A couple of days ago we were talking about no fault or zero tolerance workplace polices and then I ran across this article on,2933,536361,00.html.  Seems a bank teller decided he did not want to be robbed.  When a guy came into the bank and demanded money, the teller, a 30 year old man, instead tossed the bag of money on the floor, grabbed at the guy and when the attempted robber ran chased him down, tackled him and waited for the police to arrive.


Two days later he was fired.


Why?  Because he violated company policy.  Everyone knows that banks have policies that when you get robbed just give the guy what he wants and don’t resist.  The police will tell you the same thing.  Life, after all, is not a weekly crime drama and no amount of money is worth getting yourself or a coworker killed over.  According to the article that is exactly what the bank said.  You read about it all the time, people resist and get killed.


But that is not what happened here. No one got hurt and the robber got caught.  Do we really need to fire this guy? 


Ok, ok, ok!  I don’t know if this is the first time he has done this and been told not to or if he had done it before.  And yes, that makes a difference.  And yes, I under stand that someone might have been hurt or killed.  But they weren’t.  And yes, this guy seems a little off center, he says in the article he almost looks forward to situations like this.  But the bank could not have known that when they fired him.  And I don’t know a 100 other facts I’d like to know.  What I do know is that this guy foiled a robber, caught the villain and was fired for it.


Was it right to fire the guy?  I don’t know.  It was legal.  But it just doesn’t seem . . . well, right.  So the next time someone violates one of your policies and you want to fire them, ask yourself this.  Is it right?  If it seems off to you maybe we should take a hard look at that policy.  Right?