realize that your bg is moving past a comfort area and, if untreated, will minutes or hours later be extremely low and MIGHT even require medical attention. The slowly absorbed carbs in the chips might have been just perfect to keep going lower over the next hour. Believe me. I've done this THOUSANDS of times with foods not deemed by others here as the only official treatment for low blood glucose.

Was diagnosed with T1 when I was 7, and have made it this far without a single hospital trip and very little in the way of complications. Hearing that I can only treat low blood sugar with candy/tabs/juice is just as irritating as people assuming I can't have dessert. Unless I'm convulsing on the floor, how about letting me decide how to best treat my illness?

Honestly, I'd love for *everyone* - especially Republicans and a few souls here - to experience the joy of a chronic illness for just a month. Absolutely enlightening, and I guarantee this would change the world.

[smokey nj]

140. Welcome to DU!

:hi:
And thank you for this contribution. I suspect the "expert" who's been pissing all over this thread will either ignore your post or respond to tell you that your 39 years of experience with the disease isn't as valid as her experience.

[Raster]

144. Thank you. Bless your heart.

Welcome to DU.:hi:

[laundry_queen]

148. Thank you for sharing your experience with us

I cannot imagine having to deal with T1 for that long. I complain that I had gestation diabetes and that I have reactive hypoglycemia and insulin resistance and what a pain it is, but that is nothing compared to what you deal with all the time. Thanks for the information.

[catrose]

189. Thank you

and welcome. Health and long life to you and yours!

[stuntcat]

208. Welcome to DU

very sensible post, thank you :peace:

[Lucian]

241. How can you be ashamed to be associated...

When you just registered? :wtf:

Unless you're a sockpuppet. Then you're just a coward.

[luxmatic]

269. Really? A sockpuppet coward?

Don't assume that since I just registered a user, I haven't been a participant. I need to be exceedingly careful with associating my T1 status with user names that employers may recognize. I'm sure you can understand this.

[Name removed]

306. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Codeine]

254. You're not really associated with this site, so no worries, eh? nt

[MedicalAdmin]

274. Welcome to DU. Your last line is wonderful.

I want a magic wand. :P

[radhika]

145. One more inequity Single Payer Healthcare would eliminate...

Believe me, Walmart is grade-zero with its employees. This doesn't surprise me. But I hear these examples regularly. Expensive to insure (duh! old, disabled, pregnant) employees fired for trival issues that wouln't even be thought of with a younger, fitter, cheaper hire. Corporation do not want these people, and they'll find a way to dump them.

Let's stop bemoaning the nature of the Reptilian Economy. DECOUPLE access to healthcare from EMPLOYMENT. If all Americans were able to get healthcare within the community, just as a basic part of the Social Contract, this ploy would evaporate. You could quit your job, get fired, become self-employed and/or go back to school. You'd still be healthy! And the employer would have to give you other reasons to stay there - like money, quality work and career tracking.

The only reason Big Global Corps didn't jump on the Single Payer bandwagon is they were afraid they'd have to cough up a few more tax dollars. What they want is minimum-wage workers with NO benefits.

[Mimosa]

225. *Applauding the statement of obvious truth: Health coverage should not depend upon the EMPLOYERS!

This is NOT the case in the majority of civilised countries. People are free to change jobs, be mpore creative..

[marmar]

195. Corporate Psychopathy in action.

nt

[grasswire]

217. Nobody better be trying to give me sugar....

...if I say "I'm a diabetic and I'm not feeling well."

Sugar is the last thing I need.

Protein is what I need. Specifically, in order of preference, milk, cheese, or nuts. I usually carry one of the three with me when away from home.

The card in my wallet says DIABETIC: DO NOT GIVE SUGAR.

[pipi_k]

218. Just wondering....

where did you get that card?

[grasswire]

223. I made it.

Has my M.D.'s name and phone number, and my meds listed.

[pipi_k]

245. And your doctor has seen it and approves?

I mean, seeing as protein is way down on the glycemic index list and if you were to have a low, it (either alone or in combination with a carb) would not act as quickly as a pure sugar would...

