Free at last (... and unemployed)

[pErvinalia]

yep.

[Cormac]

It is one of those "rules of business" that real business people have to snap out of the heads of workers if you want a successful, sustainable, profitable business.

What matters is the product or service you want to seek, and understanding precisely the limit of service provided before you start to lose money. Businesses often overservice "special" customers to the extent that they damage their business.

In this case, if I were managing that store, the only people who would get help unloading and loading their basket at the checkout would be the elderly and the infirm. I'd be paying those guys to offer significant value add through their knowledge and advice, and the sale of small volumes of goods, not as a shortcut to exit.

If that caused a customer to stamp off in a emper, well, that is their problem.

May I ask how many retail businesses you've started and run successfully?

Online? About 9.

Offline, I have been engaged in organisation and operational design for over 15 years - I'm reasonably successful at it. This involves providing goods and services both to end customers and also to businesses.

(The reason I completed legal training over the last few years is because I wanted to get a solid and pragmatic understanding of contract law and corporate governance, amongst other legal knowledge. It is very useful in my line of work).

[MrJonno]

An employee has a reasonable expectation from an employer to protect them from abuse from a customer. If they fail in this duty the employer goes sued for a hell of a lot more than they would ever pay the worker

[klr]

Rant:

I am finally out of retail hell, at least for the time being. I have some money saved up and so am not to concerned right now.

I work (worked) at a Wal-Mart in the automotive/tire lube express department. We have a small counter but no bag carousel or scale. With increasing frequency, customers bring their buggies piled full of groceries and other small items to our register, which is ill equipped to handle such loads (where to put everything after it is rang up and bagged). Normally they assist (unload their buggies to the counter, and take the bagged product as space becomes full). Something I consider to be more of a problem is in this department of the store, various customers just push the buggy up and expect the cashier to unload their stuff as well. This isn't a major problem if: 1) there is a legitimate reason why they can not unload themselves (handicap, large/heavy items, etc), 2) there are only a few items in the buggy, but is IMO just shear laziness otherwise, especially when they bring a cart full of items.

Compound this with the various policy changes that have taken place since I have been their, management changes, iron fist management at times, etc, I have reached a point that I no longer care. I have come to the conclusion that we are just floor mats for the customers and management, to be stepped on and pushed around. I am not the only associate in the department who feels this way, and another associate has even on several occasions turned customers away if they bring too much stuff to our department, insisting that they go to a front register instead.

Is it an asshole thing for me to say? Maybe. I have had enough and now I am out due to "gross misconduct" as they called it, simply refusing to unload a customer's full buggy for them. But I feel great.

In many organisations, I suspect that there is a substantial proportion of employees - perhaps even a sizeable majority - who would, on the whole, rather not be there if they had the choice. But too often they just don't have any choice, for basic economic reasons. This is not just the case with the notoriously bad employers IMHO.

[Warren Dew]

In many organisations, I suspect that there is a substantial proportion of employees - perhaps even a sizeable majority - who would, on the whole, rather not be there if they had the choice. But too often they just don't have any choice, for basic economic reasons. This is not just the case with the notoriously bad employers IMHO.

I'd say it's not just a substantial proportion, but a substantial majority of employees that would not stay on the job voluntarily if they weren't bribed into it by being paid, a very basic economic reason.

[klr]

In many organisations, I suspect that there is a substantial proportion of employees - perhaps even a sizeable majority - who would, on the whole, rather not be there if they had the choice. But too often they just don't have any choice, for basic economic reasons. This is not just the case with the notoriously bad employers IMHO.

I'd say it's not just a substantial proportion, but a substantial majority of employees that would not stay on the job voluntarily if they weren't bribed into it by being paid, a very basic economic reason.

I get what you're saying, but I was allowing for the fact that some people actually like their work, even though ideally they would of course prefer to lead a completely different life. Very few people get to live a life even remotely close to their ideal. What gets me is how the modern workplace can so often be a thoroughly dysfunctional environment, especially at the intellectual and emotional level. It could be so much better for so many people.

[Cormac]

In many organisations, I suspect that there is a substantial proportion of employees - perhaps even a sizeable majority - who would, on the whole, rather not be there if they had the choice. But too often they just don't have any choice, for basic economic reasons. This is not just the case with the notoriously bad employers IMHO.

