Having worked for Pizza Hut, I still wonder why anyone eats at Pizza Hut. They have the greasiest pizza on the planet. Chain store italian/ethnic food places are absolutely horrible. One of the only good things about living in NYC other than the hot women is some of the best local pizza joints in the country. The fact that quite a few are mob run is even better since the local thugs wouldn't dare mess with one of the 5 family's earners. Here it's the chinese food delivery guys who should be allowed to carry. They're frequently targeted so they always ask for an address and phone number before they even take your order.
Armed Pizza Delivery Boys?
- Thread starter Barr
- Start date
invention_45
New member
Pizza Hut's ONLY bottom line is #1. Remember Capitalism? How could a Republican supporter argue with that?
While I personally disagree with their policy regarding delivery drivers/self defense, their CEO runs the company as he sees fit.
interesting
Ok, employers have right to demand certain line of conduct from their employees. That makes perfect sense, even if manifestation of this right is deeply appalling to me personally as it is in this case.
Having said that, employer is also responsible for safety of their staff, and that, in conjunction with "firing" precedent, brings up a question:
By depriving their employees of means of self defense by such well documented precedent, didn't Pizza Hut open the door for all kinds of lawsuits by future victims of attacks or their relatives? It's not like attacks on pizza delivery personnel are very rare, and it's not like their policies make the job any safer.
Any lawyers out there to comment on this thought?
Ok, employers have right to demand certain line of conduct from their employees. That makes perfect sense, even if manifestation of this right is deeply appalling to me personally as it is in this case.
Having said that, employer is also responsible for safety of their staff, and that, in conjunction with "firing" precedent, brings up a question:
By depriving their employees of means of self defense by such well documented precedent, didn't Pizza Hut open the door for all kinds of lawsuits by future victims of attacks or their relatives? It's not like attacks on pizza delivery personnel are very rare, and it's not like their policies make the job any safer.
Any lawyers out there to comment on this thought?
invention_45
New member
Employers indeed have that right.
My employer has that right. In fact, I signed up to it when I started. I am not permitted to carry my gun into these premises. I didn't check, but it is possible I am also prohibited from leaving it in my glove box in their parking lot.
Just because they have that right, does NOT mean I support or like it.
Just because I signed up for it, does not necessarily mean my employer has not inadvertently overreached his jurisdiction.
If I feel a threat that would cause me to need to bring my gun inside, I would do that. Proper concealment would prevent any problems unless the threat I felt proved to be well-founded.
If that were to happen, I would call my attorney and present the situation to him. If my employer had indeed overreached, I'd get some money. If he hadn't, then I'd at least still have my life.
That's just the name of that tune.
I usually look at these things the only realistic way I can. And that is from the point of view of a juror trying such a case. What would I do? Well, seeing that I view pizza delivery as a potentially dangerous job in most places, it would take some kind of convincing for me to find in favor of an employer whose employee was killed or injured in an attack because he lacked means to stop the attack because he would have lost his job.
My employer has that right. In fact, I signed up to it when I started. I am not permitted to carry my gun into these premises. I didn't check, but it is possible I am also prohibited from leaving it in my glove box in their parking lot.
Just because they have that right, does NOT mean I support or like it.
Just because I signed up for it, does not necessarily mean my employer has not inadvertently overreached his jurisdiction.
If I feel a threat that would cause me to need to bring my gun inside, I would do that. Proper concealment would prevent any problems unless the threat I felt proved to be well-founded.
If that were to happen, I would call my attorney and present the situation to him. If my employer had indeed overreached, I'd get some money. If he hadn't, then I'd at least still have my life.
That's just the name of that tune.
I usually look at these things the only realistic way I can. And that is from the point of view of a juror trying such a case. What would I do? Well, seeing that I view pizza delivery as a potentially dangerous job in most places, it would take some kind of convincing for me to find in favor of an employer whose employee was killed or injured in an attack because he lacked means to stop the attack because he would have lost his job.
invention_45
New member
And I thought I had lost my mind, what with all my friends wanting Pizza Hut and me having to choke it down.
shooter429
Moderator
Don
Why do you call my examples specious and then turn around and do the same? To make a point, of course.