And what happens if you are unconscious from hypoglycemia? Is someone supposed to feed you a glass of milk, a hunk of cheese, or some nuts?

And if you were to have a low sometime and someone did give you sugar to quickly raise your Bg, would you sue that person?

I dunno...seems pretty foolish to be walking around with a card telling people to do the total opposite of what doctors advise people to do, but it's your neck, after all.

:shrug:

[grasswire]

284. there you go again

Nannying another diabetic.

Shame on you.

[grasswire]

285. I'm not gonna have a low.

I never have had a low. Ever. Doctors have told me I'm never likely to have a low. EACH PATIENT IS DIFFERENT.

But you're going to lecture me despite your lack of first-hand knowledge?

Shame on you.

[pipi_k]

288. And the doctor said...

A crippled man would never walk again.

A doctor claimed that a 93 year old woman with two broken hips, CHF, renal failure, and COPD would live longer than the six month prognosis it would have required him to give so she could get hospice care. Oh...she ended up living two months after her doctor said that. Another doctor saw what was going on and gave the order.

And a doctor said that a 47 year old man dying in extreme pain from cancer could not have narcotics to dull pain because they were "addictive". The man lived for about 15 months after that, dying in horrible pain, but By God, he died addiction free! :eyes:

And, finally, a doctor pronounced a 53 year old man healthy, and he went on to die of sudden heart failure soon after.

In any event, if you are unable to ever have a low, I wonder why that card is necessary. With instructions for people to follow in case you ever need help...

Yeah..shame on me. I like trying to understand things that don't make sense...

[grasswire]

290. I will never need help for a low.

I could need a card like this if I am in some other kind of emergency and am sent to an ER where they try to start an IV with D5W. Maybe I'll get hit by a truck -- that's the ticket. But it won't be a low.

Geez. What is not understandable is you and your authoritarian streak.

[pipi_k]

291. Really?

I don't see what the big problem is here. I'm asking for information. This is your chance to educate a person who doesn't know anything about your condition.

I'm curious, and I'm trying to be polite. What am I getting in return? A shitty attitude.


OK fine. This is exactly what pisses me off about people. They get all snotty when people talk from ignorance, but when someone asks for information so as NOT to be ignorant, that's something else to be snotty about.

sigh...

:eyes:

[U4ikLefty]

302. Look in the fucking mirror.

[pipi_k]

305. Thank you so much

More rudeness from someone who can't think of anything constructive to add.

I'll tell you the same thing I tell anyone else who can't stand my opinions. Put me on ignore. Just make sure to tell me so I can return the favor since I wouldn't want to waste my time replying to someone who isn't going to reply back.

Thanks!

[pipi_k]

308. OK, can we start over?

I think maybe yesterday was not a good day for many of us.

I really really would like to know more about your condition and why you can't have sugar. Honestly, I do...

[McCamy Taylor]

220. Zero tolerance for someone who was raising their insurance premiums

This is where libertarians are so wrong. If there are no laws, all employers will fire anyone who has any health problems and replace them with younger, healthier people. The only exceptions will be corporate CEOs.

[pipi_k]

222. Well, I dunno...there's always the possibility

that Walgreens might not have known she was diabetic. Some people are actually ashamed of whatever diseases or disabilities they have and don't tell very many people.

There are a couple of disabilities I have that I don't go around telling people in RL about.

Here, I mention them because it's not like I'll ever actually meet anyone from DU, so it doesn't matter.

But there's a stigma attached to my disabilities, so I mostly keep them to myself.

maybe the woman feels the same way and never told anyone until she was caught.

Which wouldn't look very good if she's trying to sue Walgreens for violation of the ADA if they never knew.

It's certainly a possibility, right?

[REP]

221. Really telling about diabetes education - potato chips are a lousy choice for a hypo

I'm diabetic. My BG often gets to 40 - I have hypoglycemic unawareness - and potato chips are the LAST thing I'd eat. I'd drink a soda, juice, non-chocolate energy bar (all at or near the checkstand at my Walgreen's) - something with a high carb/sugar load and little to no fat to impede the absorption of the sugars.

If she really is a poorly-educated diabetic, she has an ADA/EOE/etc case. If not, she's just making things rough for other diabetics.

[Mimosa]

227. These days, some newer DUers are quick to blame the WORKING CLASS for not being 'smart'

Those stupid working people want something for nothing! How dare a woman of 18 years employment break the rules to gobble maybe 1.7 ounces of precious expensive potato chips! I bet the cost was all of a dollar and 20 cents. What a deceitful crook!

[REP]

232. I've been here longer than you. I'm blaming education programs provided by healthcare providers.

If one has a life-long disease with serious ramifications, I do believe it is incumbent upon that person to learn everything one can about managing it. Most healthcare providers have a 'diabetes 101' for the newly diagnosed.

I'm surprised to learn I'm not working class. Should I burn my Union card?

[Horse with no Name]

267. It most likely all boils down to that

The education that the patient has received and the education that they chose to retain, and ultimately how they have chosen to manage THEIR diabetes.

I did Home Health years ago. One of my patients was a Tyle II Diabetic.

This woman was a school educator turned administrator before she retired. She had been through 3 excellent courses on how to manage your diabetes. Her doctor specifically sent me to educate her about her diabetes at home--when in all truth, she could have probably taught me with all of the resources she had.

However, on EVERY trip to her home (she lived alone), I found that she was a hoarder of Little Debbie snack cakes and Cokes. I'm talking cases of each always.

She sat in a recliner for the majority of the day. The trashcan beside it was overflowing with snack cake wrappers and coke cans. When I asked her about this, she denied they were hers. They always belonged to "company". Her regular insulin bottle in the refrigerator had chocolate fingerprints on it. Not surprisingly, her blood sugars were always out of control, her Hgb A1C was ridiculous, and she teetered on the verge of a diabetic coma most of the time. Her average blood sugar was in the 300's...and in all honesty, if she teetered down to 100, she would be symptomatic.

WHICH is why it is impossible to judge what someone else would or wouldn't do when their glucose hits certain points.

Now, the self-proclaimed thread expert would say that 100 wasn't low enough to be considered critical, but for this patient, it was. And, a bag of chips would have probably sufficed...or even one of her Nutty Bars.

The point is, every patient is different.

[Mimosa]

286. 'Thread experts' on DU often seem heartless.

BTW, I don't have diabetes so I don't understand the 'numbers'.

What are considered the 'right numbers'? Which range is bad or dangerous? I've a friend who has diabetes and she doesn't even understand the numbers. Her doctors isn't all that helpful.

[Horse with no Name]

294. The numbers are pretty variable

In someone that doesn't have Diabetes...70-100 is considered "normal" while fasting.

Each Diabetic is going to be different as to what their threshold is.

In a fairly compliant Diabetic, they will usually maintain sugars under 200 with variations of course, depending upon the meal...so, that becomes THEIR normal.

In a non-compliant Diabetic, the variance is going to be very wide...and their "normal" ranges will vary widely.

The "old" method for getting control of high blood sugars was the sliding scale method, where when the blood glucose went to a certain level, we gave so many units of insulin in order to get it back to at least 150-200 depending on the scale they choose to use. However, more updated thinking sees this as an antiquated and ineffective approach. But you still see it, more often than not.

Danger zones for a diabetic will be under 60 and over 400. Each diabetic should have a management plan on how to control their blood sugar if they fall in these zones.

If your friend was not provided with education, please may I ask if she has insurance or Medicare?

[Mimosa]

292. Some people are emotionally ill or needy and haven't access to help?

Horse with no Name, maybe some people's lives are so lonely and they are depressed to the degree they are self-destructive?

[Horse with no Name]

295. I will agree with that. Diabetes is a vicious chronic disease that at some time or other

will almost always affect every organ system in the body.

This ONE disease accounts for $1 out of every $8 of federal healthcare money and affects 6% of the population.

The elderly that I have taken care of generally are very depressed at the disease process, especially if they are suffering from the many complications of the disease.

It is difficult to manage, without a doubt.

BUT, as in my experience with my patient, it did me no good to teach her what to in optimal circumstances because they didn't exist...so I spent my time educating her to not miss doing her blood sugars and to pay close attention to her symptoms. I was not going to change her lifestyle...but instead tried to tailor her teaching to troubleshoot.

[Mimosa]

296. Horse with No Name, thank you.

I didn't know that 6% were effected by diabetes.

Three of my dear friends in NOLA, before Katrina, were family practice and/or internal medicine specialists. One (whom we all regarded as the 'smartest) abandoned internal medicine and went into a diabetes specific practice back in 1996.

My med prof buddy way back from 1997 and til now used to go crazy about that 1980s FDA 'food pyramid' the Federal gov used to promote in schools, in publications and on TV commercials. He said -way back in 1997 and 1998 that the carb based pyramid (whole grain, rice, potatoes, whatever starch) would engender diabetes and obesity.

The last time we discussed it he was praising the new 'Obama' FDA 'plate' graphic. He said it sounded as if Obama's FDA nutritionists were telling the truth about a really balanced diet. He said it reinforced what he knew about our grandparent's healthier higher protein energy generating foods.

And if we eat 'leaner' as well as exercise we'll all be healthier. :)

[Horse with no Name]

297. The Food Pyramid is a scam

I agree with that! I remember nutritionists and physicians back when they instituted claiming that it was the same formula they used to fatten hogs for slaughter. Whether or not this was true, it at least drove home the point that it was going to fatten us up,lol.

Poverty, as always, plays a key role. It should be cheaper to feed your family fresh food instead of crappy boxes of prepared food. But it isn't...because the cheap crappy food folks have better lobbyists.

[laundry_queen]

260. I'm going to explain this again really slowly

If you have hypoglycemic unawareness and your blood sugar tends to get really low before you can feel it then YES sugar is what you need!!! I'm talking about people who can feel their blood sugar starting to plumment LONG BEFORE it becomes even close to 40.

IF you are a type 2 diabetic that is NOT insulin dependent (or on medication) than you are NOT going to die from low blood sugar!! (I would be happy to explain the science in that if you like). In that case you DO have time to bring up your blood sugar slowly. Of COURSE if your blood sugar is 40 and going down you would use pure sugar. DUH. THOSE ARE THE NOT THE SAME HYPOS I'M TALKING ABOUT. And it's not likely to get that low unless you are on insulin. Even on metformin I never got even close to that low. There are different kind of hypos, different types of diabetics and NOT ALL ARE TREATED THE SAME WAY.

If I'm having a mild hypo and feel sick and drink a large pop/soda in about an hour and a bit when my blood sugar crashes I'm going to be VERY sick and possibly pass out. If I feel really awful, my blood sugar isn't any lower than 72 (4.0 for you metric people). I actually feel sick starting at about 4.8 (times 18 to get US measurement) so as you can see I have plenty of time to get a lower sugar snack and have it stabalize my blood sugar. Not all diabetics crash the second they feel symptoms, not all diabetics are near death when they get a hypo. In fact, I get hypo symptoms while still in a 'normal' blood sugar range. So a large dose of sugar would actually do me more harm than good at that point.

I'm just saying, don't mock or denigrate our education on diabetes. I have a lot of experience with the issue and have researched and all my doctors have agreed with me. Just because *I* have a different experience does not negate your experience. I am simply giving a view of WHY this woman may have chosen potato chips over pure sugar. I am bothered by people who think she was lying or somehow her story is 'off' simply because she chose potato chips for her hypo over pure sugar and am giving another view of how hypos can work for some people. I'm not doing any diabetics any disservice, thanks. Each and every diabetic should be following their own doctor's advice and not forming a treatment plan from some post on the internet.

[pipi_k]

262. It's not just that she chose potato chips

for a "low".

It was the fact that she said she felt she had to act quickly.

So quickly that she actually "gobbled" the chips and went back to work.


If it's just an "OK...I think I feel a little funny but it's nothing urgent so I'll have some chips", then I'll agree.

But she was concerned enough to act quickly. That suggests to me an impending serious low.

Most bona fide diabetics in this thread have said that chips are not the best choice for a low of that type. Even one or two who disagree with me (and have been disagreeable to me) have admitted that chips are not the best choice.

That is the problem.

Her words suggest immediacy but her actions show otherwise.

When words and actions don't match up, there is something a little "off".

[laundry_queen]

263. I've explained this to you already

I'd say I need something to eat quickly also when I felt a low coming on. Doesn't mean I feel it's serious enough to require medical attention. Just means if I don't eat something RIGHT NOW, in 15 min or so I'm going to be too shaky and disoriented to perform my job properly.

BTW plenty of diabetics have agreed with me also. Why can't you let this go?

[pipi_k]

266. And chips would be your best option?

See, I get what you're saying.

If you feel you may have a more serious problem in 15 minutes, it could only take 5 minutes. You just don't know, right?

Why take chances fooling around with a food that could take 15 to 20 minutes OR MORE to fix the problem?

Have a candy to make sure your Bg doesn't drop more, then have the chips to keep it stable.

Is there something wrong with that approach? Why are people not getting it that I'm saying the same thing diabetics are saying? What, is the message not the same if it doesn't come from a REAL diabetic?

Seriously. I don't get it. And I want to know why people are giving me a hard time when I'm saying basically the same thing as the diabetics have.

[Mimosa]

298. Sort of a right wing 'blame the victim' mentality.

Laundry Queen, some people on DU sound like conservative right wingers, don't they? ;)

I am not a diabetic but I've friends who are. My best pal is a family practice front line MD. You are right on target. People who are having a bad health episode, whether it's diabetes or extreme pain, aren't going to be analytic, or thinking at their best. Any health crisis is often accompanied by some confusion and/or panic.

Of course 'responsible' Republicans who aren't dumb enough to work at low-paying Walgreen's jobs would NEVER grab a little 1.4 ounce bag of potato chips! They're too 'ethical', too knowledgeable...

[pipi_k]

301. And people who are having a health episode

bad enough to cloud their judgement over the simple matter of whether to have chips or candy aren't exactly going to be sharp enough to keep working the checkout aisle...scanning, punching in prices that don't scan properly, bagging, making change, etc.

Yet that's apparently what that woman did. She either left her post, got the chips and ate them, then returned...

or she grabbed the chips from a display near the register in a free moment between customers.

but you can't have her too foggy brained to do one simple thing yet immediately sharp enough to perform complex tasks.

[laundry_queen]

264. Another question: have you ever worked cash?

Because if you have a line up of people, you don't have much time for anything, you're going to grab what's convenient and what you can eat quickly. Plus, if you break isn't for awhile, pure sugar is not the best choice because you will be in the same predicament in an hour. Cashier is one of those jobs you don't get the luxury of snacking or having potty breaks whenever you want. You have to wait for scheduled breaks. Sometimes your body doesn't 'do' schedules.

[pipi_k]

268. Number one...

I'd really like for someone to post a photo here of a Walgreens that has chips right next to the cash register.

I have never seen it. Cigarettes. Candy. Gum. Stupid little trinkets and toys. Magazines maybe. Impulse purchases. Never chips.

All of the Walgreens I've ever been in requires leaving the register area and going to a whole snack food aisle.



Number two...her words were that she felt a hypo coming on and knew she had to act quickly.

Does that, or does that not, suggest a sense of urgency? That if she doesn't take care of the problem within 5 or 10 minutes, she's really going to be in trouble. She doesn't have the means or opportunity to test, so she doesn't know exactly what her numbers are, nor does she know how low, or how quickly, they might fall.

Could be 5 minutes or less...could be 15 minutes or more. She just doesn't know.

