Good Job Home depot!

>>154708

it says that's not why he was fired

No, no it doesn't. It stats that very reason for his termination. It is a letter from the states unemployment office informing him that he will receive unemployment, because the reason he was fired(stopping a kidnapping) is not justifiably to the state.

This is pretty standard for big businesses; low-level, non-solary employees don't receive the training to deal with this kind of thing, so they aren't permitted to. Like at walmart, if you see someone stealing and you haven't been certified to pursue them, you'll be fired if you even follow them around. However well-intentioned this guy was, and I commend him, it seems like HD is just being consistent in enforcing policy

>>154708
>>154717
This letter is ambiguous and misleading.
1. Employee was fired "because you assisted the police in preventing a kidnapping".
2. Assisting to prevent a kidnapping "is not a violation of the standards of behavior".

The unanswered question raised here is "Why was the employee fired for their action if it was not against company policy".

There is no mention of a violation of any other company policy - e.g. theft, tardiness, harassment of staff etc.

Badly written, perhaps deliberately so.

>>154723
Kidnapping is a little higher on the, Oh Shit Nigga, list than theft. And the consequences for failing are much much higher. Homeless Despot not being able to discern the correct course of action without procedures, demonstrates their incompetence as being leaders.
>Steals tv
>Gets Free Tv

>Kidnaps person
>Gets Free sex and Rape Toy
>Person becomes fucked forever
>Family lose out
>Friends lose out
>Fellow employees lose a Coworker or Teachers lose a Student
>Person can no longer contribute to society and may never again

HD fucked up, pure and simple. Hopefully Atlanta will send the same letter to the store manager and give him 'the walk of shame.'

In the meantime HD will hunker down and wait out the public shit-storm and then continue business as usual. Nothing changes.

That guy did The Right Thing, corporate America? Not.

>>154708
>>154890
The store reversed it's decision once it became clear what happened. This was just a case of a shitty store manager making the wrong call and you are blaming corporate for it. Do you people honestly believe that every store employee is given oversight from the headquarters?

>>154915
The GM probably gave HR some water down or trumped-up version of what actually happened. If that point HR probably agreed with his recommendation to terminate the employee. That's probably all the decision-making corporate had in it. I've seen it countless times before. You just feed the HR people the lines you need to to get what you want and then they agree with you. It helps if you have a vision for why this employee is failing you in the first place. That way you can just start picking small items off from their behavior as things that are not okay.

>>154723
>low-level, non-solary employees don't receive the training to deal with this kind of thing

Neither does most of the general public, but if you prevented a child kidnapping on your own time you'd be hailed as a hero. On the clock and suddenly you lose all agency to act like a human being? That's bullshit. Employer's have too much power over their peons.

>>154963
This, and manufacturing is fucked, too. Work at a job that gives you repetitive motion injuries and you'll get $5k deductible health insurance if you're damn lucky, and you're not allowed the time to figure out a better way of doing it.

>>154723

Not exactly true, Walmart usually promotes "aggressive" (overly friendly) customer service. The rules are extremely strict and getting worse, however, even for "trained" security personnel. Hard to blame corporate for the security policies when you look at the news reports of attacks and lawsuits involving Walmart; at the same time, it is the corporate policy that caters to the dregs of society as their most valued customers.

i blame pro-hibition

pro-hibition took the rights of the people and gave it to the federal government

this is blowback from it in the form of im a company im allowed because the state says so to not have business dealing with you since you helped out the federal government, and i dont have to work with them with you on that

>>154708
I'd really like it if you quit posting racist midget scat soft core porn montages on my internet you faggot gay

>>154723
So you're saying high level HD employees have been trained to stop kidnappings?
DAMN HD throwin out savages

>>154963

Did you think the term "wage slave" was just an internet meme?

"Assisting police!" You have to follow the directions of the law. How can you be fired for abiding the law?

>>154959
Exactly. This is a problem with the store manager and they shoukd be held responsible and not the company itself. Of course most people on the Internet are unable to understand this, as evidenced by this thread.

>>154708
Home Depot was extraordinarily shitty when I worked there, they deserve a worse rep. You can find more stable, better paying work at a supermarket, and that has the added benefit of not being hell on your back and feet.

>>154708
>a kidnapping
>stealing-my-kid

Bastard kept a father from having HIS kids.

>>155217
How was he supposed to know? Should he just trust every middle aged dude who wants to nab a kid that he's his "father"?

>>154708
1. He was fired for second offense that month
2. The offence was abandoning his shift
3. Mangers get such bullshit excuses all the time
4. When YOU apply for unemployment YOU give the reason, unemployment office parroting back to you whatever you wrote is not proof

So argumentative bad employee bugs out before his shift ends, comes back and gives you some story about how he's Batman? Yah I'd fire that cunt too.

>>154724
>This letter is ambiguous and misleading.

Seems pretty clear to me; the employee was unjustly fired and can now make a claim against Homey Despot with the state employment dept. and/or sue them in court.

> The unanswered question raised here is "Why was the employee fired for their action if it was not against company policy".

That's not for the state employment dept to answer beyond the fact that it was an unjust firing, they don't know the inner workings of a private company.

They prob fired him because when I worked for Lowes, all they said was if you see someone stealing just let them go. They were REALLY adamant about you NOT interfering.

But in reality they prob just wanted to fire him and saw that this is a legitimate reason. Its a stupid reason, yes, but if it does break their employment agreement they can. They SHOULDN'T have, but they could.

>>155244
>So argumentative bad employee bugs out before his shift ends, comes back and gives you some story about how he's Batman? Yah I'd fire that cunt too.

Where do you see any of that in the letter?

The employment dept. _agrees_ with the employee that firing him for being Batman was unjustifiable and he can legally make a claim against Homey Despot.

>>155246
The state department found that it wasn't a legitimate reason, so even though they did fire him, they weren't allowed to.

>>155244
You must be illiterate or trolling.

>>155251
>so even though they did fire him, they weren't allowed to.

Oregon is an at-will employment state, no? As long as they didn't fire him because he was black or something, what grounds do they have to say HD isn't allowed to fire the guy?

>>155268
They are perfectly allowed to fire the guy.
However if they fired him for an unacceptable reason, then they are liable for unemployment costs.
This is what happens society thinks high employment rates are ideal.

>>154963
if company policy was that it was okay to go out of your way to stop kidnappings, and you got shot trying to stop it, then the company basically is liable for it.

>>159131
They could just not have a policy on it one way or the other.

>>154879
I doubt anyone outside of the edgelord strawmen would argue that stealing a tv is worse than stealing a person. What the guy did was commendable and I honestly think he will get some sort of sweet kickback from the community for his bravery. However, it really is a coorporate policy. If it were a mad gunmen he stopped he would still be fired. If it were some dude with 20 lbs of c4 strapped to his chest he would still be fired. If it were some toddler stealing a snickers he would still be fired. Theres a web of legal horseshit for American companies when it comes to stuff like this that makes an employee doing the righ thing cost you a shitton of money when they do it wrong. Companies regularly face lawsuits for:
>Shoplifting but the guy that caught me hurt my feelings after pulling $900 in jewelry out of my sweatpants
>I chipped a tooth when someone tackled me for throwing a hammer at the cashier
>I cut myself on something in the walmart dumpster while searching for cans/ebay-able merchandise

Again, this guy did the right thing, and Im sure HR knew it was a damned if I do damned if I dont situation. But rewarding him would see a surge in employees doing the right thing in lesser situations that would lead to a wave of legal horseshit and ambulance chasers.