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

Garand Illusion,

Excellent points, what I tried to get across, but yours sounds better and more eloquent.

No offense, but people give up rights all the time in order have a job.
Click to expand...

I disagree to a degree. Employees do not GIVE UP their rights to have a job, they still have those rights. Its just the employer has the right to terminate them. Basic employment at will contract, nothing more from what I gather.
 
Refusing to deliver to a dangerous neighborhood is not an option- there have been racial discrimination lawsuits in Federal court because a business refused to deliver into high crime neighborhoods that were dangerous.


I think that if an employer:

1 prohibits employees from providing for their own safety
2 does not provide for the employees' safety
3 an employee is fiscally or physically injured, and the lack of safety provisions can be shown to be a contributing factor.
4 the business claiming third party intervention should not be a defense, but should still expose the employer to some liability for making such a policy

that the employer should be held civilly liable.

This would not violate the "employer's" right, and would make the depriving of an employee's right just as expensive as allowing them to defend themselves.
 
I boycotted Pizza Hut a long time ago on account that I hate their pizza.

But this would be another reason great reason to never go and/or order there...
 
Pizza MAN did right! Defenders of criminals are also responsible for crime. Why make it easy on criminals? You want to protect their right to bash you on the head and rob you? Hmmmmm?

Fire the guy? Give him a medal!
 
Rocky.. thats right.. reminded me to mention their pizza is best when you toss it in the garbage and eat the box it came in! :barf:
 
One last thing then I'll leave this alone. I AM GLAD THE PIZZA DRIVER DID NOT HAVE TO DECIDE ALL THESE POINTS IN HIS OWN HEAD BEFORE HE ACTED. OBVIOUSLY HIS ACTION WAS VERY FAST AND DECISIVE. OTHERWISE WE MAY HAVE BEEN READING ANOTHER STORY OF ANOTHER KILLED PIZZA MAN. May God save us all from ever having to make the same decision he had to.
 
Refusing to deliver to a dangerous neighborhood is not an option- there have been racial discrimination lawsuits in Federal court because a business refused to deliver into high crime neighborhoods that were dangerous.


I think that if an employer:

1 prohibits employees from providing for their own safety
2 does not provide for the employees' safety
3 an employee is fiscally or physically injured, and the lack of safety provisions can be shown to be a contributing factor.
4 the business claiming third party intervention should not be a defense, but should still expose the employer to some liability for making such a policy

that the employer should be held civilly liable.

This would not violate the "employer's" right, and would make the depriving of an employee's right just as expensive as allowing them to defend themselves.
Click to expand...

Not a bad thought, but...

In my state and many others the employer would have workers compensation liability. Sadly, this kind of liability is generally more limited than that a company would face in general litigation from a plaintiff injured by an armed employee.
 
Walbert is the guy who needs to lose his job. That toad and any who think any employees are better off disarmed deserve to never work again.
 
The delivery guy needs to be fired. A business cannot enforce its rules and regulations by allowing employees to violate them.

Meanwhile, I'd boycott PH except I haven't bought cardboard from them in over 30 years. They haven't a clue as to what pizza is.

I wonder how practical it would be to boycott businesses that don't allow their employees to carry? I'll bet that here in the SF Bay Area, that would leave about three establishments where I could do business. Two of those would be gun shops, and none would be pizza joints.

Maybe thats a good diet strategy!:)
 
I don't consider "starvation" a legitimate option. And not everybody is cut out to start their own business.
Click to expand...

That is no more an employer's problem than you needing more money to pay a large mortgage.

Garand Illusion said:

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.
Click to expand...

and if you look at the COTUS and BOR every one of those rules is a blatant violation of gov't power. Even with the best of intentions when you allow the gov't the power to control someone you are stripping freedom. The gov't was never intended to have any place in the private contracts between citizens. Aside from laws regarding fraud and theft there is no way one can justify the intrusion of gov't into private matters between consenting participants unless you first throw out the very principal of property rights on which the COTUS was largely established.

It may not be "right" but employers should be free to be racist, religiously intolerant, and sexist. They should be able to have or ban smoking on their property as they see fit. People should be free to accept or reject employment or patronage of such businesses.

Now I admit that was real hard in the olden days when there might be one place to work or one store but this is 21st century America and we have nothing if not choice.

You either believe in freedom for everyone or you do not. People easily give away the rights of "evil businesses" since it is in their personal favor without considering the precedent it sets. Inviting Gov't involvement into private contracts is like inviting Dracula into your home.

You cannot give away someone else's freedom from gov't oppression and seriously be believed to support liberty.
 
Maybe, but let us not wax too poetic about freedom, if corporations believed in freedom then when they went belly up you could tap the personal wealth of the shareholders and officers to meet its debts. I support the existence of the limited liability model, but I have no illusions about it being a promotion of freedom. Corporate form is the grant of a privilege from the state.
 
and if you look at the COTUS and BOR every one of those rules is a blatant violation of gov't power. Even with the best of intentions when you allow the gov't the power to control someone you are stripping freedom. The gov't was never intended to have any place in the private contracts between citizens. Aside from laws regarding fraud and theft there is no way one can justify the intrusion of gov't into private matters between consenting participants unless you first throw out the very principal of property rights on which the COTUS was largely established.
Click to expand...

Definitely a valid argument. Not one I personally support, but valid.

You either believe in freedom for everyone or you do not. People easily give away the rights of "evil businesses" since it is in their personal favor without considering the precedent it sets. Inviting Gov't involvement into private contracts is like inviting Dracula into your home.
Click to expand...

