Walgreen's Pharmacist fired for defending himself and coworkers


So your rights to carry a gun should trump the property owner's rights? That seems to be what folks are saying here: that no establishment should have the right to tell you not to carry a gun there. This question comes up almost every time someone violates a corporate weapons policy and gets fired for it.

To be clear: the pharmacist was fired for violating Walgreens' corporate weapons policy, not for defending himself. There is a difference.

Would people be as quick to judge Walgreens if he had been fired for carrying a machete in to work?

Do you have the right to keep me from carrying a gun on your property? Why or why not?
 

I know they do. It's probably closer to 95+%, especially if they have any sort of employee manual that was done by an attorney.
 
So your rights to carry a gun should trump the property owner's rights? That seems to be what folks are saying here: that no establishment should have the right to tell you not to carry a gun there. This question comes up almost every time someone violates a corporate weapons policy and gets fired for it.

To be clear: the pharmacist was fired for violating Walgreens' corporate weapons policy, not for defending himself. There is a difference.

Would people be as quick to judge Walgreens if he had been fired for carrying a machete in to work?

Do you have the right to keep me from carrying a gun on your property? Why or why not?

It's one thing to give a robber the money in the register and watch them walk out the door. It's another to disarm your employees, provide them no protection, then line corporate coffers with a quarter million dollars per employee killed when the eventuality occurs. Yes, Walgreen's has the right as the owner to require its employees to not be armed. But if they do, they then have a MORAL obligation to protect them, and NO, police do not count. Police are not private security for one corporation - they serve the public in general.

It's like Walgreen's created the shooting gallery for the BG's and they get to keep the prize.
 
Do you have the right to tell me not to carry a gun on your property?

If so, are you then taking responsibility for my protection? And remember, the police don't count.

It seems to me that there are a lot of people here who apply a double standard when it comes to private property rights.
 
It's one thing to give a robber the money in the register and watch them walk out the door. It's another to disarm your employees, provide them no protection, then line corporate coffers with a quarter million dollars per employee killed when the eventuality occurs. Yes, Walgreen's has the right as the owner to require its employees to not be armed. But if they do, they then have a MORAL obligation to protect them, and NO, police do not count. Police are not private security for one corporation - they serve the public in general.
Speaking of security, I was in a Five Below store the other day. They're basically an upscale dollar store. They were posted so I left my carry in my trunk but left my holster on. As soon as I entered, the SECURITY GUARD picked up on the holster bulge and proceeded to follow me around the store. I had some fun leading him up and down the aisles for awhile. My point is: I don't know how effective this unarmed guard would be for security in a dollar store, but he is better than the lack of security at a Walgreen's where they have drugs available.
 
That's good to hear that he was astute enough to pick up on the bulge and then responsible enough to keep an eye on you! If it was me, I probably would've talked to him about my CCW and shown him I was "dry" so he could concentrate on bad guys. :). But at least the store lived up to their responsibility to protect their customers when they disarm them.
 
To be clear: the pharmacist was fired for violating Walgreens' corporate weapons policy, not for defending himself. There is a difference.

Would people be as quick to judge Walgreens if he had been fired for carrying a machete in to work?

Do you have the right to keep me from carrying a gun on your property? Why or why not?

It's been a week, and no one has thought to answer my questions. They weren't rhetorical.
 
Would people be as quick to judge Walgreens if he had been fired for carrying a machete in to work?
If he could conceal it to prevent causing a panic, then maybe it wouldn't bother me, other than the fact that it would be more of a danger to bystanders were he to start swinging it. Not very effective either, but that wasn't your point.

Do you have the right to keep me from carrying a gun on your property?
Yes.

Why or why not?
My private property. I can keep you off of it completely if I want, for whatever reason I want. But my property isn't open to the public, which actually does make a difference in the eyes of the law. And on my property you aren't required to be there every day and you aren't required to perform a function that could easily put your life at risk. Were that so, I would not restrict your right to defend yourself.

