Autozone.....Really..??

[kenmac]

The problem with boycott is it hurts the employees in local stores.

Doesn't make any sense.If I choose to shop at Advance instead of AZ ,It hurts the AZ employes ?? If I choose to shop at AZ instead of Advance.Doesn't it hurt the Advance employes ? Or ,if I choose to shop at NAPA instead of Advance, Doesn't it hurt Advance employes ???

 

[chad22]

I usually shop at Autozone. But now. NO WAY. They've lost my business. I will purchase my Auto Parts Elsewhere.

Chad

 

[Pharm]

I sent autozone a message early this morning but no reply.

 

[joemd11]

Unfortunately this seems to be the philosophy of corporations today. They just don't want their employees to do ANYTHING that could POSSIBLY result in negative publicity or financial liability. Wasn't there a Wally-World employee fired for stopping someone for attempting to walk out with a flat-screen tv? I guess it is cheaper and safer to take the loss and spread it among the paying customer. It is what it is.

 

[Markcuda]

In a town of 7300, we have a Auto zone and a NAPA, I go to AZ way more than NAPA.
Not any more, I'm jumping on the boycott band wagon.

 

[KubotaOwner]

1. - It was against company policy and therefore a condition of employment.
2. - Employee violated company policy.
3. - Employee was fired.

You can write Autozone and try to get them to change their policy, but the company chose to impose the rule in all likelihood because they determined their potential financial liability was lower if they imposed this rule. If they didn't fire the employee, it would tell all the other employees they don't have to follow company rules. The employee should be proud that he prevented injury or death of the co-worker and also accept the consequences of violating the company rules. If he felt strongly that he should be allowed to carry on the job to protect himself and others, he should have sought employment elsewhere. Boycotting Autozone will simply penalize the remaining employees.

 

[k0ua]

They got my irate letter just now.. the "zero tolerance " is a big Zero in my book.

James K0UA

 

[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?

 

[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.