I do not believe in freedom in the way that you say. As a civilized society, the whole point we formed a government was to

establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
Click to expand...

and as such we do need to maintain some levels of control over various elements of society, the employment contract and personal property being two of them. Although government didn't step into the employment contract until fairly recently, private property rights have always been limited.

Inviting Dracula into my home? Rather like the slippery slope theory. Valid, but not a reason to not have reasonable laws.

If I have to live in a neighborhood with Dracula (which we do, since we have to have a government unless we want anarchy) I will be civil and invite him into my home when I feel it's best for the neighborhood and necessary to do so to deal with some problem. But I will keep a cross and some holy water nearby (the COTUS and the 2nd amendment, in this analogy) and I damned sure won't leave him alone with my kids.

So I am not a strict libertarian. Neither am I a socialist. Believe it or not, there is some wiggle room in between. Life isn't all absolutes.
 
Endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights

A couple of years ago I needed a new job quick and Domino's
hired me.
I am grateful & still order once in awhile.

We were not allowed to carry by corporate policy,but some us us did.

Rigid adherence to "rules" is a terrible way to try and live.

I was an armed guard years ago, on a contract to the city and county of San Francisco, my supervisor was balking at letting take my breaks and being a stickler for rules.

I love reading and knew all the rules concerning armed security for my post, (the supervisor was an unarmed anti) it turns out I was not allowed to use stores, public restrooms when armed:D
He thought he was allowed to hold on to my gun while I was on my break, I told him he needed an armed guard card.
Long story short, I insisted on every single rule being followed to the letter.

They replaced the supervisor.

Lets all play by the strictest interpretation of the rules, then be prepared to starve and lose your jobs as commerce, agriculture and gov't come to a standstill.


God gave me RKBA, if my employer doesn't like it he can take it up with HIM.
 
anyone got more of the facts

just reporting the deliver guy shot the BG is a rather ambiguous report. It implies the pizza guy was right and the BG wrong. But in real life there is always more to the story. I'm not defending the BG I'm just asking what happened that lead to the shooting.

I have marginal support for the delivery man when we start to believe his rights out way those of his employer. Both have certain rights and responsibilities.
 
God gave me RKBA, if my employer doesn't like it he can take it up with HIM.
Click to expand...

That is one of the statements that IMHO demonstrates to the great independent masses in this country that gun control is a good thing.

WildthereisnogodandiftherewasshegaveyounorightswhatsoeverAlaska ™
 
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.

Pizza guys, what was the weekly income while you were doing this job?
Click to expand...

Well, I'll say that since he violated Pizza Hut policy then they can justifiably (by their reasoning) fire him. Pizza Hut is most certainly not morally justified in firing the guy for defending himself, but what's legally right and what's morally right aren't always the same thing.

He can probably (unless PH is the only pizza delivery place in town) get the same job with a different pizza company. If his new employer is OK with him defending himself that's a better job already. It's pretty easy to get a pizza delivery job anyway. And a lot of delivery drivers do it as a second job. I did it for a summer to earn money for school.

AS far as income, you get minimum wage and tips. The place I worked at also paid 60 cents per delivery and mileage too. Tips are usually 2-3 dollars at each delivery, except in rich neighborhoods and section 8 housing. The rich don't tip because they never had jobs like that and they live in nice big houses and drive expensive new cars which are all paid for with debt. That means they are just as poor (in terms of free cash flow) as the section 8 jerks. I learned which areas were least likely to tip (big houses and welfare wastelands) and made them last in my multiple delivery qeues even though you're supposed to deliver the oldest orders first. The way I saw it, if I know your neighborhood doesn't tip well, I'm going to take care of paying customers first.

On a per hour basis, if it's very slow, you make nothing because they send you home. A little slow and you make $8-9 an hour, and really busy you easily make $14-15 an hour. On average, say $9-12 an hour is about right. Plus the entertainment value too: the freaks, hot babes, dogs, kids, and people offering you beer :confused:.
 
what's legally right and what's morally right aren't always the same thing.
Click to expand...

Isn't that the truth!

I learned which areas were least likely to tip
Click to expand...

I live in a big house, with nice cars in the drive and while it's not often we order pizza, when we do, we tip the driver $10 - $20. Now I know why it takes so long to get here... damn cheapskate neighbors!:)
 
I would add that only in Iowa would they consider Pizza Hut Pizza to be Pizza. Those of us fortunate enough to have been raised in the North east know what Pizza really is...

Like Rays in NYC...the best real Italian Pizza made by Puerto Ricans that money can buy.

Folks from Chicago and California need not even try to compete, their pizza is not real either, although at least in Chicago they try

And before the issue is raised, Pizza Hut and Dominoes is the big thing up here in the Great White Culinary Wasteland. Freakin bagels are nothing more than hard rolls with a hole poked in them.

Now my Mom lives in North carolina. I swear the pizza there is made with Velveeta and ketchup:barf:

WilddigressionfinishedAlaska ™
 
I live in a big house, with nice cars in the drive and while it's not often we order pizza, when we do, we tip the driver $10 - $20. Now I know why it takes so long to get here... damn cheapskate neighbors!
Click to expand...

Order from the same place every week or two and with tips like that they will get to know you. When I left the shop on a busy night with 8 deliveries in my car you can bet I went to the house I knew always tipped good before I went into the projects where the best tip you normally got was getting out alive.

We drivers knew the good regular customers and fought each other to be back for when their pies would be ready to go. You got the first ones ready, regardless of how good or bad so it was always a gamble but the more deliveries you made the better the chance at a high tip.

I do remember one elderly lady in the bad area of town who was always polite and would at least let you keep the extra .50, apologizing it wasn't more. She was sincere and a real nice lady so even though there wasn't a good tip I made certain she was high on the list.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top