View Poll Results: Was CVS Pharmacy right or wrong?

Voters
169. You may not vote on this poll
  • Right

    117 69.23%
  • Wrong

    48 28.40%
  • I don't know

    3 1.78%
  • I don't care

    1 0.59%
Page 19 of 23 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 226

Thread: Was CVS Pharmacy right or wrong?

  1. #181
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: Was CVS Pharmacy right or wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by SheWolf View Post
    This is funny.. I don't really want to "punish" the clerk, and I didn't use that word. I think something should be done, and there should be consequences for her behaviour. It isn't my place though. It's CVS's place to create that consequence and I think they should for good business practices and for PR purposes.

    People "punish" there children all the time for things are not illegal.. and so do businesses. Being late to work isn't illegal and yet people lose their jobs for it.
    Well, punishing the clerk is exactly what it would be to fire him over this instance. And people get fired for having their cash register short of money all the time as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by SheWolf View Post
    Exactly, it could go either way. It depends on management. If it were me, I go off on this employee and I would create an ethics code for future reference. I would also want crisis training for my clerks.
    Well, it's not that employee's fault that an ethics code wasn't implemented, nor was it his fault that crisis training wasn't implemented. I have no problem with those things being implemented, I just don't think the clerk should be punished because it wasn't. He's just trying to do his job, and if CVS doesn't provide adequate training then that is the fault of the corporation, not the employee.

    Although it should be pointed out that such extra training costs extra money, which would mean rises in prices. So the question then becomes whether or not cutomers will pay those extra prices for that training.

    Quote Originally Posted by SheWolf View Post
    One problem I have that isn't being discussed is that instead of immediately calling the paramedics, the clerk seems to have argued with the couple.
    That depends on what the argument was - the way I read it, the clerk argued over giving the medication the girl and boyfriend couldn't afford. Maybe he didn't think to call the paramedics right away, but then again neither did the girl or her boyfriend.

    Quote Originally Posted by SheWolf View Post
    I might even go as far to fire this employee if they argued with me... (I didn't do anything wrong!!).. and I thought it was going to always be a problem.
    Well, he didn't do anything wrong, according to his training. If a boss doesn't perform adequate training to their employees, that employee shouldn't bear the burden for it. It's the fault of the boss, and it's the boss who should be punished, not the employee.
    Last edited by samsmart; 10-17-10 at 03:24 PM.

  2. #182
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    10-26-10 @ 06:34 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,978

    Re: Was CVS Pharmacy right or wrong?

    Well, punishing the clerk is exactly what it would be to fire him over this instance. And people get fired for having their cash register short of money all the time as well.
    If there wasn't some explicitly stated company policy regarding handing out merchandise for free or at a discounted price in the case of medical emergencies, and if this policy wasn't clearly written in the employee handbook, which all new employees are required to read and sign, then the company can't fire the employee for not doing it.
    If they tried, the employee could turn around and sue them into bankruptcy.

  3. #183
    Sage
    SheWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,508

    Re: Was CVS Pharmacy right or wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    You say that it's a question of individual choice. And yet when he makes a choice, you want to punish him for it.
    How many times do I have to repeat myself. I don't want to punish him.. there is nothing else to be said about this matter. I don't want to punish him. Accept that and move on with a valid argument please.

    So it's not really a matter of individual choice for you, but rather a matter of punishing someone who wasn't compelled to make the choice you wanted him to make.
    LOL... every choice somebody makes has consequences. I am not advocating a government or legal consequence. I am stating the obvious that there will be a consequence if this behavior continues. I don't have to play a hand in either the behavior or the consequence.. it's a matter of human agency, hence it's a natural consequence, not a government enforced one that I am advocating.

    It is too a matter of economic structure. In our capitalistic society, if you are able to pay for a good or service you are able to acquire it. If you are not able to pay for a good or service you are not allowed to acquire it. It's as simple as that. It is also not my fault that our society is that way.
    I agree with you about acquiring goods and services, but pricing is subjective... and so are individual circumstances. Also pricing isn't just a capitalistic structure, everything has a cost or some form of opportunity cost.

    In Soviet Russia, government set price

    In Soviet Russia, private market or CVS clerk couldn't lower price without government punishment

    So, again, you are against people behaving in a certain way but you don't want to use laws to regulate that behavior. If it's not worth making a law about then it's not worth punishing the people who pursue that behavior.
    I do want people to behave a certain way, we all do. There doesn't have to be a government consequence for everything.. there are natural consequences.

    I expect the children I babysit to be respectful in public places and not scream at the top of their lungs. I don't have to ask the government to get involved.

    Do you mind if I act a certain way by taking a crap on your bed? If you don't like my behavior you better call the government and tell them to regulate.

