Season's Greeters from Meijers

[XLFD]

The one Supervisor told me my heart was in the right place but my brain wasn't"  So says David Bower, who recently lost his job at the Gaylord's Meijer's when he left his post as the store greeter to help a customer put out a fire that started in his truck.  Grabbing a fire extinguisher, David went outside to where the vehicle had an incipient fire going inside.  These often grow into big fires, and could have not only made the patron's truck a total loss, but spread through the parking lot before the emergency response team could make it there.  David Bower was roundly praised by the truck's owner, and believes Meijer has a great employee in him.

Except, David Bower finds himself now out of a job for violating Meijer protocols in leaving his post to do his heroics, Meijer officially saying:  ""The safety of our customers and team members is a top priority at Meijer. We have a very specific protocol in place for our team members to follow when emergencies occur and we can't allow any deviation from the policy that could put our customers or team members at risk." 

Hmmm, is the corporation's brain in the right place, but their heart isn't?  Bowers out of his job, just before Christmas, because he did a good Samaritan act to help a customer in an emergency.  Let me know your thoughts once you read the complete story and watch the news video:

 

 

OTSEGO CO. -- An Otsego County man says he was fired from his job after doing what he considered was the right thing to do during an emergency situation.

David Bowers was let go from the Meijer store in Gaylord last month.

He says he got in trouble because he left his post as a greeter to help a customer put out a fire in the parking lot.

Bowers knew that his actions were going against company policy, but he believed that in this instance the customers urgent need came first.

"When the guy came in and said his dashboard was on fire I grabbed the fire extinguisher and I followed him outside and sure enough his dashboard was on fire," Bowers said.

They quickly put out the fire and Bowers returned to his post.

He was later called into the store director's office where he was suspended for his actions.

"The one supervisor told me that my heart was in the right place, but my brain wasn't," Bowers said.

Later that week, he was fired from his job for not following company policy.

Meijer representatives say they cannot comment on personnel matters, but they did release this statement.

"The safety of our customers and team members is a top priority at Meijer. We have a very specific protocol in place for our team members to follow when emergencies occur and we can't allow any deviation from the policy that could put our customers or team members at risk," Meijer responded.

But for Ken Kuzon, who was the customer in need, he says without Bowers help, the situation would have been much worse.

"My truck would've been completely burned that fire was going," Kuzon said.

Kuzon says he doesn't understand why Bowers lost his job.

"I just think it's ridiculous why should you be penalized for being a good samaritan," Kuzon said.

Bowers did admit that he was suspended several years ago for leaving his post when he chased after a shoplifter, but he still does not understand how he could lose his job.

"I thought that was what we were supposed to do, you know you have somebody that is in need, don't you help them, but I guess not," Kuzon said.

Bowers says that he has been searching for a new job in the area, but has had no luck finding a new position.

 http://www.upnorthlive.com/news/story.aspx?id=982254#.UqtYNjx3vIX

[Johnny]

How were there other city residents at this meeting if they never posted it being moved?  I can compare these because they are both ridiculous.  Tommy is suing city councilors because they changed a meeting time so 3rd graders could attend.  I am guessing he is upset because he didn't hear about the switch and missed out on talking and slurring words for 5 minutes in front of the councilors and city residents.  I find it ridiculous that someone would sue the city multiple times and cost the people who ACTUALLY, own a house and ACTUALLY have a job, that pay taxes and apply themselves to the city of Ludington.  I don't have to file law suits to have an income. 

Meijer Willy, its Meijer.....  Its even posted multiple times above to copy.

[XLFD]

Let's walk it up, E Murph, concentrate on at what point you feel the City Council meeting is properly noticed by placing the smallest numbered response where you think/feel a special meeting has been adequately noticed, and explain your reasoning:

1)  The Councilors and other officials are contacted by phone by the City Manager to all meet at a special time.

2)  As above, but the meeting is at least noticed by phone to them at least 18 hours prior to the meeting. 