I'd say it's not just a substantial proportion, but a substantial majority of employees that would not stay on the job voluntarily if they weren't bribed into it by being paid, a very basic economic reason.

I get what you're saying, but I was allowing for the fact that some people actually like their work, even though ideally they would of course prefer to lead a completely different life. Very few people get to live a life even remotely close to their ideal. What gets me is how the modern workplace can so often be a thoroughly dysfunctional environment, especially at the intellectual and emotional level. It could be so much better for so many people.

[Seth]

Fuck 'em. Do they want a blow job as well?

Strawman hyperbole. They want good service from employees. If you're not prepared to serve the customer with a smile as he needs to be served in order to be happy with his or her experience, then you have no business being involved in retail...or any other business for that matter.

This attitude you display does not bode well for your desire to become a professional photographer, which requires good people skills in order to market your product.

You might want to ruminate on that for a while.

[Seth]

Uhm, no. He was fired for some facebook comments he made, and had no connection with his colleagues or the company that he worked for, except for Walmart arrogating the right to sack him for opinions he voiced as a private citizen from the comfort of his home. (Linkie)

Fundamental error #1: Having a Facebook page that mentions one's employer.
Fundamental error #2: Posting controversial material under your real name on the Internet.
Fundamental error #3: Not reading the employee manual.
Fundamental error #4: Thinking that your employer has a duty to continue to employ you when you've ceased to be of value and have become a public-relations debit to the company because of what you do off-duty that can be connected to your employer through social media, which is not fundamentally different from wearing your Wal-Mart uniform to a public protest or while getting blitzed at a bar and groping girls.

Your error is in intimating that he was fired because of his religious beliefs. He was not. He was fired for placing the company in a bad light to customers. He was hoist on his own petard, excuses for not reading the employee manual notwithstanding. If he'd written to his supervisor and said, "Sir, it is imperative that I have an opportunity to read the full employee manual in order to be properly educated and prepared to do my job correctly, will you arrange for someone to cover for me while I do so I would appreciate it" he would have had a) the knowledge he needed to avoid his error and a sterling defense if they fired him when the supervisor would NOT arrange for him to have time (on the clock) to read the manual, which is a deficiency in employee training that's the fault of the company, not the employee.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

You should talk to Roger Barr, pc. He's the guy that got sacked by Walmart for being an unashamed atheist.

Let's see...by "unashamed atheist" I'm going to have to assume that means he was a militant anti-theist who proselytized his religion (of non-theism) at work and shoved his beliefs in the face of his employer as a way to stir the shit because the Walton family is a religious one, and he got fired for being a religious bully and a PITA for the management who couldn't keep his yap shut about religion, or the faults thereof, when he was drawing a paycheck. Sounds like he got what he deserved.

Err... no.

He was sacked for making atheist posts on facebook that were completely unconnected to his work. A facebook "friend of a friend" saw a post she disagreed with, recognised him as the greeter at her local Walmart and reported him to the management. He (quite rightly) refused to remove the post as it had fuck all to do with his job and was promptly sacked!

Whatever you think about the rights or wrongs of obeying the rules to keep a job, being forbidden to express your personal views outside of work, when those views do not include opinions on the workplace or company, is a tad draconian, n'est-ce pas?

Try not to assume in future.

[pErvinalia]

Fuck 'em. Do they want a blow job as well?

Strawman hyperbole. They want good service from employees. If you're not prepared to serve the customer with a smile as he needs to be served in order to be happy with his or her experience, then you have no business being involved in retail...or any other business for that matter.

People here are perfectly happy AND ABLE to unload their own trolleys. If there is something large and heavy, the cashier just enters it manually. It's not about service, it's about fat lazy Americans.

This attitude you display does not bode well for your desire to become a professional photographer, which requires good people skills in order to market your product.

That's why the net is good. I don't have to deal so much with idiots. Either way, I can bung it on when I have to. In fact, I'm surprisingly good at it.

You might want to ruminate on that for a while.

You might want to suck my pus-riddled dick.

[pErvinalia]

You should talk to Roger Barr, pc. He's the guy that got sacked by Walmart for being an unashamed atheist.

Let's see...by "unashamed atheist" I'm going to have to assume that means he was a militant anti-theist who proselytized his religion (of non-theism) at work and shoved his beliefs in the face of his employer as a way to stir the shit because the Walton family is a religious one, and he got fired for being a religious bully and a PITA for the management who couldn't keep his yap shut about religion, or the faults thereof, when he was drawing a paycheck. Sounds like he got what he deserved.