    So either you don't want to enact a law, which means this clerk was in the right, or you do want to enact a law in order to prohibit his behavior. Which is it?
    I don't want to enact a law.. as I always said. Why can't you believe me?
    You're right. If the girl and her boyfriend acted responsibly for themselves and carried enough money to deal with emergencies for their own medical conditions, they wouldn't be trying to put the blame on a clerk or a store for their lack of responsibility.
    Speaking of punishment.. when you use words like responsibility you are trying to morally justify behavior of one party over the other. You are making a moral judgement, and saying the clerk had a moral duty to punish the couple for lack of responsibility.... How ironic.

    I don't believe in social punishment or even social punishment is absolute.. It is not a collective agent. As I have said before I am a libertarian or a minianarchist (I am not too big on labels and it isn't important), but I believe social compassion should take precedent to social punishment, and it naturally does when government is drastically removed- it's a common survival instinct.

    I am against this form of social punishment that you advocate. The government always steps in to punish and guide punishment.. the government's authority here is absolute, not the societies. I don't think punishment is necessary for human beings to thrive in a social setting with limited to no government. Trying to create an agency that seeks to punish others, is a self sustaining cycle of government bondage. Keep this behavior up and the government soon be here to help this woman and others like her.

    Yeah, and then that clerk would be able to file assault charges on the boyfriend. It's not the clerk's fault the store fixes the price of the inhaler. It's not the clerk's fault we live in a capitalistic society. To punish him for it would be totally unfair.
    Of course they will press assault charges on my bf.. lol. That isn't the point. The point is is that people's loved one's don't stand around to watch them die without action or reaction. If the clerk chooses to stand there and watch me die rather than help, then he isn't helping society. If CVS protects this behavior, then CVS isn't helping society.. and if the behavior continues, consumers will find a another pharmacy to take their business to
    So at first you say how the clerk is in the moral wrong for not being charitable, but then you say violent backlash is justified when someone doesn't act charitable. So then you go from the moral right of charity to moral-induced extortion. "Be nice, or I'll punch your face in." How is that morally justified?
    I am not talking about violent backlash.. I am talking about consumer backlash..

    And in the case of myself and my boyfriend, you wouldn't feel morally justified in violently reacting to somebody refusing to help your loved one? It's matter of subjectivity, but when our lives are threatened and we see an individual as a threat to that life, we usually react to that individual with violence. It's act of survival and preservation. I am not saying I am morally correct and others are wrong. It's not a matter of understanding morals, but the sociology of humans. You really are misunderstanding my beliefs.
    There may be consumer backlash, yes. But that is not the job for the clerk to deal with - that is the job for the manager.
    I am not saying anything otherwise.. The manager judges for themselves the scope of this clerk's behavior. If I were the manager, I know what I would do. I am not saying this clerk should be punished by law. I don't agree with the clerk, but I don't expect a clerk to understand business so well that they understand this concept either. That is why there is management. If management protects this clerk's behavior, then they can deal with a potential consumer backlash.

    You say that there doesn't have to be legal consequences, but then you mentioned that if this happened to you and you died your family would take someone to court. So you've just contradicted yourself. So which is it? Should their be legal consequences regarding these things or shouldn't there? What should be the guidelines for those legalities?
    If I died I know my family would go to court. There are lawyers in my family, it's no question.

    Until the public forgets about the whole incident, in which he can be fired nice and quietly, without the public backlash.
    It depends on who it happens to and how quietly it is resolved between the two parties..

    But you didn't say that he should stay hired or be fired because of productivity. You said he should be fired because of this one incident. So according to you, and many others, it doesn't matter what his employee history is - is you want him punished for this one event.
    If I said he should be fired.. that isn't the only thing that I have said. In my own idealistic society, under my idealistic form of social structure- this would not have happened and if it did, it would not be tolerated. Firing him would be acceptable, and it is acceptable within the context of society as it is now. However, it really is up to mgt but it should be addressed in some fashion.

  4. #184
    Sage
    SheWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,508

    Re: Was CVS Pharmacy right or wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    Well, punishing the clerk is exactly what it would be to fire him over this instance. And people get fired for having their cash register short of money all the time as well.
    People's cash drawers are short all the time, and I have never seen anybody fired over being a couple of bucks short... it's actually really common for drawers to not balance. I have worked in all types of settings and have been responsible for cash drawers.


    Well, it's not that employee's fault that an ethics code wasn't implemented, nor was it his fault that crisis training wasn't implemented. I have no problem with those things being implemented, I just don't think the clerk should be punished because it wasn't. He's just trying to do his job, and if CVS doesn't provide adequate training then that is the fault of the corporation, not the employee.
    I am not trying to find FAULT in anybody. I am only looking at the facts. The clerk should be treated fairly.. not unfairly.
    Although it should be pointed out that such extra training costs extra money, which would mean rises in prices. So the question then becomes whether or not cutomers will pay those extra prices for that training.
    Bad economics.. Training expenses are not variables of product costs. Training expenses are overhead costs. Product cost variables are supply and demand, and the cost of obtaining goods prior to markup and shipping them to CVS.

    Training expenses may cause a decrease in the bottom line if revenues are the same, which affects retaining earnings or dividend payments. At the it's most drastic implications, increased training expenses could impact stock prices... but not consumer prices..

