When Policy Meets Stupidity – From Hero to “You’re Fired!”

*sigh* Yet again, life throws us a story of policy meeting stupidity…

Here’s a story about two good Samaritans who helps a middle aged mall security guard catch a shoplifter. Their reward? They got fired from their jobs! Take a read:

Sprint Employees Fired For Capturing Shoplifter

In a nutshell, two employees at a mall Sprint store were on a break when they heard a mall security guard call out for help. They then saw the suspect run past him so they chased him down and held him until mall security and the police arrived. A couple of days later they were informed by Sprint that the company has a policy stating that employees shouldn’t confront thieves. The next day they were called into separate meeting where they were both fired.

Amazing.

Evidently, Sprint doesn’t have a policy that employees should not be fired for stupid reasons.

I can understand the policy from a “don’t confront thieves in the store” perspective. With the way our litigious society works, if a Sprint employee were to confront a thief in a Sprint store and the thief got injured, I am guessing he would sue (I think that’s stupid, but don’t tell me it wouldn’t happen).

But if you look at the various factors, doesn’t a firing seem extreme?

1. The incident took place outside of the store, in the mall
2. The incident took place while the guys were on break
3. It didn’t involve the Sprint store or the theft of Sprint equipment
4. The guys have worked their for a while; one for four years, one for six
5. The guys claim to have never been informed of this policy, even in manager training
6. The article (as related by the guys in the story) doesn’t have a clear consequence of action or termination if they do confront a thief.

So really, firing?? Does that seem right? How about a reprimand, or a day or two suspension? (though even that to me seems dumb). How about a nice, “listen, what you did was very well meaning and helpful, but we have this policy that like to broadly apply to inappropriate situations, so don’t do it again”?

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot with PR. That Sprint store would have gotten a ton of press and lots of people just stopping by to see the guys. Now the stories will all basically be, “Sprint is Stupid.”

Shouldn’t these guys be applauded, if for nothing else but their good intentions? (Interestingly, this is almost the exact same scenario that led to Peter Parker becoming Spiderman. if they had let the thief get away, then perhaps one of their Uncle Bens’ would have been shot. I guess Sprint execs need to bone up on their Spiderman comics…)

I am not sure if this is a case of “when policy meets stupidity,” since there doesn’t seem to be a clear cut policy here. Maybe it’s a case of “when executives meet stupidity.” Or just a case of “stupidity.”

I don’t know, maybe I am missing something. What do you think? Is the firing justified, or is this yet another case of “when policy meets stupidity”?