Err... no.

He was sacked for making atheist posts on facebook that were completely unconnected to his work. A facebook "friend of a friend" saw a post she disagreed with, recognised him as the greeter at her local Walmart and reported him to the management. He (quite rightly) refused to remove the post as it had fuck all to do with his job and was promptly sacked!

Whatever you think about the rights or wrongs of obeying the rules to keep a job, being forbidden to express your personal views outside of work, when those views do not include opinions on the workplace or company, is a tad draconian, n'est-ce pas?

Try not to assume in future.

He's not assuming. He's acting in full accordance with his fascist anarcho-capitalist views. Those with the money have all rights, and those without money have no rights.

[Seth]

You should talk to Roger Barr, pc. He's the guy that got sacked by Walmart for being an unashamed atheist.

Let's see...by "unashamed atheist" I'm going to have to assume that means he was a militant anti-theist who proselytized his religion (of non-theism) at work and shoved his beliefs in the face of his employer as a way to stir the shit because the Walton family is a religious one, and he got fired for being a religious bully and a PITA for the management who couldn't keep his yap shut about religion, or the faults thereof, when he was drawing a paycheck. Sounds like he got what he deserved.

Err... no.

He was sacked for making atheist posts on facebook that were completely unconnected to his work. A facebook "friend of a friend" saw a post she disagreed with, recognised him as the greeter at her local Walmart and reported him to the management. He (quite rightly) refused to remove the post as it had fuck all to do with his job and was promptly sacked!

Um...nope, not quite. According to the article he was not told who complained or how: "He was not told who made the complaint, nor how the complainant came to view his profile, but he suspects that it was a friend of a friend who had commented on his postings." He could be lying.

Anyway, fundamental flaws 2 through 4 still apply.

In re number 3: "When he told them that he didn’t even know how to access the WIRE, they lectured that he could have asked someone for help." Methinks he probably knew exactly what the policy said and decided to go ahead and do it anyway, which is his right. And it's WalMart's right to fire him because he made the statements publicly and it was linked back to WalMart in violation of the policy that he had a duty to read and abide by.

Whatever you think about the rights or wrongs of obeying the rules to keep a job, being forbidden to express your personal views outside of work, when those views do not include opinions on the workplace or company, is a tad draconian, n'est-ce pas?

Not if that's the contract you agreed to when you took the job. And that's the contract he agreed to when he took the job. If he didn't like those restrictions, then he shouldn't have taken the job, or he should have kept his yap shut in a small town in order to keep his job. He'd have known all this if he hadn't ignored the manual.

He has no "right" to work for WalMart, he works at the pleasure of the company, who can fire him for any reason at all...except for reasons proscribed by federal law.

Now, the real question is does he have a plausible case that he was religiously discriminated against because he is an atheist? Or was he fired because he made a provocative and alarming post in a public forum under his own name that affected WalMart's business negatively? The lawyers at WalMart are not stupid, so I doubt it's the former. It's most likely the latter, which explains his reinstatement and then eventual termination. I suspect that someone at the regional level first decided it wasn't that important, but when the report hit national headquarters somebody in charge overruled them, then was briefly overruled by the legal department who ordered him to be put back to work until they thoroughly investigated the case to make sure they were complying with federal equal employment and anti-discrimination laws.

If he'd posted "I'm a militant and unrepentant atheist and I do not believe God exists" and they fired him for it THEN he would have a religious discrimination complaint, but his "update" did not mention religion, it simply expressed his opinion about the disabled and chronically ill in a way that was, perhaps incorrectly, taken as a repugnant and alarming statement. Personally my argument (in court) would be that all he did was ASK A QUESTION. A provocative and thought producing question indeed, but still he did not actually express any opinion on the question. I sympathize with him for THAT reason because he did (although perhaps not for the same reasons) precisely what I do here every single day: Asked a question in a manner that provokes debate and discussion.

Given this quote: "On July 27, he was again summoned for a meeting, this time with two women from Walmart’s corporate office. “They told me that in posting what I had posted on Facebook and causing the complaint to be lodged against me that I had violated the social media guidelines policy in that it had resulted in an adverse effect on the company,” Barr said." I suspect that he didn't write the requested explanation letter with the assistance of counsel, which he probably should have, and I'd guess that he didn't say what I would have said, which is "I posted a statement of fact followed by a question that was intended to engender debate on the subject of euthanasia. I did not express any opinion for or against it, and those who took it that way clearly misread what I wrote. I was being an interlocutor."