    When Sarbanes Oxley was introduced it did cause auditing services to increase, but that is because SOX regulated the work of auditors and made the work more.
    That depends on what the argument was - the way I read it, the clerk argued over giving the medication the girl and boyfriend couldn't afford. Maybe he didn't think to call the paramedics right away, but then again neither did the girl or her boyfriend.
    Obviously the couple didn't want to call the 911.. they wanted the medicine.. It was a crisis situation and the clerk should have called immediately.. but IDK maybe this clerk doesn't know much about asthma or the inhalers and didn't think the situation was that serious

    Well, he didn't do anything wrong, according to his training. If a boss doesn't perform adequate training to their employees, that employee shouldn't bear the burden for it. It's the fault of the boss, and it's the boss who should be punished, not the employee.
    Again.. I am not going to argue fault or moral duty to punish.. It's a wasteful debate, and I personally don't like judging people.. it's more interesting to try and understand them and find a solution rather than judge them. All I am saying is that I think the clerk should have done something else.. and that can be done without government intervention

  5. #185
    Sage
    Barbbtx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    W'Ford TX
    Last Seen
    11-10-12 @ 08:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,467

    Re: Was CVS Pharmacy right or wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by SheWolf View Post
    What if somebody does die... should the capitalistic system protect this behaviour in all cases?
    Some people seem to be using this thread to attack capitalism. If the article is correct, it's about people caring more about a buck than helping someone in need. For all we know the clerk and customers were socialists.
    Store policy doesn't even have anything to do with it. How people were insensitive to a woman having an asthma attack is what is troubling.
    Capitalism has squat to do with it.
    Catawa is my favorite bleeding heart liberal.
    1/27/12

  6. #186
    Sage
    SheWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,508

    Re: Was CVS Pharmacy right or wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by 1069 View Post
    If there wasn't some explicitly stated company policy regarding handing out merchandise for free or at a discounted price in the case of medical emergencies, and if this policy wasn't clearly written in the employee handbook, which all new employees are required to read and sign, then the company can't fire the employee for not doing it.
    If they tried, the employee could turn around and sue them into bankruptcy.
    I personally don't see why any company would fire a productive individual for doing such a thing. Of all the bosses I have worked for, I couldn't see them firing me over such a thing.. and there were times I really messed up and I was never fired for it.

  7. #187
    Sage
    Barbbtx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    W'Ford TX
    Last Seen
    11-10-12 @ 08:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,467

    Re: Was CVS Pharmacy right or wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post

    But my question is this: This is a Politics Debate forum, and so while you, me, and many others, personally would have paid that dollar, what should be done politically to address this? What sort of legislation and enforcement through government services be done to make sure that nobody dies for want of a dollar again? I'm just curious to know.
    We should get back to a smaller government where people are willing to take responsibilty for helping those in need. Instead we are becoming people detatched from our fellow man thinking the government should legislate every part of our lives.
    I can't believe we are talking about people being stingy with a dollar, and because of that we should enact some sort of legislation so it doesn't happen again.
    Is there no government too big for some people?
    Catawa is my favorite bleeding heart liberal.
    1/27/12

  8. #188
    Global Moderator
    Rage More!
    Your Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    26,362

    Re: Was CVS Pharmacy right or wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Barbbtx View Post
    We should get back to a smaller government where people are willing to take responsibilty for helping those in need. Instead we are becoming people detatched from our fellow man thinking the government should legislate every part of our lives.
    I can't believe we are talking about people being stingy with a dollar, and because of that we should enact some sort of legislation so it doesn't happen again.
    Is there no government too big for some people?
    To think that a smaller government would help people become more charitable is naive.
    Eat me, drink me, love me;
    Laura make much of me

  9. #189
    Sage
    SheWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,508

    Re: Was CVS Pharmacy right or wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Barbbtx View Post
    We should get back to a smaller government where people are willing to take responsibilty for helping those in need. Instead we are becoming people detatched from our fellow man thinking the government should legislate every part of our lives.
    I can't believe we are talking about people being stingy with a dollar, and because of that we should enact some sort of legislation so it doesn't happen again.
    Is there no government too big for some people?
    The bold is pretty much what I have been trying to say...

  10. #190
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: Was CVS Pharmacy right or wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Barbbtx View Post
    We should get back to a smaller government where people are willing to take responsibilty for helping those in need. Instead we are becoming people detatched from our fellow man thinking the government should legislate every part of our lives.
    I can't believe we are talking about people being stingy with a dollar, and because of that we should enact some sort of legislation so it doesn't happen again.
    Is there no government too big for some people?
    How about instead of going back to a smaller government where people are willing to take responsibility for helping those in need, people take more personal responsibility for their own well-being? We wouldn't need any kind of legislation if people would take their own medical situations more seriously and carry medication with them in case of an attack or be sure to carry enough money to adequately pay for medication when they need to get it.

Page 19 of 23 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •