Companies that ban guns put on defensive

[shanek]

Okay, let me start off by making one thing absolutely clear: companies have every right to set policy for their property and their employees regarding the carrying of handguns (although I think if it's in one's own vehicle that's a different matter). So I disagree with what the gun groups are saying in this article. But you really have to wonder what some of these employers think they're achieving...

http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2004-12-09-guns-cover_x.htm

Ronald Honeycutt didn't hesitate. The Pizza Hut driver had just finished dropping off a delivery when a man holding a gun approached him.

Honeycutt wasn't about to become another robbery statistic. He grabbed the 9 mm handgun he always carries in his belt and shot the man more than 10 times, killing him.

Honeycutt faced no criminal charges, because prosecutors decided that he acted in self-defense. But the 39-year-old did lose his job: Carrying a gun violated Pizza Hut's no-weapons rule.

"It's not fair," says Honeycutt of Carmel, Ind., who has found another pizza-delivery job and continues to carry a gun. "There is a constitutional right to bear arms. If I'm going to die, I'd rather be killed defending myself."

[qoute]Having a gun is what Terry Pickle believes saved his life. In 2001, the owner of Pickle's Pawn Shop in Salt Lake City, was at work when two intruders broke in. They didn't ask questions or demand money. They simply walked in and opened fire.

But Pickle and his son, David, grabbed the loaded guns they carry and fired back, injuring one. The intruders fled, firing at a customer as they left. Pickle says he now knows firsthand that guns on the job can deter crime and keep employees safe. The two men were later caught and sentenced to prison, with one serving 10 years and the other serving 71/2 years.

"It saved our lives," Pickle says. "We would have been shot, probably dead, had we not had the ability to protect ourselves. They came in shooting. No words, nothing."[/quote]

Amazing, then, that there response is to make completely stupid statements like this:

"Do you want your mail guy or delivery guy carrying a loaded gun when he comes to the door?" asks Patty Sullivan, a Pizza Hut spokeswoman. "What if he's not happy with his tip?"

And this:

"What if a plumber or truck delivery guy or Coke machine guy has a gun with them?" says Howard Korn, campus police chief.

What if he does? Are Coke machine guys proportionally more likely to kill people? And are workers around the country really postal workers deep down inside who are just going to snap and start killing people at any moment?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

"It's not fair," says Honeycutt of Carmel, Ind., who has found another pizza-delivery job and continues to carry a gun. "There is a constitutional right to bear arms.

Only if he is a member of a well regulated militia, like the National Guard. From what the article says, we don't know if he is or not. Somehow I doubt it.

Besides that, at such time that he is delivering pizzas, he is acting as an agent of his employer, Pizza Hut. If they do not want their employees carrying guns while they are representing Pizza Hut, that is entirely their perogative.

Are you arguing again for government intervention into the affairs of a private company? That seems to be the Libertarian Party platform.

[CFLarsen]

Why is it "unfair" to fire him? He willingly broke a company rule. If he didn't like it at PH, he could find a job elsewhere.

[materia3]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
Only if he is a member of a well regulated militia, like the National Guard. From what the article says, we don't know if he is or not. Somehow I doubt it.

Besides that, at such time that he is delivering pizzas, he is acting as an agent of his employer, Pizza Hut. If they do not want their employees carrying guns while they are representing Pizza Hut, that is entirely their perogative.

Are you arguing again for government intervention into the affairs of a private company? That seems to be the Libertarian Party platform.

Excuse me, but you do not have to be a member of a well regulated or any other kind of militia to be able to carry a gun, keep one in your car or in your home. You simply need a permit.

Sorry if I missed where it is said the pizza guy's carrying of a gun was illegal in any way where he was located or if he did not have a carry permit. The other side of the coin is that government does interefere, has been for years, by issuing people licenses to carry or possess a gun.

This isn't Denmark. We have enough guns, legal and illegal, in America to sink Denmark. So long as we have disease we need antibiotics. If America could somehow vaccinate against or rid itself of the disease, we could throw away our guns. There would be nothing better. We could ship them all to Denmark where they will be melted down and turned into sculpture.

