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

[DavidZ]

To the person who asked what a delivery driver gets paid:

I worked for Pizza Hut for about a month in January in Texas. (Following the Dave Ramsey get out of debt plan We were paid $5.85/hr plus 88 cents per delivery. I only worked on weekends and would, on average, bring around $60-90 in tips per weekend working about 16 hours total working nights from Friday to Sunday.

The policy regarding firearms was clearly defined on the preemployment paperwork. If I had a concealed carry permit I probably would have chose to violate their policy since that job was not my bread & butter. Since I didn't have a permit I chose to carry MACE instead. Apartment complexes were about the only places I dreaded delivering to since it is a pain to find an apartment when you're not familiar with the complex, dealing with gate codes, etc. and all the while trying to keep your awareness up knowing that you are a mark.

I remember during the interview the manager's exact words were, "If someone trys to rob you, just give him the f****ng money." Thank God I never had to go through that but I think that some of those teenagers that worked there would have been considered prey far before my 6'2" 225 lb self. Matter of fact one kid had been robbed last September at the Apartments by my house. Probably better off he didn't have a gun.

 

[Musketeer]

I carried OC, folding knife, 6 Cell Mag-Lite on a belt loop (even in daylight...) and a concealed Delta Elite. Call me a Swiss Army Knife, a tool for every occasion. The OC was used on a dog once, the Mag-Lite was a great deterrent and tool for dark areas, the knife wasn't needed on deliveries but got used for plenty of menial tasks and the gun had to be presented once during a car jacking attempt. If your only tool is a hammer every problem looks like a nail.

 

[revance]

This happened here in Indiana a while back. Pizza Hut driver had a gun pulled on him in a crappy neighborhood. The driver shot and killed the robber. Pizza Hut fired him immediately.

All of the pizza chains have the same policy. Its cheaper to have a delivery man killed than allow them to defend themselves. Most store owners/managers know if their drivers are carrying, they just choose to ignore it until the driver actually has to use it. Then its "we didn't know he was breaking the rules" and they fire them.

 

[UniversalFrost]

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...

Same here!

There pizza stinks and I will not buy from them again.

I hope we hear some follow up on this story. Hopefully he gets his job back and hopefully he finds a better job so he can tell Pizza Hut to shove it!

Otherwise, yes he broker store policy, but he was protecting himself and his rights at the same time. He will get fired, but hopefully someone will see the BS on this one and give him a job.

This sucks!

JOE

 

[Dmanbass]

Is this a closed issue yet? I can't take anymore about Pizza Hut.

 

[Yellowfin]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think I'd be showing up to work for a while anyway if I had to shoot at a robber on the job.

 

[MrApathy]

I would like to tell the story of a poor fella who lived in Marion,Iowa who was not as fortunate as this Pizza Hut delivery driver in Des Moines recently.

I dont recall the name of this poor guy this happened nearly 10 years ago in Marion,Iowa. This fella worked for Pizza Hut too delivering pizza's he was poor and worked delivery his car was in need of repair he knew his car well and he could keep it going when it broke down on him which it often did. Anyway he got called to deliver a pizza to a teenager and a misfit who wanted to steel a car so they call a pizza. He showed up then they cracked his skull with a hammer. The Delivery driver was alive but unconscious, the two brats try taking his car they got 2 blocks before it broke down. They went back to the apartment and further bead his head in with the hammer and slit his throat. Police did manage to capture both perps and they are rotting in prison though they did try running and evading.

I fully support this Delivery man and Senator.

with some help from a fellow Iowan.
The unfortunate Pizza Hut Deliver Driver in Marion was Greg Wells brutally murdered back around 2002 by Brandy Byrd and D.J. Keegan
this may help anyone interested looking at a case of what happened when the Delivery Man was not so fortunate.

FindLaw> State Resources> Iowa> Primary Materials> Iowa Court Opinions
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 4-655 / 03-1578
Filed October 27, 2004

 

[STAGE 2]

They should be civilly liable to any driver who is injured as a result of this policy. Let em lose a few 8 digit lawsuits and see if that changes things.

Dude. Take some time and get to know the law. A company cannot be held negligent for the intentional acts of others (unless there is some special circumstance that doesn't exist here i.e. a contractual duty to protect or a right of control). There isn't any court anywhere that is going to rule that a company has a duty to arm its employees, or let them carry.

