Autozone.....Really..??

[kenmac]

As someone else mentioned, boycotting Autozone will do nothing but hurt the employees that still work there. Voice your displeasure to their management.

I know alot of people that don't shop at walmart. Are these people hurting wal-mart employes because they choose to shop Target instead of walmart ?? What if they shopped at walmart instead of target. Are they not hurting target employes ?? Same difference

 

[yelbike]

I know alot of people that don't shop at walmart. Are these people hurting wal-mart employes because they choose to shop Target instead of walmart ?? What if they shopped at walmart instead of target. Are they not hurting target employes ?? Same difference

So if you don't shop az, and az loses its market share and lays off employees, guess who would picks the market share? And guess needs more employees?

 

[BIG DOOLEY]

I used to manage at a different chain of automotive stores years ago.
We had stores that were held up but never a shooting thank god.
I never carried a gun in the store with me.
I personally would not want to escalate a hold up by producing a gun in front of customers,kids and emloyees.
Just hand the person the money and my wallet if thats all they want.
just me.
There was no concealed carry weapons permits back then like today.

It was ALWAYS in the back of my mind every night if I was going to be approached with the bank deposit in hand or tucked under my coat to hide it.

I would defend myself when I left the store without a doubt.
After work was my time.
I kept a 44 mag in my truck for my trip to the bank every night @ 11pm.
After work hours do not belong to the company.
I too would have entered the store to defend my coworker after hours.

These men were closing the store and on their way home and forced back into the store office.

I too will boycott autozone.

 

[jinman]

I know alot of people that don't shop at walmart. Are these people hurting wal-mart employes because they choose to shop Target instead of walmart ?? What if they shopped at walmart instead of target. Are they not hurting target employes ?? Same difference

You seem to drift further out of context each time you post on this. The short answer is yes. Yes, by not shopping at a store, you hurt their employees. That's what a boycott is. It hurts all people who work for and make their living at the boycotted establishment. A store that doesn't have customers goes out of business. I thought I made it clear in my first post on this matter that I had a fairly close relationship with the employees in our local Autozone. These are the people who came out of the store and installed the battery in my wife's car when she had difficulty getting it out. They are more than an unknown face in a store. As a first measure, I'm suggesting that a full-on boycott is not my first choice because of my relationship with the local store employees. I also stated that threatening boycott was a good first step to be followed with a full boycott. The fact that you or anyone else would choose to boycott now is fine, no problem. For me, I can't do that because of those great people in my local store who had nothing to do with the policy or firing Mr. McLean.

 

[kenmac]

Not drifting at all. Just making a point . when you shop at store A vs store B .You are going hurt employees at store B. I dislike GE appliances. Therefore I buycott this company. Should I just suck it up & buy ( what I feel ) is inferior products because, I don't want to hurt GE employees ?? I boycott AZ. AZ. goes out of business. As a result of AZ being closed, Advance gets more business. Advance now hires the out of work AZ employees

 

[yelbike]

You seem to drift further out of context each time you post on this. The short answer is yes. Yes, by not shopping at a store, you hurt their employees. That's what a boycott is. It hurts all people who work for and make their living at the boycotted establishment. A store that doesn't have customers goes out of business. I thought I made it clear in my first post on this matter that I had a fairly close relationship with the employees in our local Autozone. These are the people who came out of the store and installed the battery in my wife's car when she had difficulty getting it out. They are more than an unknown face in a store. As a first measure, I'm suggesting that a full-on boycott is not my first choice because of my relationship with the local store employees. I also stated that threatening boycott was a good first step to be followed with a full boycott. The fact that you or anyone else would choose to boycott now is fine, no problem. For me, I can't do that because of those great people in my local store who had nothing to do with the policy or firing Mr. McLean.

Don't you think the kind employees at your local AZ will find a new employer if AZ is forced to close their doors. AZ closes, NAPA opens, thats how it works. People still drive cars and need parts, they just don't NEED to buy from AZ.

AZ employees will fit right in at NAPA.

 

[Gator6x4]

Think about what happen here. The employee being consciousness in protecting his employer’s property and prevented a co-worker in all likelihood from injury or death was rewarded by termination.

Businesses have employment policies, this is understandable. If an employee violates a store policy only having one policy, termination on disciplinary action to insure the same does not occur again in the future is totally asinine.

There is a very true statement when it comes to company policies. Any employee, who has never violated one, is a employee who is not doing anything.

Termination is way over the top. I personally if the manager would have probably gave him two days off with pay as disciplinary action and explained the store policy to him again.

Three people were in the store on this night, the robber and two Auto Zone employees. We all know why the robber was there. We also know robbers watch television and know all about witnesses so what was the logical thing for the employee to do? He did not expose or add anyone other than the original players to the crime scene. The employee in all likelihood prevented injury or death and a robbery. So how did he exacerbate the situation by his actions?

 

[The kid]

Here's my take on this. Two people where closing the store. The manager and employee. The work day was officially over. (off the clock). The off the clock employee went to his vehicle to retrieve his weapon and re-entered the now closed store. Knowing a robbery was in progress before entering, he was no longer a paid employee (on the clock). He acted independent of company policy because at that moment he was John Q Public defending a friend. He knew no one else was in the store but the robber and a fellow employee. If the store was located on it's own property including parking lot, the company has a say. If the parking lot was part of a mini strip mall or just one other business, then the lot becomes public and not exclusive to autozone. Law enforcement will quickly tell you NOT TO TAKE THE LAW INTO YOUR OWN HANDS. In this case Autozone is simply covering it's liable butt. There should have been a reprimand for breaking company policy, but there should have been private praise for saving another's life. I believe the fired employee may have legal rights violated because he was no longer an official employee when he took action. If he wasn't recognized and paid overtime after the fact, then Autozone acted on policy which doesn't apply to John Q Public.

I've read about other chains firing employees who didn't clean out the register of $20's just before a holdup. I no longer shop there. I too will forward a plea to reinstate the employee and warn of boycott. I too have other autoparts sources in my immediate area.

 

[MossRoad]

. The employee in all likelihood prevented injury or death and a robbery.

Let's discuss that statement....
In most robberies, no one is injured or killed, they just lose property.
So, most likely, statistics wise, the employee did not prevent injury or death, just the robbery.
In fact, by introducing another firearm to the situation, he most likely increased the chances of he and his co-worker getting injured or killed.

 

[MoKelly]

Let's discuss that statement....
In most robberies, no one is injured or killed, they just lose property.
So, most likely, statistics wise, the employee did not prevent injury or death, just the robbery.
In fact, by introducing another firearm to the situation, he most likely increased the chances of he and his co-worker getting injured or killed.

Perhaps your statistics would have been true in this case --- perhaps not. We will never know. But to me, the question is whether you want some criminal with a gun to have 100% control of that outcome or whether you want to be the person who makes that decision. I think I'd rather have control rather than allow the other guy to decide whether he wants to shoot me or not.

MoKelly