Iowa Senator to Stop Buying Pizza Hut if It Fires Delivery Man Who Shot Robber

[FireMax]

macmuffy
Several posters say fire him, he'll be able to get a better job.
Sometimes it aint so easy to just get another job. Did you think that this may the only thing keeping bread on the table while he is looking for better employment.
Please dont slam him until you have walked a mile in his sneakers.

Your response is the most sensible one here. People are so quick to "decide the fate" of others with their rash opinions. Maybe they should be fired once or twice in their lives... and then possibly they will be more human in regard to their wishes to see another person fired.

Kudos to the pizza guy for protecting himself and teaching a criminal a lesson he will hopefully never forget. There was a time in this country where men would look at this situation with men's eyes and there would be no "calls to fire" this man for doing what any man has the constitutional right to do... protect himself with a firearm.

If he gets fired, I will hire him.

 

[buzz_knox]

I couldnt possibly disagree with you more. No employer has the right to prohibit somone from exercising a constitutional right. PERIOD.

If an employer can do this then slavery really didn't end in 1865.
The whole point of God given and constitutionally guarranteed rights is that no large powerful entity be it your government or a large corporation has the power to make you give up your rights, or to require you to endanger your life.

The Constitution protects against government interference, but it's not designed to interfere in contract law or protect people from their own decisions. If you sign a contract that states you agree to abide by the company regulations, then you have also agreed that they can regulate your conduct while on the clock. You have agreed to suspend performance of your rights in return for the compensation they are providing.

And the difference between slavery and employment is that one ends when you say "I quit." It's a subtle point, but people miss it from time to time.

As for the Senator's comments, nothing he said implicates any issue with liberty. He's taking a personal and public stand about the issue. That's his right under the 1st Amendment. Pizza Hut has the right to follow its policy, but it doesn't have any right to be free from repercussions.

 

[lon371]

Link works on IE ok. Go leave the guy some support.

He did break the company rules, but who dont or has not?
I think a suspension, then reinstatement is in order.

 

[73 Jock]

The comments that the Des Moines Register feels are worthy to print:

Dennis Howe, who has delivered for Domino's Pizza the past three years, said Thursday's incident was a twist on the all-too-typical story.....
"I hate the thought of what happened, but pizza delivery people are easy targets," Howe said. "This was a bizarre turn of events."

How very bizarre indeed. An armed citizen successfully defends himself, rather than sacrificing his life, and becoming another statistic at the bottom of page 24.

It actually IS bizarre to people who have been conditioned to be victims, as demonstrated by the next co-worker's comment:

Howe's co-worker Kimberly Babis said Spiers should not have been armed on the job, no matter what the safety concern. She said most drivers have the right to refuse a delivery if they feel it could pose danger.

"I don't understand why the pizza delivery guy had a gun," she said. "And even if the other guy was trying to rob him, it's a measly 20 bucks. At least that's how much our drivers have on them."

Spiers employed a weapon to save his life, and she cannot get past the idea that this was over 20 bucks.

That by the way, is the closing thought in reporter Jacqueline Lee's coverage.

Reporter Jacqueline Lee can be reached at (515) 284-8065 or jlee9@dmreg.com

 

[HKuser]

Quote:

Pizza Hut should fire the guy, he broke the rules. The State Senator is entitled to stop eating the overbaked pasty and bland concoctions, but shows an astonishing lack of respect for liberty.

Way off the mark and completely missing the nuances of what the senator is saying.

Precisely, the Senator is exercising HIS liberty to tell PH to shove it. He's not saying he's introducing a bill to stop it or anything like that. Knees are jerking on both sides of this issue. The other thing that bothers me with PH policies is that when these guys get fired and apply for UI benefits, or commit a tort, PH argues they're independent contractors. When they break one of PH rules, they're employees.

 

[BoringAccountant]

I'm going to have to agree with everyone (sorta) on this one.

The delivery driver knew full well the policy of carrying while on the job. Let's not make excuses about it, regardless of what you think about the policy, he broke the rules that he was hired under for employment at Pizza Hut. With that in mind, it seems as if he should have mentioned his concerns over this policy before he started working or rather soon after starting, but he decided to carry anyway, knowing what the result of his actions would get him. (None of us are sure to what extent he went to complain, try to change, etc. the policy, he could have been hounding them to change it or never mentioned it, either way he decided to carry) Bottom line, his carrying most likely saved himself, but will ultimately make him lose his job. I am sure he may be bummed about it, but at least he has his life.

And what the Senator said, good for him to take a personal stand on this. Maybe he is hoping the PR he brings to the story PH will consider keeping him and junk the policy. Either way, the Senator is well within his rights to take a stand on this and those citizens should be proud of him for doing so.