Thats why companies don't get sued over no weapons policies. They've never had this duty and never will.

 

[Yellowfin]

It's about time they started, then. They do need to be sued over no weapons policies to the point that they won't even think about having such a policy again. They WILL have a duty to respect carry rights if we make it so.

 

[STAGE 2]

It's about time they started, then. They do need to be sued over no weapons policies to the point that they won't even think about having such a policy again. They WILL have a duty to respect carry rights if we make it so.

I believe this has already been addressed...

My bad, I forgot, the only rule that counts is guns and the hell with everything else. Thats because some folks on here view guns as an extensions......

Who cares about hundreds of year of common law, or the freedom to contract. Lets just throw it all away

 

[Yellowfin]

In those hundreds of years of common law are two pretty well defined concepts: unconscionable contract, unfair employment practices, and contributory negligence. All of those are disallowed and are applicable to no firearms policies. I'm saying follow the law, not ignore it. In this particular case of pizza delivery or any commerce which is subject to robbery a sidearm is a piece of operational safety equipment, and disallowing it is not in conformance with safe work environment standards. It is basically the same as telling a miner or construction worker he cannot wear a hard hat. There may be reasons, there may even be beliefs, but that is simply neither safe nor sane nor legal.

 

[rampage841512]

In those hundreds of years of common law are two pretty well defined concepts: unconscionable contract, unfair employment practices, and contributory negligence. All of those are disallowed and are applicable to no firearms policies. I'm saying follow the law, not ignore it. In this particular case of pizza delivery or any commerce which is subject to robbery a sidearm is a piece of operational safety equipment, and disallowing it is not in conformance with safe work environment standards. It is basically the same as telling a miner or construction worker he cannot wear a hard hat. There may be reasons, there may even be beliefs, but that is simply neither safe nor sane nor legal.

I like the way you think.

Now. I work at retailer that shall remain unnamed, but I'll tell you it is 'the world's largest', and it is prohibited to have a firearm on your person or locked in your car. Mine stays locked in my car. Yes, breach of contract with the company. I may very well get fired if it's found out, and I accept that.

Sure, I'll be mad if it happens. I don't think it's right to put a person in a situation where they are less safe than they would be otherwise without compensating them in some way for that, but without taking a job like that I'd be unemployed. It's a compromise, and if I can change it one day I will. For now I'll take the risk of losing my job. Just as I would if I were a delivery driver.

And if someone wants to boycott the company for having a policy I don't agree with then let them have at it.

Oh, and Pizza Hut is pretty good. It's not healthy. It's not good for you, but it taste almost as good as Domino's or Papa John's.

 

[Musketeer]

Dude. Take some time and get to know the law. A company cannot be held negligent for the intentional acts of others (unless there is some special circumstance that doesn't exist here i.e. a contractual duty to protect or a right of control). There isn't any court anywhere that is going to rule that a company has a duty to arm its employees, or let them carry.

Thats why companies don't get sued over no weapons policies. They've never had this duty and never will.

STAGE 2 has a valid point and shooting the messenger won't solve anything. There is still a path to be followed.

The company is not liable for the intentional acts of others as long as those acts cannot be reasonably foreseen. Right now these companies are cruising along safely in this respect because the average public does not agree there is a reasonable fear of danger the company is disregarding by sending out drivers with no method of defense. Only by repeatedly exposing the general public to knowledge of such attacks will the fear of them while in the workplace no longer become "unreasonable" in the eyes of a jury.

I was a pizza driver so I have some good insight regarding their plight. There is no better job to use to highlight the threat of workplace violence and the effects of employers limiting employees ability to respond than food delivery drivers. They are sent to just about any place that calls with food, cash and a car. My close call came not from an attacker looking for the cash I carried but with one looking for my car and most likely to take me to an ATM to get more cash (no shots were fired when they changed their minds). They are completely out of the company's facility, unsupported and often using their own personal vehicles.

No group of workers can be shown to be placed in harms way more to violent attacks. Sadly there is no lack of attacks to use as evidence of this.