Of course since his page is public, I'd have to guess that there's plenty more "atheist" proselytizing on there which got looked at by the company lawyers which alarmed them and resulted in him being labeled as having an "adverse effect" on the company by violating the handbook and therefore needed to be fired...something the company has every right to do.

Do I think Walmart should have taken this action? No, absolutely not. I think they overreacted to a single complaint, and I think the complainant, whoever it is, is a chickenshit bastard/bitch, but I think that he handled his defense very badly, and if I had to guess he made an issue of his atheism and his beliefs and opinions on the subject in his letter, thinking that he wanted to stand on his principles and that the company had no cause to fire him for doing so publicly.

He was wrong in that assessment, and he nailed his coffin shut when he admitted to dereliction of duty for failing to read the employee's manual.

The lesson here is, as I said, don't post provocative stuff on your Facebook page (or anything else for that matter...people who have public facebook pages are idiots) if you work for someone who might object because it might have an adverse impact on their business. And read the fucking manual.

He certainly has the right to say anything he wants on his Facebook page, but he does not have a right to a job with Walmart. Nor should he.

Then again Walmart has shot itself in the foot by terminating him because now instead of a couple of intolerant religious asses in one town being the only one's pissed off about it, it's gone national and I'm sure there are thousands and thousands of people who choose to boycott Walmart because of it. They were incredibly stupid to do this, and they are probably paying more for doing so than they saved by doing so.

So it's not all bad, and you can consider him a martyr to the cause, because it's incidents like this that are persuading states to enact laws saying that employers CANNOT fire someone for their social media statements unless they are derogatory of the company, and (as in Colorado) laws that PROHIBIT an employer from demanding passwords and access to PRIVATE social media sites as a condition of employment.

I suspect that's where it's going to eventually come down nationwide because it's clearly egregiously wrong for a company to terminate someone for a non-job-related statement that he did not INTEND to link to the company, but which was linked to the company only by the unusual circumstances in that particular small town.

He might also consider suing the complainant for defamation of character and outrageous conduct causing him direct economic harm.

[Seth]

He's not assuming. He's acting in full accordance with his fascist anarcho-capitalist views. Those with the money have all rights, and those without money have no rights.

There's nothing at all fascist about those who own the business deciding who works for them, and for how long. If some publicly-known executive of some big company goes on a bender and is photographed and videoed drunkenly banging a prostitute on the hood of a cab in front of some techno club somewhere, the company has every right and justification to fire him for embarrassing the company. Walmart employees are no less liable for actions they commit that might bring disrepute on the company, on duty or off duty. If this person had instead been caught molesting children just off of Walmart property, children he found because he worked at Walmart, nobody would be defending him or excoriating Walmart for terminating him.

If it's my company with my money and my reputation on the line I have every right, morally and ethically and legally, to terminate any employee that makes a public fool or nuisance of themselves in a manner that does or could bring ill repute or customer dissatisfaction upon my business. Especially in a small town, where everybody knows everybody else. If you're a closet sado-masochistic sex addict who works for me and customers find this out, your value to me has dropped to zero and you've become a liability, and you'll be fired. Not necessarily because I object to BDSM, but because my CUSTOMERS might object to being served by an employee whom they know is a BDSM fan.

It's MY business and anyone who works for me must represent MY standards of behavior where it can in any way negatively affect my business. If they can't meet my standards, then they can't work for me. Big deal. Go find another job because you have no right to work for me if I don't want you there.

Go start your own business and wear leather jock straps and thongs and carry whips around on the job if you like, just not in MY place of business.

Hell, IBM in my hometown of Boulder used to fire people for wearing the wrong color tie to work. They wanted Men in Black uniformity and if you didn't make the grade you didn't work for IBM. They fired people all the time for off-duty shenanigans that caused, or even potentially could cause embarrassment to the company because they took their reputation very seriously.

Sounds to me like Atheist butthurt and nothing more. Why would an Atheist want to work for Walmart to begin with...if he's a militant Atheist?

[klr]

A very handy flowchart:

http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20130613-should-i-quit