Here's my exchange with Marathon/SuperAmerica/Speedway over their
firing an employee who dared to fight back against a robber:
From: David Codrea
Sent: Wed 5/21/08 5:03 PM
To: custrelations@marathonpetroleum.com
I can't in good conscience do business with a company that would rather see its employees dead than defending themselves. Whose the genius in risk management who figured out you should just give a monster what he wants? What if what he wants isn't money?
Corporate bureaucrats--is there anything they don't know?
http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2008/05/marathon-man.html
David Codrea
Here is their unedited and complete reply:
Dear David,
Thank you for contacting us regarding your concerns about actions we have taken in response to the robbery that occurred at our SuperAmerica store located in Roseville, Minnesota.
The primary concern of Speedway SuperAmerica is the safety of our more than 19,000 employees, and the millions of customers who frequent our stores each day.
Unfortunately recent news reports did not accurately reflect the full facts surrounding this robbery and our decision to terminate an employee who violated company policy by intervening during the robbery.
Our policy is that employees are never to do anything to endanger themselves, co-workers or customers in the event of a robbery. In fact, the first principle in the policy is, “Cooperate! Don’t argue, resist or attack the robber.” Law enforcement officials support our position to avoid any confrontation during a robbery. According to our surveillance video, our female employee present during the robbery was not assaulted.
The employee who was dismissed signed documents acknowledging he had read and understood the policy. He was given a copy of procedures to use if involved in a robbery. In addition, he also completed a computer-based training program, followed by a test that indicated he understood the policy. In written statements to local police, neither employee present during the robbery indicated any physical attack.
While it is regrettable this situation occurred, it is important that we have and enforce policies to ensure the safety of all our employees and customers during a potentially dangerous situation. There is nothing in the store that is as valuable as our employees and our customers.
We appreciate your concern and the opportunity to share these important facts with you.
Sincerely,
Anthony Kenney
President, Speedway SuperAmerica
Well, if "
The Only Ones" support their position, who am I to argue?
5 comments:
I received the exact same form letter. What's funny is that my letter preemptively addressed most of the issues that the form letter tried to use as justification for employee's termination. It really made the company's response ring hollow for me.
Another interesting tidbit is that I also used the word "monster" in my letter. However, it was not in reference to the robber. It was in reference to whomever would try to strip someone of their inalienable human right of self-defense - whether or not they were coerced into signing a document in which the right was purportedly relinquished.
I, too, sent them a letter. I BCC'd to your email, so you would have a copy. As always, you have my permission to post it here (or not) as you see fit.
Good letter--go ahead and post it in comments here.
I hear and obey, O Great One:
Dear Sirs/Madams,
It was with disappointment that I read about your decision to fire the person who fought back against a robbery attempt in Minnesota. It was even more disappointing to read the self-serving drivel that was offered up as justification for that firing.
1) Since you terminate employees who fight back against criminals, I will no longer do business at any of your stations. I cannot take the risk: if you won't allow them to defend themselves, they certainly won't lift a finger in my behalf.
2) As well, since you won't do anything to impact street crime in the areas in which your stations are located, it stands to reason that you support thugs who rob and steal from the general public, and therefore you don't deserve my business.
I'm well aware that the oft-stated theory of corporate responsibility begins and ends with payment of assessed taxes and keeping the stockholders happy. This is patently untrue. Maintaining a retail outlet for the sole reason of taking in cash without regard to the neighborhood that retail outlet is situated in is both cynical and irresponsible. No matter how much you might insist, you are part and parcel of the community in which you do business, and pretending otherwise doesn't stand up to any credible scrutiny. I myself cannot allow, for instance, a drug lab on my property using the sort of reasoning you seem to be relying on here, and I own outright the land my house is built on. Why? Because the product of that drug lab impacts the greater community, and insisting that my land is some sort of island, somehow separate from the town in which it is situated won't pass the smell test. Announcing that your employees are not to resist during a robbery impacts the entire area in which your station is located, not just your civil liability.
Insisting that any potential or current employee agree to be victimized or killed in return for a paycheck is reprehensible.
I got the same one back too.
Post a Comment