The way to change the current rule is to challenge it with enough examples to alter people's perceptions. Get enough of the public to understand that such jobs do carry a reasonable fear of assault and the corporate defense of not reasonably expecting attack evaporates.

 

[Musketeer]

Most of what was said I agree with but this statement

Oh, and Pizza Hut is pretty good. It's not healthy. It's not good for you, but it taste almost as good as Domino's or Papa John's.

means little given the two places Pizza Hut is being compared to!

 

[toybox99615]

pizza hut's responsibilities

If Pizza Hut (virtually any fast food delivery establishment) has a responsibility to its employees should they not be required to have armed guards delivering your food. No one here will complain should pizza delivery cost $ 100 from every store in town.

Does Pizza Hut have a responsibility also to stop an employee from entering my building or home armed? Or am I just suppose to allow anyone with a gun to enter my home? (Personally I don't care but others might.)

Should Pizza Hut et al allow employees to carry should they not also be liable if an employee or customer get accidentally shot. Our courts typically hold any employer liable for actions of employees. [I sure know a few diddle heads here that deliver pizza and I would not allow them to carry a sharp pointed stick.]

As with most things there are more things involved than a simple issue of an employee protecting themselves. A few of these issues actually require some changes to various state laws when it comes to who is liable for what. If the employee screwed up while on your property some court might hold you responsible in part as the property owner. A lot of complex issues to deal with and none of these are premised on what if nonsense but rather factual questions of financial responsibility for the actions of another.

 

[divemedic]

I am not saying that they should arm every driver. The state of the law now is that a company is not liable for the intentional acts of others, but that allows a company to make decisions in a vacuum. You can't day that pizza companies, as well as others, do not know their job is dangerous. It is just that they use the law to dodge their responsibility for the carnage.

A report published in 2000 by the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that robberies accounted for the greatest number of work-related homicides. At highest risk were workers who engage in cash transactions and work alone or in small numbers.

Pizza Hut has taken NO steps to protect their drivers. Even 7-11 will not allow employees to work alone at night, provides security cameras, etc. Pizza companies could even refuse to allow drivers to accept cash, which would go a long way to limiting these robberies.

Sorry, but the way I see it is that they are making money over the corpses of their employees, and it is time for it to stop.

 

[toybox99615]

OMG

Wow I never thought I would read so much dribble over the heroics demonstrated every day in our country by the food delivery crew. There is more support here for the heroic deliver people that there is for a person who would dive into the ice bound river to save a drowning child. :barf:


Its a pizza delivery not a life saving heroic act of some kind; qualification drivers license a junk vehicle and evidence of the ability to not totaly screw up a pizza. Future opportunities in the occupation: zippo. I've not head of once driver who had to take the job under involuntary servitude.


We seem to always fall for the danger of the jobs line while we forget they do it becasue they are paid.

 

[JuanCarlos]

If Pizza Hut (virtually any fast food delivery establishment) has a responsibility to its employees should they not be required to have armed guards delivering your food. No one here will complain should pizza delivery cost $ 100 from every store in town.

Again, nobody here is necessarily suggesting that the company has the responsibility to protect their employees, just that they have the responsibility to allow employees to choose to protect themselves (as much as is possible, anyway).

Does Pizza Hut have a responsibility also to stop an employee from entering my building or home armed? Or am I just suppose to allow anyone with a gun to enter my home? (Personally I don't care but others might.)

Unless you specifically mention when ordering that they can't bring weapons onto your property, I don't see the issue. You invite them onto your property when you order, if you notice they're carrying and take issue you're free to ask them to leave. And unless your building (if you live in one) has posted policies regarding weapons same goes for there. I guess you'll have issues with buildings where guns aren't allowed (say, delivering to a courthouse)...but on the other hand, I've found that nowadays most such places will make the person ordering meet the delivery person in the lobby rather than send them though security.

This is pretty much a non-issue.

Should Pizza Hut et al allow employees to carry should they not also be liable if an employee or customer get accidentally shot. Our courts typically hold any employer liable for actions of employees. [I sure know a few diddle heads here that deliver pizza and I would not allow them to carry a sharp pointed stick.]

