Frontline Walmart Workers Debate Inconsistent Termination Practices and Attendance Points

Frontline Walmart associates are sparring over how terminations actually play out on the sales floor, with a recurring thread of complaints about attendance points and uneven enforcement of conduct rules. Current and former workers in an online discussion described attendance-related discipline as the most common trigger for firings, even as some managers tolerate other serious misconduct until market-level approval is sought.

Workers recounted a range of alleged offenses that led to termination, including time theft, coming to work intoxicated, and harassment. At the same time, commenters said they routinely saw managers enforce the points system strictly for missed shifts or lateness while allowing other behavior to slide, or delaying action while waiting for market approvals. That delay in approval, according to the conversation, can leave problematic employees on the schedule for days or weeks and create the perception that attendance violations are the most reliable path to discipline.

The exchange captured widespread frustration with how coaching and the points system are applied. Associates described local-store practices that vary widely from supervisor to supervisor, with some managers doling out progressive coaching and others skipping steps and escalating directly to points or termination. Several participants advised documenting incidents, keeping written records of coaching and schedule changes, and escalating persistent problems to HR when store-level attempts to resolve issues fail.

The inconsistency has tangible workplace consequences. Workers said morale suffers when peers who engage in misconduct remain employed while dependable associates accumulate attendance points and face the prospect of being let go. Perceptions of unfairness can erode trust between associates and leadership and complicate scheduling and staffing if employees call out or leave over perceived double standards.

The dynamic also affects managers. Several posts noted that store leaders sometimes defer firings while they seek market-level signoff, which can be a bureaucratic check meant to limit legal exposure but which managers said slows corrective action. That process can place managers in the uncomfortable position of strictly policing attendance while feeling unable to act on other severe conduct without approval.

For associates navigating the system, the discussion reinforced practical steps: keep documentation of incidents and coaching, know the company attendance policy and your points balance, and bring persistent concerns to HR if local management will not address them. The broader implication is a call for clearer, more consistent application of discipline so that attendance policies do not become a de facto stand-in for accountability across other types of misconduct.

What happens next may hinge on whether market and regional leaders change how quickly they respond to misconduct complaints and whether corporate clarifies the interplay between coaching, points, and firings. For associates, the conversation is a reminder that points can add up quickly and that recordkeeping and escalation are often the most effective tools available.