Man Saves Bank but Lost Job!

Oh my..their rule kind a sucks..just imagined he risked his own life to save the bank and everyone else in it and then he's still ends up to be fired just because he chose to not follow the rule of giving what the robber demands..

As you said he should be rewarded in return but instead this is what he gets in a return..when did the rule "good people gets punished" been out??

Did he protest??or did they even gave him a chance to explain his side??What kind of people does this??

I know. It's ridicuous. I mean I get what they want. They don't want the tellers to fight back lest they get hurt or something goes wrong and a bystander gets hurt. But so what? No one got hurt. They should be thanking these people. With all the attention this gets I wonder if he'll be getting some job offers...

Well, that's gratitude! But, the policy is meant to keep staff from putting themselves in to more danger. He chose to chase after the thief as the thief was leaving which meant that he was putting himself in danger. Had the thief attacked the teller inside the bank, the policy would not apply. They were a bit harsh on him though...

I saw that. I guess the bank had a right to fire him because of their policy. But it does seem kind of bad. I hope some one will come to his aid with another job soon.

That's awfully extreme, if you ask me. Firing the guy for being a hero? Sure, it's against bank policy but, geez, to fire the guy??? He could have been reprimanded for ignoring his training and the bank's procedures, but GEEZ! He captured the bank robber!

I certainly hope that he receives dozens of job offers from other companies for his valiant and most courageous effort! I hope he gets offered a BETTER job with BETTER pay, BETTER benefits, BETTER hours and one he's much happier with. That sure would make the bank that fired him look pretty shameful! I can only hope it comes back to bite that bank right in the derriere!

I'd like to know the name of that bank because, if I had money in it, I would most definitely be taking it OUT of that bank and into another one and letting them know exactly WHY I'm doing it!

Firing the guy for doing what was obviously his first reaction, that's just too extreme. That's just too screwed up for me.

I have heard of other businesses that have this rule as well. They do not want an employee to risk their life. They do not want the employee to turn a robbery into assault of murder by making the thief mad. I think the most often I hear this is in regard to Convenience Stores and Pizza Delivery persons. I am not sure if most banks have this rule, but I am still glad he got the money back.

It does seem like that because it all turned out well that he should be commended for his efforts. Still, I kind of get where the bank is coming from. Not all that react that way would have the same happy ending. In fact if the guy did have a weapon, the way this employee reacted could have brought harm not only to himself but to others around him. I think firing him was a bit harsh but ya...he handled it wrong.

Wow this is rather shocking... I couldn't believe this that a bank teller, saving the bank lots of money and integrity would fire the guy who saved it all! Man, this bank teller handled it so well, catching the robber and wait for the authorities, I think he should get a job as a cop, as that is what he is really good at! Just wish he gets a job soon, or the companies rehires him.

Well, thanks for the interesting news you had posted here. In my opinion, I think the bank is a bit strict on this, but I also do see the rationale behind it. The staff is putting himself and the rest into danger by lunging at the man and demanding to see the weapon. I mean, in this situation, he was lucky that the robber do not have a weapon. However, just imagine what if he stays on the bank, and the bank encounters another robbery. If he tries to act "hero" again, and this time, the robber do have a weapon with him, the robber may get angry, and not just robbed the bank only. The rest of the people in the bank (the staff and the customers) will be implicated, and you never know if he may just injure or even kill people to appease his anger... (Note: the robber may not necessary grab the staff, but other customers such as woman or child)

Well, I do know that I'm thinking much ahead, but I mean if he had acted "hero" once and was not fired (only reprimanded or such), what is the likelihood that he will do that again when he encounter another of such situation. I think that he will most likely act similarly to this.

Well I guess the bank wanted to stick to the rules but I wished they did something else to at least honor the guy who was heroic enough to risk his life. They could have just made a recommendation letter for the guy so that he can easily find a new job in another bank with a much better policy with regards to bank robberies. I feel that they should have just overlooked the offense since the guy saved them from suffering loss. With ingratitude like that, they will definitely have a hard time looking for people who really are concerned for the company's welfare.