But she's concerned enough to "act quickly". So what does she do? She chooses a food that might not work for another 20 minutes or more. I don't think that's particularly smart. Not if she felt she had to act quickly enough to gobble down the whole bag (not my words...it's in the article).

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/diabetic-walgreens-clerk-fired-eating-chips-14483730

People try to make excuses for her lack of judgement. "Oh, maybe her head was all foggy from the hypo". Yeah? "Fogged up" enough not to make a good food choice, but apparently aware enough to check out customers, which does require a certain presence of mind.

No. We can't have it both ways.

It doesn't make sense.


Also...if she was truthful with Walgreens, either when she was hired, or when she was diagnosed with diabetes, then they should be aware of her condition and make allowances for breaks to care for herself. If they did and she chose NOT to take advantage of them, then shame on her.

If Walgreens was aware of her condition and did not allow her to have breaks, then shame on THEM.

[Mimosa]

300. The woman worked for 18 years for Walgreens...DUH

You keep blaming a vulnerable person who had 18 years of clean work history. God forbid she should get weak, sick, and grab a damn bag of chips.

I bet Paul Ryan and Rick Scott would agree with you 100%, PiPi :7

[pipi_k]

303. Read it again

What I said in my previous post does NOT blame her in any way.

It makes the point, for the individuals who think she was at death's door and too out of it to make the simple decision regarding chips vs candy, that she COULD NOT be that much out of it one minute and then fully able to return to her job the next. Chips would not work that quickly.

Especially not if she felt her condition required immediate action. Fatty foods are not absorbed that fast into the body.


Also, I asked for a photo of a Walgreens where the chips are right by the cashier, yes. But really at this point that doesn't even matter anymore. :shrug:

[Occulus]

310. You've been blaming the fuck out of her all up and down this thread, pipi

and you've completely disrupted the whole thing, end to fucking end.

You've shown not one single jot of empathy, sympathy, compassion, morals, ethics, intelligence, common sense, or basic fucking human decency toward this poor woman. Instead, you've been mean, condescending, judgmental, rude, shrill, argumentative, dismissive, and plain fucking wrong so many times it's hard to believe you're not jerking off to it.

Welcome to my ignore list, pipi. You are definitely not worth paying any attention to in the least.

[pipi_k]

316. Yeah, don't you just hate it

when someone DARES to express an opinion and then holds a gun to everyone's heads forcing them all to:

1. Read the posts

2. Reply

3. Accuse the person of all sorts of evil things


Blaming ME for YOUR reactions is like a man telling his wife or girlfriend that she MADE him get mad enough to hit her.


I don't control your emotions. I don't control the emotions of anyone else who posted in this thread, either.

Don't make me responsible for people not being able to control how they feel about an opinion they claim I shouldn't have.

[Mimosa]

299. EXACTLY!

I don't have diabetes but have had hypoglycemic episodes. SUGAR can and has made me collapse. Whereas cashews, chips or mixed nuts won't have a negative effect.

[pipi_k]

304. Well, that's you.

Like others have pointed out, we can't use our own personal experiences to say what someone else could do.

You can't have candy.

This woman could. She admitted that she carried it all the time but forgot to on that day. Therefore, candy works well for her.

[REP]

280. I'm a T2 diabetic on oral meds with an HbA1c of 5.8%. What would you like to explain to me?

How to file an ADA/EOE/etc case? You don't need to, because I've done that. I already said the woman in the article may indeed have grounds for filing herself. Time to get over yourself.

[TwilightGardener]

228. Well, this thread turned into a train wreck. Who cares if she took a bag of chips

for a blood sugar boost or was just feeling really hungry? IT'S A STUPID ASS BAG OF CHIPS. She paid for them by the end of her shift, by the account I read. She did not steal them. A trusted employee of 18 years--management should have reminded her of the policy and then let it go. BTW, it sounds like she was a cashier. I'm sure if the PHARMACIST was hungry/diabetic he or she would have been excused for taking and paying for a snack. Professionals get treated differently from the low-wage peons.