Delivery drivers carrying sums of cash are frequent targets of scam calls. Domino's and other delivery chains don't like to publicize the fact they are targeted by callers who lure cash-carrying drivers into traps for the purpose of armed robbery, often ending in injury or death, usually to the driver and sometimes to the perpetrators. The real drama here is that Pizza Hut doesn't want the publicity caused by a driver fighting back and winning. They are in effect telling their drivers to give up the cash, take a beating or stand and be killed. They are the scumbags here. I have no problem with my delivery guy coming to the door, pizza in hand, but adequately protected against the possibility of armed robbery. I also make sure he gets a good tip. He or she deserve it, that's the only money they really make. Around here food delivery drivers use their own cars, wash their own clothes, buy their own gas and oil and are practically self employed as tips is the only money they make. I say to this driver good riddance to PizzaHut. If I had a pizza resataurant I'd hire him in a minute. He is a deterrent against any scam calls.

And while we are all talking about company rules here, have we been skeptical enough to know if Pizza Hut, etc. actually has clause in its employment agreement with its drivers prohibiting them from legally carrying a gun, happen to have one legally in their private cars which their employer's happen require them to use? If you are having a Tupperware party and are required to use your home, does the franchisor require you to remove all guns from the house during the party?

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Why is it "unfair" to fire him? He willingly broke a company rule. If he didn't like it at PH, he could find a job elsewhere.

As I said in the very first paragraph, I disagree with those claims. PLEASE read what I wrote, for ONCE!!!

[shanek]

Piggybacking:Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
Are you arguing again for government intervention into the affairs of a private company? That seems to be the Libertarian Party platform.

:rolleyes:

Notice how the bigots keep attributing a position to me when I made it perfectly clear in my OPENING PARAGRAPH that I didn't agree with it?

[Checkmite]

I know what your position is, shane. Let me add my opinion and agree with you that the company had every right to fire this guy.

When you work for a company, they have the right to dictate your behavior to an extent. They can decide what you can and can't wear while you're "on the clock", for instance. And they can insist that their employees not carry firearms while doing their jobs. Of course, once the employee is off the clock, he can do whatever he wants.

On the other hand, let me also agree with you that the rules can be relaxed a bit in the case of delivery drivers, or other people who while performing their duties must venture into lonely and often dangerous territory. If they're using a private vehicle, they should have that option.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by materia3
Excuse me, but you do not have to be a member of a well regulated or any other kind of militia to be able to carry a gun, keep one in your car or in your home. You simply need a permit.

That's right. But Mr Honeycutt said it was a constitutional right. I simply corrected him.

Originally posted by materia3

Sorry if I missed where it is said the pizza guy's carrying of a gun was illegal in any way where he was located or if he did not have a carry permit. The other side of the coin is that government does interefere, has been for years, by issuing people licenses to carry or possess a gun.

This isn't Denmark. We have enough guns, legal and illegal, in America to sink Denmark. So long as we have disease we need antibiotics. If America could somehow vaccinate or rid itself of the disease, we could throw away our guns. There would be nothing better.

Delivery drivers carrying sums of cash are frequent targets of scam calls. Domino's and other delivery chains don't like to publicize the fact they are targeted by callers who lure cash-carrying drivers into traps for the purpose of armed robbery, often ending in injury or death, usually to the driver and sometimes to the perpetrators. The real drama here is that Pizza Hut doesn't want the publicity caused by a driver fighting back and winning. They are in effect telling their drivers to give up the cash, take a beating or stand and be killed. They are the scumbags here. I have no problem with my delivery guy coming to the door, pizza in hand, but adequately protected against the possibility of armed robbery. I also make sure he gets a good tip. He or she deserve it, that's the only money they really make. Around here food delivery drivers use their own cars, wash their own clothes, buy their own gas and oil and are practically self employed as tips is the only money they make. I say to this driver good riddance to PizzaHut. If I had a pizza resataurant I'd hire him in a minute. He is a deterrent against any scam calls.

