Pizza Hut delivers pink slip to employee held at gunpoint, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times


reply posted on 24-4-2008 @ 08:42 AM by Coshy
I've managed and delivered for either pizza hut or little caesars resturants in Talledega, AL, Daleville/Ft. Rucker, AL, Hagerstown MD, Waynesboro, PA, Killeen/FT. Hood, tx, and have delivered for dominos or papa johns in many of the same areas. I've also worked for a couple single-resturant pizza shops.

Without exception they all forbade the bringing of guns to work. It was an offence which would result in immediate termination. Pizza hut had a seperate form that was part of the new hire paperwork that stated this policy, the new hire and the manager had to sign it.

Their policies were to hand over the cash, your car keys, whatever the robber wanted. Pizza hut would rather have to replace your car in a legal action than attempt to replace your life, lung, spleen, etc. Its just simply more cost effective to buy someone a replacement car than to pay potentially millions to the family of the victim.

I owned guns when I was delivering for these places, but I never carried them on the job. I would have handed any robber my cash bag, my wallet, my car keys and whatever else they wanted because I KNEW I would be compensated for any materiel items lost. It simply wasn't worth the potential risk to myself to fight back. I had nothing to lose if I gave him everything, and potentially everything to lose if I fought back.

Just wanted to put out a few factual experiences, especally the part about not being responsible for the cash if it was stolen and having been assured (and having assured the drivers I managed) multiple times that personal items stolen in a robbery would be replaced.


reply posted on 24-4-2008 @ 08:55 AM by 2 cents
I delivered pizzas for many years. I was robbed twice at gunpoint. Very scary to be sure. Both times I basically lost the whole nights work, tips and time (police report and all). We were made to wear those signs on our cars, but I didn't want to. I was followed to my delivery and robbed because of the car sign. Of course I didn't realize I was being followed and they didn't pull up next to me they drove a block over and got out of their car, waited for me to deliver the pizza then ran from the shadows across the street pointing guns at me (there were 2 of them). I never knew they were even there.

Well I became very paranoid when delivering late at night. It was actually quite stressful. I wasn't allowed to carry a gun and we delivered to a college campus all night long as well as the rest of the area. Guns are not allowed on college campuses - IMO way too risky to carry a gun on campus. So I had no gun.

In the end I quit after about another 4 months. A total of 6 delivery drivers in our area were robbed (probably by the same people) in about 3 months after mine (I was the first, and 2 more from our store). The robbers got bolder too, firing shots in the air. I told the owner that the car signs were making it dangerous for us because they were following the drivers. If there were no sign how would they know we were delivering just driving down the road. Police also agreed with me and said not having the signs on the cars would greatly reduce the robberies. The owner? would have none of it - Really he could care less. It was obvious all he cared about was his money!



reply posted on 24-4-2008 @ 09:10 AM by 2 cents
reply to post by an0maly33



Pizza Hut is no longer part of Pepsico. They are owned by YUM! which also owns KFC and Taco Bell. And most of the pizza huts on the east coast are franchised and owned by a large pizza company (I forget the name). Corporately owned pizza huts are a minority of stores now from what I understand.



[edit on 24-4-2008 by 2 cents]


reply posted on 24-4-2008 @ 09:49 AM by TheDuckster
reply to post by Coshy



I understand what you're saying, and hoped that I didn't come across in a mal-intent way. Was just stating 'matter of facts' is all. No worries my friend.

I'm a Canadian citizen, and our constitution dictates that we Canucks don't have the right to bear arms.

The two factors we have to look at right now:

Company Policies vs. Self Defense

It is my belief that Self Defence supercedes the policies. The delivery person IMHO had every right to protect his well-being. Period. The Police conceded that fact.

Now, we have to backtrack and look at the company policies (cart before the horse issues).

Was the delivery person aware of the procedures and rules when he signed the dotted line upon intial employment? A little technicality here, but let's work with this one.

Let's turn the tables, and pretend that the delivery person DIDN'T have a gun on his person. (I'd hate to think of the outcome of this situation), and the poor soul, God forbid, died, as a result of anothers actions.

In light of the present situation, it's a scenerio of damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Tricky Tricky

~Ducky~





[edit on 24-4-2008 by TheDuckster]


reply posted on 24-4-2008 @ 01:24 PM by Coshy
reply to post by TheDuckster




I agree, it is a damned if you do (and get fired) and damned if you dont (potentially get dead) situation.

As far as the right to defend himself, I agree he did, however the company has the responsibility for employee safety while on the job. So once again, its a paradigm. Where does ensuring the safety of the employee meet the companies interest for business.

Was the area a 'bad area', if so, deliveries should have been stopped to that area. This is not a fool-proof solution, but it shows the company is working for the safety of the employee. There has to be a happy medium where the employee is assured reasonable safe work environment, while the company is still allowed to engage in a profitable business.

Concerning the 'no guns at work' paperwork: While it was a few years ago, I was told to emphasise that point. Pizza Hut held to the belief that submitting was the way to go. I personally disagree, but that was a condition of employment, same as showing up on time and in the proper uniform.

For the record though, I do support the delivery drivers actions. I think they were correct and well within his right to protect himself.


reply posted on 24-4-2008 @ 01:27 PM by Coshy
reply to post by Rockpuck



Rockpuck,

He has no grounds to sue. He violated a term and/or condition of employment. I dont think its right, but rarely has right ever interfered with the law.

What I would rather see, than a largely useless boycott, is the franchise office being bombarded with mail supporting the driver and condemming the franchise for terminating his employment.

I'll do some checking and see if I can find the franchise address.
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^



Alaska: Samantha Koenig Kidnapped last week.
  Posted 2 days ago with 111 member flags
Blue Spheres Fall from the Sky in the UK
  Posted 15 days ago with 81 member flags
The Chinese have seen the dragon in the sky !!
  Posted 2 days ago with 68 member flags
Strange Sounds in Sky Explained by Scientists
  Posted 11 days ago with 59 member flags
She Dialed 911. The Cop Who Came to Help Raped Her.
  Posted 4 days ago with 49 member flags
Anonymous: Revealing The Arcane Legal Trick Behind ACTA
  Posted 11 days ago with 42 member flags
Anonymous reveals Haditha massacre emails | RT
  Posted 7 days ago with 33 member flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Free Psychic Readings
  General Chit Chat, Posted 15 hours ago, 110 replies
Hollow Earth Theory New Evidence.
  General Conspiracies, Posted 13 hours ago, 81 replies
Anonymous show your face!
  Rant, Posted 9 hours ago, 62 replies
Free will
  Philosophy and Metaphysics, Posted 17 hours ago, 52 replies