3)  As above, but the councilors are also given written notice about the meeting (E-mail, memo, or letter)

4)  As above, but the Foster School administrators, 3rd Grade teachers also get noticed.

5)  As above, but the CM puts out a press release under 18 hours before the meeting, and it is advertised on some.

6)  As above, but instead of (5) the CM puts out a press release over 18 hours prior to the meeting, and gets published in the local paper within that time.

7)  As above, but the City puts notice of the special meeting on it's website less than 18 hours prior to the meeting. 

8)  As above, but instead of (7) the city has it on the website more than 18 hours prior.

9)  As above, but the city posts the notice on its public notice board less than 18 hours prior to the meeting.

10)  As above, but the city posts the notice on its public notice board more than 18 hours prior to the special meeting.

Choose a number between 1 and 10 inclusive.  You seem to think that because some members of the public were informed of the meeting, the meeting is legal under the OMA, but that's not what the law says, and thinking like yours would make it legal for them to make sweeping decisions without any sort of public input in violation of State Law.  Don't you believe in people following the law, E Murph? 

But again, faulty reasoning is behind your thinking, and you make a false analogy to the Meijer's situation in Gaylord.  In Fostergate, the City was apprised by me as to the law, namely that to make decisions and deliberate in the meeting that followed, they would be in violation of the OMA, the law, not ill-defined 'company policy'.  The meeting was not properly noticed by law, and so people who might have been interested in what the council made decisions on at that meeting, never were able to get to the meeting because they knew not of them meeting at that time.  I was there only because John Henderson said they would meet at that time at the previous meeting that I was at.  I probably would have missed it myself, otherwise. 

The Meijer situation deals with conflicting concerns about safety, and I can see the corporate point about disciplining someone who acted against policy, but to weigh the extra factors involved in such a case like this.  Mr. Bowers did something heroic, to mitigate a situation where he saw the biggest threat to safety as the vehicle fire, rather than his own.  He did nothing against the law, as the City Councilors. et. al. did when they proceeded to make decisions at what wasn't an open meeting.  

This is where you and many others get caught at in Fostergate.  The City is not being sued about not posting the meeting timely and in accordance with the law.  That is made fairly clear on the lawsuit, made fairly clear in a couple of posts just after the meeting in question. 

The City is being sued because they were told it was improperly posted, did not dispute that fact, duly noted it without question, and went ahead and conducted public business anyhow.  That is willfully defying the Open Meetings Act, and all of them should understand that, as public servants who have to operate within that law.  You would do better writing your councilor and the new mayor with your concerns about why our City officials did that, rather than trying to spin it as something it isn't here at the Ludington Torch.

[Willy]

Murph

Like I said, Miejer. You seem to forget that this special meeting was changed so the Council could demonstrate to school children how a Council meeting should be held. So what does the Council do, they break the law by not following the OMA  which governs protocol for all public meetings and they do it in front of the children they are trying to inform as to how a Council meeting should be conducted.That's some lesson to teach the kids. The Council does what it pleases even if it is illegal and they have no qualms about doing it in front of school children.

[masonco]

EMurph  what do your posts have to do with the Meijer policy

[XLFD]

E Murph has tried to point out why my views on this incident (which he infers as giving the Meijer greeter a pass) is hypocritical , when, in his opinion, I have not given Meijer Henderson and six councilors a pass when they willfully defied the Open Meetings Act by making deliberations and decisions when it was pointed out to them that a meeting was improperly posted, and it was going to be against the law to do so. 

It's E Murph's first real try at critical thinking, so I hate to burst his bubble by telling him it isn't a very good analogy as presented.  For instance, nothing the greeter did was against the law, just heroic actions in an emergency situation (unlike what the councilors did), nor did he get warned by his employer immediately before he acted about what state law/company policy said.

[Johnny]

I still don't understand how this effects YOU and why you would want to go and file a law suit besides that you lost your last one and you need money.  Its not like they went into a closed room and tried hiding it.  The reason for change season pretty reasonable and maybe it wasn't in the correct amount of time, but I can see how it could change depending on case by case basis.  Its one city council meeting so the kids could attend.  I really don't think this needs to be looked into and have law suits filed on it.  I guess if the money is right, I could see how someone would want to file one just to try and make a quick dollar.