And while we are all talking about company rules here, have we been skeptical enough to know if Pizza Hut, etc. actually has clause in its employment agreement with its drivers prohibiting them from legally carrying a gun, happen to have one legally in their private cars which their employer's happen require them to use? If you are having a Tupperware party and are required to use your home, does the franchisor require you to remove all guns from the house during the party?

As for the rest of it, I had trouble figuring out what you were babbling on about.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by shanek
Piggybacking:

:rolleyes:

Notice how the bigots keep attributing a position to me when I made it perfectly clear in my OPENING PARAGRAPH that I didn't agree with it?

:rolleyes:

Ahem, bigot:

although I think if it's in one's own vehicle that's a different matter

And besides bigot, you said I was on your ignore list after I embareesed you too many times. Well, I guess that was a lie. Which makes you, in addition to a psuedo-skeptic and a woo-woo, a LIAR!

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
As I said in the very first paragraph, I disagree with those claims. PLEASE read what I wrote, for ONCE!!!

I wasn't referring to what you wrote. You didn't mention "fair" or "unfair" once, yet you immediately assume that I was talking about what you wrote. And saw it as an attack.

You need to understand that it is possible for others to address only the contents of the links you show. Why do you see every post as an attack on you?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I wasn't referring to what you wrote. You didn't mention "fair" or "unfair" once, yet you immediately assume that I was talking about what you wrote. And saw it as an attack.

You need to understand that it is possible for others to address only the contents of the links you show. Why do you see every post as an attack on you?

Me thinks shanek has some anger management issues.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I wasn't referring to what you wrote. You didn't mention "fair" or "unfair" once, yet you immediately assume that I was talking about what you wrote.

Oh, so whom were you asking the question to, the sky? Give me a break...If I had made that assumption you would have accused me of refusing to answer the question. You've pulled that crap far too often in other threads, you woo-woo.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
Oh, so whom were you asking the question to, the sky? Give me a break...If I had made that assumption you would have accused me of refusing to answer the question. You've pulled that crap far too often in other threads, you woo-woo.

How could I possibly address you, if you didn't use the word??

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
Me thinks shanek has some anger management issues.

Unchecked, yes.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
How could I possibly address you, if you didn't use the word??

Exactly what I've asked you in several other threads.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by materia3
We have enough guns, legal and illegal, in America to sink Denmark.

Psschaw. As if that's supposed to be impressive. Denmark's practically sunk already - do you know what the highest point in Denmark is? ;-p

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
Exactly what I've asked you in several other threads.

Just answer the question.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Psschaw. As if that's supposed to be impressive. Denmark's practically sunk already - do you know what the highest point in Denmark is? ;-p

Oh, hush.

[materia3]

It was unfair to fire him because they fired him for fighting back and winning. If he had done so without a gun, but with a baseball bat or his fists it would have been just as unfair because these comanies have another policy, a rule; they tell their drivers not to fight back, not to defend themselves. And while this may sound like a reasonable policy to somebody wearing a suit in the home office, they are not nor are they ever looking down the barrel of a gun from the wrong way. These know-it-all self rightous idiots need to face that kind of reality before they make rules that get their delivery guys maimed and killled. This is the same sort of pathetic logic we see time and again in other issues. Rules such as these, with no force of law (if you were legally permitted to carry a gun, say) are made to be bent and even broken given the local situation on the ground.

As for the rest of it, I had trouble figuring out what you were babbling on about.

Here, let's see if I can make it clearer for you:

1. People are licensed and permitted to legally carry firearms by the government authority where they live, usually States but sometimes cities (as in NYC).

2. It is questionnable whether a private company such as Pizza Hut can make a rule and be the law unto themselves when such rules explicitly counteracts one's legal right, given by government, to say carry a firearm. I wonder if it were some other government sanctioned and licensed privilege whether there would be so much hullabaloo about the subject.