To answer...does the company have some say in how business is conducted? yes. SHould it trump all human rights, I think not. Is an agreement or contract that is illegal binding? Again, I think not.
BTW, all my examples come out of my personal experience or those of others I have witnessed, but were slightly altered to make a point.
Of course, the company will not tell you to "cut your arm off,' but will instead pressure workers so hard that they have to bypass safety procedure and equipment to make their daily quotas, and in doing so , many workers have lost limbs or have otherwise been seriously injured in industrial accidents. I have seen it happen. Why do you think companies pay into industrial insurance? And this is a double edged sword. When you get hurt, the company will fire you for failing to reinstall a safety guard or some such and if you follow the rules will ride you or fire you for slower production.
I have personally seen people skip using the PPE in just such a situation, because of management pressure to work faster and cut costs. I have also personally witnessed medical personnel being deprived of gloves, soap and hand sanitizer in a hospital because of the budget issue. This is for real and people are being put at risk to save a few bucks.
I know people who have been pressured to give it up at work. Now sexual harassment training is common. It was not always that way.
I have, in fact, seen untrained people work with aesbestos and endanger others in doing so.
And so on and so forth.
Of course employers can impose certain restrictions on employees. However, the question is "where do the employees' rights end and the corporations' begin?" Who decides what is safe and legal? Do you really think the CEO has the worker's rights at the fore of his decision making?
My point is that the employee does not, and should not, give up all of his rights as a free citizen of this country of ours when he clocks in. Workers rights are slowly evolving in this country because courageous workers have fought for those rights against corporate greed and injustice. The fight for worker rights should and does continue today. The answer is not, IMHO, just sell your soul and submit to the corporate monster, but rather fight for what is right. Allowing people to die in order to save the boss a few bucks is not right.
Shooter429
Why do you call my examples specious and then turn around and do the same? To make a point, of course.
To answer...does the company have some say in how business is conducted? yes. SHould it trump all human rights, I think not. Is an agreement or contract that is illegal binding? Again, I think not.
BTW, all my examples come out of my personal experience or those of others I have witnessed, but were slightly altered to make a point.
Of course, the company will not tell you to "cut your arm off,' but will instead pressure workers so hard that they have to bypass safety procedure and equipment to make their daily quotas, and in doing so , many workers have lost limbs or have otherwise been seriously injured in industrial accidents. I have seen it happen. Why do you think companies pay into industrial insurance? And this is a double edged sword. When you get hurt, the company will fire you for failing to reinstall a safety guard or some such and if you follow the rules will ride you or fire you for slower production.
I have personally seen people skip using the PPE in just such a situation, because of management pressure to work faster and cut costs. I have also personally witnessed medical personnel being deprived of gloves, soap and hand sanitizer in a hospital because of the budget issue. This is for real and people are being put at risk to save a few bucks.
I know people who have been pressured to give it up at work. Now sexual harassment training is common. It was not always that way.
I have, in fact, seen untrained people work with aesbestos and endanger others in doing so.
And so on and so forth.
Of course employers can impose certain restrictions on employees. However, the question is "where do the employees' rights end and the corporations' begin?" Who decides what is safe and legal? Do you really think the CEO has the worker's rights at the fore of his decision making?
My point is that the employee does not, and should not, give up all of his rights as a free citizen of this country of ours when he clocks in. Workers rights are slowly evolving in this country because courageous workers have fought for those rights against corporate greed and injustice. The fight for worker rights should and does continue today. The answer is not, IMHO, just sell your soul and submit to the corporate monster, but rather fight for what is right. Allowing people to die in order to save the boss a few bucks is not right.
