This is one of those stories that hits a little close to home, as I have some experience with the subject matter:

Four Wal-Mart employees have been fired after management said they violated company policy by disarming an alleged shoplifter who had pulled a gun inside the store.

It’s really a tough story, because both sides have valid arguments.  On the Wal-Mart side, you can’t have employees acting like heroes.  If a shoplifter or a robber pulls a gun, you let them go.  Most businesses have similar policies- banks, restaurants, etc.  When untrained employees act like heroes, people get hurt.

On the other hand, no corporate policy can encompass every situation- especially situations like this.  The four men involved in this incident make the argument that based on the situation, they had no choice but to disarm the bad guy- there was nowhere to retreat to – and besides, they didn’t want to release an armed gunman into a store full of people.  That sounds pretty reasonable to me.

If you’re going to put employees into dangerous situations – like apprehending shoplifters – then you owe it to them to have reasonable policies to deal with situations that go bad.  “Zero-tolerance” policies don’t help anyone.  Instead, they harm loyal employees, and make your company look bad in the press.  A “Zero-tolerance” policy is a cowardly way of dealing with tough decisions.

Everyone has the same goal here- making sure nobody gets hurt.  Assuming the newspaper report is accurate (and that’s a BIG assumption), these were not the actions of rogue employees that thought they were cowboys.  They did the best they could in a bad situation.

Wal-Mart should do better.