 

[Musketeer]

I couldnt possibly disagree with you more. No employer has the right to prohibit somone from exercising a constitutional right. PERIOD.

If an employer can do this then slavery really didn't end in 1865.
The whole point of God given and constitutionally guarranteed rights is that no large powerful entity be it your government or a large corporation has the power to make you give up your rights, or to require you to endanger your life.

Slaves couldn't refuse a job or quit.

The COTUS has absolutely nothing to do (at least when it and BOR were written) with private contracts. The COTUS says the GOV'T cannot do this or that. Case in point, you have a 1A right to call George Bush a retarded cowboy (I am not saying that is correct, just using it as an example). You could even be an employee with the IRS and say that without fear of legal repercussions. If you are in the private sector though you cannot stand in your office and say the same thing about your boss without the expectation of being fired. Employees agree to surrender plenty of rights while employed per their contract and that is how it should be. In addition they can, at any time, say the no longer agree with the terms and quit.

I still support the driver and his decision. What really needs to happen are huge lawsuits against pizza chains from drivers and family members of slain drivers when the chain forbade their ability to defend themselves. Make the decision uneconomical for them.

 

[Musketeer]

I also do not think the driver should have questioned the policy in the least. That would have been the best way to wind up with his manager insisting on inspecting his car or him for a firearm. The nail that sticks up gets hammered and concealed means concealed.

 

[73 Jock]

It is not difficult to guess that the great majority of companies doing business in Iowa have a "no weapons" policy.

In that regard, unless he intends to boycott ALL of them, Sen. Zaun would be grandstanding. We can be reasonably certain that he knows this, and has no expectation of changing the policy.

He is more likely trying to force Pizza Hut to arrive at a settlement with Spiers, as opposed to terminating him for cause.

 

[73 Jock]

What really needs to happen are huge lawsuits against pizza chains from drivers and family members of slain drivers when the chain forbade their ability to defend themselves. Make the decision uneconomical for them.

Absolutely.

Because the greatest danger to the assailant Kenneth Jimmerson right now, is that he will be trampled by lawyers eager to sue Pizza Hut for the actions of their employee.

 

[zukiphile]

I also support firing this man.
He broke company policy.
This case is about private agreements between and employer and employee.

If you are going to accept employment from a company, you have to be willing to the requirements they have for the job. If you don't like the requirements, you need to work for someone else.

I couldnt possibly disagree with you more. No employer has the right to prohibit somone from exercising a constitutional right. PERIOD.

Of course they do.

I can make rules about employees making or receiving personal telephone calls, wearing jeans, showing tattos, or even what they say. All those involve constitutional rights.

The issue this raises is whether and to what extent I can make rules about employee conduct when they are away from the worksite or off the clock.

This is a matter of public policy. Many states have pubic policy exceptions to the general rule that an employer may fire anyone at any time for any reason. It would be a defensible public policy to prohibit an employer from discharging an employee for the act of legal self defense while off the employer's property.

 

[Garand Illusion]

One more thought on this ... like I said, I have no problem with PH firing him or the senator speaking out against it. If a boycott of PH were to become a popular option among the gun rights crowd I would even join it. It's their right to fire employee, it's my right to speak out/boycott for any reason I want to.

But ... I don't feel too sorry for the driver. He chose to violate his employment contract by carrying a firearm -- which was his choice. That's a civil matter, not a crime (well -- he may have been technically trespassing everytime he went on the property -- I'm not sure about that, but it's probably a misdemeanor).

Hopefully he only used his weapon because he felt his life was endangered. If so, I imagine he was quite glad to have it. Unemployment is generally preferable to being maimed or murdered. In the same way that it's better to be tried by 6 than carred by 4, it's better to lose a few paychecks then your life.

I just hope he finds another job quickly. I know that one pizza delivery person that got in the news in a similar situation was offered a job based on his actions by a pro-gun business owner. A better job, of course.

 

[HKuser]

He chose to violate his employment contract by carrying a firearm -- which was his choice.

Of course, we don't know this. We don't know if PH ever told him one thing about carrying. I've been present at many UC hearings where the employer alleges violation of a rule, but it turns out that they never gave the rule to the employee. You can only agree to something of which you're informed.

 

[wayneinFL]

It seems everyone has rights here.

Pizza Hut has the right to fire the delivery guy. The delivery guy has the right to protect himself, but no right to a job.

Everyone has a responsibility, too.

Pizza Hut has a responsibility to its shareholders- it has to work in their best interests. It is not in their interest to be sued because an employee shot an attacker. It is much better for the company if the employee is shot instead. It costs them less money, and gives them better publicity. I don't like it, but that's the way it is.