Shooter429
invention_45
New member
It could be argued that allowing people to die to save the HMO a few bucks is not right.
shooter429
Moderator
Invention
I agree with you. Obviously, I was using the term "boss" losely to mean those who profit from the exploitive nature of these corporations. Workers lives and the lives of their customers should come first.
Shooter429
I agree with you. Obviously, I was using the term "boss" losely to mean those who profit from the exploitive nature of these corporations. Workers lives and the lives of their customers should come first.
Shooter429
invention_45
New member
Shooter:
I agree with much of your previous post. I picked that line out for the following reason.
There are some who will read your post and think that, yeah, he's right, you can't be expected to give away your life to your employer. They will think that because in involves giving away your right to carry your gun.
But had you framed the argument (giving away rights to employers) in terms of their poking their noses into what you do on your day off (drug testing) or your right to know what hazardous chemicals you are working with, the same people might not have seen it in such a favorable light.
The fact is that business has used the money at their disposal to take excessive control of many aspects of the lives of those who need their jobs. Denying employees the right to defend themselves using a firearm while on a dangerous job (convenience store clerk) is just another aspect of this, and it's nothing special.
I would prefer, now that it's this way, to support this sort of activity by employers in all respects. On the day I see that we the people have decided that we'd like our employers noses out of ALL personal aspects of our lives, I'll support THAT concept.
Until then, I'll carry on-premises whenever the hell I want to. Remember, it's a RULE, not a LAW that tries to prevent me from doing that.
The way I look at it, I'm not going to break the law. But I'm happy to sneak around any employer rule that tries to dictate against my engaging in otherwise lawful behavior that benefits me.
I agree with much of your previous post. I picked that line out for the following reason.
There are some who will read your post and think that, yeah, he's right, you can't be expected to give away your life to your employer. They will think that because in involves giving away your right to carry your gun.
But had you framed the argument (giving away rights to employers) in terms of their poking their noses into what you do on your day off (drug testing) or your right to know what hazardous chemicals you are working with, the same people might not have seen it in such a favorable light.
The fact is that business has used the money at their disposal to take excessive control of many aspects of the lives of those who need their jobs. Denying employees the right to defend themselves using a firearm while on a dangerous job (convenience store clerk) is just another aspect of this, and it's nothing special.
I would prefer, now that it's this way, to support this sort of activity by employers in all respects. On the day I see that we the people have decided that we'd like our employers noses out of ALL personal aspects of our lives, I'll support THAT concept.
Until then, I'll carry on-premises whenever the hell I want to. Remember, it's a RULE, not a LAW that tries to prevent me from doing that.
The way I look at it, I'm not going to break the law. But I'm happy to sneak around any employer rule that tries to dictate against my engaging in otherwise lawful behavior that benefits me.
shooter429
Moderator
Amen to that
I wonder how many of us "rebels" are on the board.
Shooter429
I wonder how many of us "rebels" are on the board.
Shooter429
Probably more than you think, but at least one less than I'd prefer--I have the unfortunate condition of working in Chicago, and have decided not to carry into the city, despite the Consitutionally-guaranteed right and personal preference to do so.
I believe that, while disobedience to tyrants is good, in this case it could also be a double-edged sword--if I ever needed to use it, I'd afterwards be prosecuted for what the communist government in Chicago calls a "felony," and the courts here would side with them. Then, the SCotUS would most likely decline to hear the case, and I'd sit in jail for committing a perfectly harmless act that was criminalized on the whim of some totalitarian punks.
I will, for now, merely yearn for America to return to the state it once enjoyed of providing its citizens with real freedom.
Just one: why on Earth should the method of carry affect the legality of a company trampling the rights of an employee?
And a thought for everyone here: If companies shall be allowed to demand that people disarm on company property, they shall have been given the power to unanimously do so, thus creating a de facto national ban on the carry of firearms in all businesses. I ask you, what good is your right to bear arms if only valid in your home and car? Consider the tyranny by majority you are supporting before you cast an emotional vote for "company rights." Only we have rights. Companies have what we allow them to have...don't give them the power to abridge your liberty!