I see where you're going with this. It's the same property rights argument that always comes out in instances such as this. The "what about your property" analogy often comes up as well, but that isn't a fair analogy. It's true that property rights, in their pure form, do allow the property owner to decide what can or cannot be taken onto the property, but those rights are not unlimited, especially when an employment relationship exists. There are many things that you could legally restrict at your home that an employer could not legally restrict from an employee. There are also things that an employer can require that you normally would not.

The issue here is whether the employer is unduly restricting the employee by placing him into a situation where his life is threatened, but not allowing him the means to protect himself. If an employer placed you into a high noise environment without ear protection, they'd get sued. A high dust environment without dust masks, high radiation environment, etc., etc. The argument being made is that crime, and in this particular case crime against pharmacies by addicts, is of such a nature that it has reached the level of being an occupational hazard, and that restrictions against drug store employees being able to carry firearms for protection thus represents an undue hazard for said employees. I personally doubt that argument will prevail in this case but it's one that is coming up more and more in recent years, so it may find a sympathetic ear in our courts not too far down the road. I'd sure like to see it.

But you do bring up a good point. As things stand in our legal system right now, property rights are probably in Walgreens' favor.
 
And Walgreens can easily make the point that the employee wasn't required to work at Walgreens, so they weren't "requiring" him to work under those conditions.

I'd really like to see someone sue an employer under an unsafe work conditions claim. "Unsafe work conditions" have been used to require all sorts of PPE. Why can't it be used to allow firearms?
 
I'd really like to see someone sue an employer under an unsafe work conditions claim. "Unsafe work conditions" have been used to require all sorts of PPE. Why can't it be used to allow firearms?

Interesting concept...I do not think we will see this for years to come but a valid point. At this point I think businesses will retain this right.

Now on the other hand if you were in a very high crime area and the store had been robbed several times the retailer will be at a disadvantage to convince the courts of this right and may face huge losses to a wrongful death suite as a result of violence.

We all have seen stores add contract security at bad locations in an attempt to prevent violent act's.
 
I just got off the phone with Walgreens Corporate (800-925-4733). I politely informed them that I would be shopping elsewhere, why, and what it would take to get my business back.

Do they have a right to do what they did? That is immaterial. I am offended by their action and I certainly have a right to spend my money as I wish.
 
I work for Walgreens as a pharm tech in baton rouge. Our 24 hour location that is 2 miles away was robbed at gunpoint earlier this year. The suspect hopped the counter and held the female pharmacist at gunpoint while she filled his backpack with OxyContin. This happened at 4 am and in a nicer part of town. One of my coworkers and I discuss all the time that the rule makes us a target. We both shoot for fun and are armed at home. If I had extra cash, I would get my ccw license and a new compact 9mm or .40 cal and damn the consequences. I can not count on anyone else to provide for my safety. When seconds count, the police will arrive in minutes. I always joke that the government cat have my guns, but i'd be willing to give back my bullets...at a 1000feet/second.lol
 
Maybe so. I don't break their rules. Please direct towards a pharmacy that does not have such rules. I love my job as it gives me a chance to serve the general public and allows flexible hours so I may work while pursuing my BSW. The thing that gets a lot of us is that Walgreens and other companies will not let us protect ourselves and/ or provide protection( ie guards) to us. I don't if any of you are familiar with Walgreens dispute with express scripts , but because of it we are losing hours and business. This makes us more of a target for robbery as the store is next to empty and sparsely staffed. What do we do?
 
Family owned Pharm. in my area sealed the pharmacist in. Windows where he greets customers are bullet-proof glass...Steel door and frame. Slide out drawer. He said he was tired of the oxy heads jumping the counter. Has not had any issues since he installed this equipment. Sad but I think we will see more going this direction.
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,542
Messages
611,255
Members
74,961
Latest member
Shodan
Back
Top