[Liberal_in_LA]

279. agreed about the thread turning into a train wreck. :-(

[Occulus]

309. ONE. PERSON'S. FAULT.

And the Alert button did not work.

[Claudia Jones]

283. bingo

Well said.

[Mimosa]

287. ^ AMEN ^

Sometimes this board sounds like it's full of conservatives.

I looked at my buddy list yesterday. HALF of all my old DU buddies -nice people, good democrats- no longer post here. :(

[markpkessinger]

233. "Zero Tolerance" poolicies = Zero Common Sense: ALWAYS n/t

[SoCalDem]

250. two words : glucose tabs...and a few more

you call your supervisor, tell them you have low blood sugar and probably MOST bosses would get the tabs FOR you... at NO cost.

[Yooperman]

311. In Reality - Without a UNION contract they don't need to have a reason.

Any company can dismiss ANY employee at will. They don't need a reason. As long as they don't say it was because of age, race or religion they can do whatever they please.

So is life in corporate America.

It is beyond me how people can't see that we NEED more unions. Period.

Peace...

YM

[Ikonoklast]

314. I was a UFCW member for twenty-four years.

If in any of our stores you were caught consuming a food product without having a receipt, you were terminated.

Period.


No excuse was valid or accepted.

As to only the peons getting the axe over it, I saw a twenty-year employee, an assistant manager get fired for eating a sandwich that he didn't pay for.

The owner hated doing it, but either the rules were for everyone, or no one.


It was the stated policy of the employer, and the union supported it.

You would have had a very difficult time getting your job back if caught, and the union reps would tell you that right up front..."You knew the policy, and yet you still ignored it, and now you want us to save your job?"


Losses to employee pilferage in a retail food store are higher than shoplifting losses.

[Yooperman]

317. I don't disagree with you...

I just stated that they don't need a reason if you are not under contract.

At least with a Union ... they have to follow an agreed upon contract and have a union representative present while being interviewed about any concerns about job performance. In this case, I would think a union would stand by it's member and help her as this was about a health issue not a theft issue.

Peace

YM

[Ikonoklast]

320. I also served as shop steward.

People accused of theft got to have their say, every termination, for whatever reason, was grieved and would come to a hearing.

The reasons given by those that were caught consuming merchandise without first paying for it were legion; I think I heard every excuse under the sun.

The union defended every case as best they could, it was difficult sometimes as there were very few gray areas left under the policy of the employer.

Few, if any of these type of cases ever went as far as arbitration, and I can't remember one employee getting re-instated after being caught consuming unpaid-for merchandise.

[Akoto]

312. I want to set aside her diabetes to recognize ...

Eighteen years of service with zero incidents on her record, and she was fired over a $1.39 bag of chips, which she paid for.

That's bullshit. I hope she wins her case.

[LadyInAZ]

318. i'm sure Walgreen's knew she had a medical condition

and are bound to accommodate her situation. she was just reacting to a medical needs and she paid for them later. its not like she took them and didn't pay for them. she should not been fired for just handling a medical condition... i hope she wins... its about time big business pockets hurt too....they hurt the small people first...

[Withywindle]

322. I'm not diabetic (yet) but I am hypoglycemic

And yeah, when my blood sugar is getting low and I can feel it - I need to eat.


Not sugar or sweets. When I've ALREADY fainted (as I do from time to time), yes, orange juice or a candy bar is the best way to help revive me quickly.

When I'm trying to AVOID fainting (and thereby making a spectacle of myself and causing inconvenience to my employer), then what I really need is salty carbs, preferably with a lot of protein. A taco or cheddar dog or bacon & eggs would be ideal, but definitely a bag of salty chips would be better than anything sweet in a pinch.

Hypoglycemic attacks have very specific needs, and everyone's needs are different. I know that when I'm starting to get shaky in my hands and legs, and that muscle twitch in my mouth is starting, and my thought processes are starting to go sideways and I'm starting to feel floating anxiety, what I need is *not* pure sugar.