You dislike the city council and every choice the make.

You dislike the city manager.

You dislike the Mayor.

You dislike the chief of police.

You dislike the Ludington Officers.

You dislike the Sheriff

You dislike the Road Deputies.

Not only do you dislike all of the above by you are disrespectful to all of them by your words and actions at city council meetings.

So why live here?  Why do you not move to a city that you enjoy how its run and not have to cruise around on your huffy and take pictures of pointless things and then go and complain about what you saw.  Hundreds of people have seen the things you have taken pictures of and have also noticed the things you have brought to everyone's attention.  But rarely do you hear about anyone supporting your findings.  Why is that?

In my opinion, your findings are pointless and there are bigger things in life to worry about than a meeting time being moved by a couple hours or where a police car is parked.  My guess would be that most people are more concerned about being decent role models and mentors for their own family and working hard to support their family, not focusing on city council meetings and councilors.

[Willy]

"You dislike the city council and every choice [ the ] make." They Murph, it's They.

[XLFD]

I believe E Murph left out the "y" in 'they', because as far as the City Council is concerned he generally leaves out the "Why?"  (drumroll)

[Willy]

Ooh, that was a stinker but very funny.

[XLFD]

It's fairly obvious from your writing, that you dislike the concept of public officials following the law.  The laws for open meetings say that certain public notice must be given to insure that as much of the public can know about the meeting, to do anything less would be violative of the people's right to know when their public officials are doing things that may impact them. 

You make some misconceptions about what I dislike:

I dislike the City Council not following the OMA, the FOIA, the City Charter, the State Constitution, etc.

I dislike the City Manager not ever taking an oath of office, willfully swearing falsely in a court affidavit, etc.

I dislike the mayor and the police chief having cronyism, nepotism, defending police brutality, corruption etc., be their own personal policies.

I dislike LPD officers that violate the basic civil rights of innocent people flagrantly and unapologetically, like Officer Aaron Sailor and former Officer Matthew Warmuskerken.

I dislike the sheriff abusing FOIA law, violating Martin Schilling's civil rights, trashing Todd Johnson in the local media when the poor guy was innocent, etc.

I dislike the road deputies violating the rights of any citizen, in particular the tackling and tasering of Joe McAdams back in 2009. 

I think if you would objectively look at what is being said at council meetings, that I offer reasoned dissent to public policy and actions of public officials, not people.  City councilors, and other public officials who have got up at these meetings (FF Bob Hannah and BOR Wallace Cain) are the only ones launching personal attacks at the meetings, and show their own disrespect to a citizen for calling them out on illegal or unethical acts.

One might ask why you live in a place that has people like me, Willy, Aquaman, and many others raising reasonable items of dissent as to how the City and County are run?  I believe Tom Jefferson had it right:  "Rebellion to tyranny is obedience to God".

You always come here and defend our officials violating ethical standards or laws against just about everyone else that posts here; why don't you go to someplace other than Ludington where you don't have to defend public officials'  actions because they are doing things right? 

I'm staying put to help fix things that have been broken using the resources I have; if you don't like that, your presence won't be missed by those here trying to get accountability from their officials.

[Willy]

Well stated X.

[AQUAMAN]

Thanks Willy, for finding that Heartland Mi. link on W-M employee Oswald, couldn't forget that name. While these huge box stores are mostly correct in their broad policy, there are exceptions like these where they need to be over-turned. I think all these employees, and others like them, definitely have a wrongful discharge suit to file, perhaps a class-action type is warranted if these firings have happened often enough. Not for the sake of money, as much as for what is right, and what must be seen as courageous and prudent in our society. Also to send a message of doing right, doesn't mean punishment. The earlier statement Willy made about apples and oranges fits exactly, keep up the vigil and rightful work X, though punishment comes as a result all too often, the reward in the end is you were true to yourself, and the public at large.