The delivery guy has two responsibilities. First he has a responsibility, as an employee, to protect the company interests- to take a bullet for the company. The other responsibility the employee has is to his family- to survive so he can continue to support them. I think he balanced his responsibilities well.

I have a right, too. I have a right not to buy from Pizza Hut. They don't have a constitutional right to my business.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Pizza Hut has a responsibility to its shareholders- it has to work in their best interests. It is not in their interest to be sued because an employee shot an attacker. It is much better for the company if the employee is shot instead. It costs them less money, and gives them better publicity. I don't like it, but that's the way it is.

See, and here is where I see the only possibility to reasonably address this issue. Personally, I think Pizza Hut has a responsibility to it's employees as well. They should have the responsibility to, where feasible, enact policies that protect their employees from harm. The fact that the company faces less liability if their employee is shot than if he shoots somebody defending himself from harm (possibly death) is where I think the system has gone wrong, and needs to be corrected.

 

[Unregistered]

couldnt possibly disagree with you more. No employer has the right to prohibit somone from exercising a constitutional right. PERIOD.

If an employer can do this then slavery really didn't end in 1865.
The whole point of God given and constitutionally guarranteed rights is that no large powerful entity be it your government or a large corporation has the power to make you give up your rights, or to require you to endanger your life.

That is not how I see things. The delivery man voluntarily gave up his right to keep and bear arms while working for Pizza Hut. He didn't have to do that. He was not compelled to do that. He decided he would rather have the money than his right to keep and bear arms. Pizza Hut has no liability to protect him, the man voluntarily agreed to this situation.

 

[JuanCarlos]

That is not how I see things. The delivery man voluntarily gave up his right to keep and bear arms while working for Pizza Hut. He didn't have to do that. He was not compelled to do that. He decided he would rather have the money than his right to keep and bear arms. Pizza Hut has no liability to protect him, the man voluntarily agreed to this situation.

And if there was no job available to him that would allow him to protect himself? Again, last I checked banning possession of weapons while working is a nearly universal policy. I don't consider "starvation" a legitimate option. And not everybody is cut out to start their own business.

 

[Unregistered]

Starvation is a legitimate choice.

No offense, but people give up rights all the time in order have a job.
Most employers won't let you talk on the phone all day with your wife and friends. That limits free speech. Most won't let you witness to other employees, and that limits speech and religion.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Starvation is a legitimate choice.

I don't see us agreeing on this.

No offense, but people give up rights all the time in order have a job.
Most employers won't let you talk on the phone all day with your wife and friends. That limits free speech.

Not analogous. Time spent talking to family is time spent not working while being paid to work. I can (generally) carry a concealed weapon while still performing my duties.

Most won't let you witness to other employees, and that limits speech and religion.

The difference is that there is a legitimate concern that allowing this would create a hostile work environment, and lead to discrimination based on religion. Which (for better or worse) is prevented by law. It's pretty hard to argue that concealed carry leads to a hostile work environment...especially if you take concealed to me concealed. So again, not quite the same issue.


Really, though, I do generally support leaving the choice with employers. I just think that the law needs to change so that they bear some liability for sending people out at night with fair amounts of cash (or, at the least, having them come back with fair amounts of cash) without providing adequate protection or allowing them to provide their own. I think it needs to be just as expensive for them if a driver gets shot as it is if a thief gets shot. Then leave the choice to them.

 

[Garand Illusion]

Where but here could we have a 2 page discussion on whether or not a pizza delivery man should be fired for going against his work rules by carrying a firearm (a rule he may or may not have been made informed of -- I don't know on that one).

For people who say you give up all your rights when you go to work for someone ... that's just ridiculous. There are huge numbers of rules that affect how you can/can't hire or fire an employee as well as what rules that you can impose while the employee is on the job. As has been proven in other threads ... government has retained the right to impose limits on all practices involved in hiring and the emloyee contract (too many to list here) and both the property rights of an employer and the employment contract are subject to these restrictions. And there have been virtually no limitations imposed by the courts as to what these laws can dictate.

But likewise ... unless a specific status is protected by law (AFAIK carrying a weapon while employed isn't protected by any state, though many other things are) an employer can prohibit it. As to the places where rights conflict (freedom of speech, etc.) those are subtleties decided by the courts.

So if you really think it's important that pizza delivery people should be able to carry firearms ... then get a law passed to protect them. Something like "no employer shall prohibit delivery personnel from carrying firearms, and no business shall be able to refuse delivery by an armed delivery person."

Might need a little more detail than that, of course. But that would get the job done.