Well, we're primarily talking about CHL holders here...since that'd be required in most states to carry concealed (or to even carry a loaded and accessible weapon in a car). So we're talking about people who are able to carry handguns around town anytime they're not on the clock anyway. The state has explicitly trusted them to carry sharp sticks, and if you're sending them out of your establishment into crappy neighborhoods with cash I'd question whether you're being particularly reasonable by countering that.

As with most things there are more things involved than a simple issue of an employee protecting themselves. A few of these issues actually require some changes to various state laws when it comes to who is liable for what. If the employee screwed up while on your property some court might hold you responsible in part as the property owner. A lot of complex issues to deal with and none of these are premised on what if nonsense but rather factual questions of financial responsibility for the actions of another.

This, on the other hand, is definitely an issue. But the overall point is that somehow the liabilities need to be shifted so that it's feasible for an employer to allow their employees to carry, especially in the specific case (for reasons clearly detailed) of delivery drivers.

 

[STAGE 2]

n those hundreds of years of common law are two pretty well defined concepts: unconscionable contract, unfair employment practices, and contributory negligence.

Ok, then show me a single ruling where a no weapons policy was ruled unconscionable. Show me where not allowing someone to carry is an unfair employment practice (which are directed at classes of people like race, sex, national origin, religion, age, disability... carrying a gun isn't a classification its an action). Show me where a court ruled a business was contributorily negligent for the intentional act of an unknown 3rd party absent an agreement to protect or a duty to control.

All of those are disallowed and are applicable to no firearms policies.

No they aren't. They are in no way related to firearms policies.

I'm saying follow the law, not ignore it. In this particular case of pizza delivery or any commerce which is subject to robbery a sidearm is a piece of operational safety equipment, and disallowing it is not in conformance with safe work environment standards.

Then you don't know the law. Guns are not "pieces of operational safety equipment". They are firearms, and they are HUGE liabilities for businesses. And as far as safe work environment standards, guess what OSHA's position on firearms is.

It is basically the same as telling a miner or construction worker he cannot wear a hard hat. There may be reasons, there may even be beliefs, but that is simply neither safe nor sane nor legal.

Nope. Not even close. People wear protective gear because of accidents OTJ. Falling equipment or other accidents are not intentional acts of 3rd parties. A company has a duty to protect employees for things under its control. A mugger is never under an employers control. Substandard cables or poor safety practices are.

Furthermore, protective gear is NEVER a liability. Hard hats, safety lines, and steel toed boots have no risk of killing or injuring anyone. They have no risk of damaging other property. They have no risk of being stolen and used in future crimes.

So lets all stop making these massive leaps of logic with NO foundation in the law. MMMkay?

 

[Yellowfin]

Ok, then show me a single ruling where a no weapons policy was ruled unconscionable. Show me where not allowing someone to carry is an unfair employment practice (which are directed at classes of people like race, sex, national origin, religion, age, disability... carrying a gun isn't a classification its an action). Show me where a court ruled a business was contributorily negligent for the intentional act of an unknown 3rd party absent an agreement to protect or a duty to control.

Show me prior to 1865 where a person of African origin was considered a whole human being with full rights of any other ethnicity. Were they not before then and by some magical transformation became so afterwards? Show me prior to 1920 where women were citizens of the US with full legal rights. How about prior to 1927 where cocaine wasn't a drug? Or prior to 1967 where you didn't have Miranda rights?

It's coming, and it's for darn sure long overdue.

Guns are not "pieces of operational safety equipment".

Let's see...as of the moment, tell that to forest rangers, policemen, armored car personnel, guards, and now airline pilots.

Falling equipment or other accidents are not intentional acts of 3rd parties. A company has a duty to protect employees for things under its control. A mugger is never under an employers control.

So are they with the above businesses and entities or not? Are bacteria? Bacteria are outside 3rd party actors yet restaurants and food packaging places have every duty to act against those. Yes, muggers and other violent criminals are a pathogen, a germ. Crime is a disease. They ARE a side effect of people's lack of dealing with them and they are a sort of naturally growing hazard. Being unarmed and/or unwilling to deal with crime and actively curtail it is just the same as leaving an open jar of mayo in your car all afternoon or leaving raw chicken on your kitchen counter for two days. Having people carry is like having all the kids at a school be vaccinated against contagious diseases like measels and polio--not doing so provides a place for the disease to take root and thus endangers everyone.