3. Pizza delivery chains are the targets of armed robbers who call them with phoney rders to trap drivers carrying cash so they can be robbed, maimed or killed. This happens every day throughut the U.S. It is a known fact that these delivery guys get ripped off daily. I have a friend whose son who went to work for Dominos in Queens who has been robbed three times, and beaten severely (last time) once. He no longer works for them to say the least. The manager of his store on the first robbery asked him to make good on the lost money and pizza pie. These are the scum-bags (like the Pizza Hut brass) we are talking about. In one case in Florida I am aware of there were more than 40 such assaults (over 3 months) and three delivery boy deaths. The police wanted to go undercover and start delivering pizza to catch these robbers. The delivery chain refused to cooperate. This was back in the 1970s and never made it to the press but is from personal knowledge of the situation. The perpetrators were finally caught w/o the cooperation of the company by having undercover cars follow the delivery guys into areas where the chance of a robbery was high. The companies, knowingly or not, set up these kids to be bait.

4. And finally, as a skeptic, I ask to see the written contract or agreement this driver had with Pizza Hut which he and they signed and agreed to which specifically prohibited him from legally carrying a firearm in his personal vehicle he is required to use to deliver or on his person. Legally. Allowed by law. And if such a rule exists, I suggest it violates this driver's legal rights. Noti ce I did not say constititional but if a state constitution or charter allows the state to legally permit him to carry a firearm a case could be made for that as well.

I hope this makes my babble clearer for you.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Just answer the question.

I have. In almost every thread, you have been engaging in a "magician's force" with this kind of question. In the past, when I've taken it as a general question, you've accused me of not answering the question. So now, I did, in which case you flamed me saying you weren't asking it directly of me. Your tactics are obvious. You're just mad because I called you on it.

[Donks]

Originally posted by shanek
But you really have to wonder what some of these employers think they're achieving...

I agree with your position that Pizza Hut can have a rule regarding weapons. And I'll tell you what I think they are achieving. The job of a delivery man includes in great part going into the private property of dozens of citizens, while I don't know if it is legal to go into other people's property armed, Pizza Hut would expose themselves to huge lawsuits in the event that something did happen and the delivery man used the gun on a customer (no matter how rare the event might be).

[Tmy]

Right. Chances are Pizza Hut will be sued from this guys family. They need to have this policy in order to protect themselves from liability.

[materia3]

Originally posted by Donks
I agree with your position that Pizza Hut can have a rule regarding weapons. And I'll tell you what I think they are achieving. The job of a delivery man includes in great part going into the private property of dozens of citizens, while I don't know if it is legal to go into other people's property armed, Pizza Hut would expose themselves to huge lawsuits in the event that something did happen and the delivery man used the gun on a customer (no matter how rare the event might be).

This post is interesting because it, in part, describes a case currently going on in New York right now. A retired NYC police detective, still allowed and legally entitled to carry his gun, was in a deli. Under some circumstance still uncertain the gun went off and killed a young deli clerk behind the counter. There are several versions of how this happened. One, by another clerk, said the man brought out his gun to show it off to the clerk and it went off accidentally. Another version is that the gun went off when the man reached for his beeper which was going off. In any case the clerk was shot dead. There was no malice, no robbery and it was some sort of tragic accident.

Guns do cause accidents.

The retired cop was arrested and is going to be charged or has been charged with reckless endangerment.

The question arises if there is a financial or legal liability, whose is it? The retired cop, the store, the NYPD for allowing him to retain and continue to carry his weapon (a well established policy)? Off (active) duty cops are also required to carry their badges and their firearms. Should the store have had a sign posted saying no guns? Should every premises in America, commercial or private, CYA by posting a no guns rule? Would this, in turn, violate anyone's legal right to carry a gun?

I guess this is what insurance is for, as tragic as such circumstances can be. But even more tragic would be the death of an innocent being preyed upon by an armed attacker. Pizza Hut can insure and is probably insured against such events (no doubt they will be sued by the robber's family...have seen this happen also).

Given the rarity of such events, insurance companies should have no problem covering them or their defense at least. The dead hold-up guy's family may sue but they are not likely to get much save the funeral expenses. The Getz (sp?) case in NY is an example of this. The citizen put one of his attackers in a wheelchair with a shot to the base of the spine.

The guy went to prison, got out and was arrested again for something else I think rape (nice guy eh?) but still tried to sue Getz for crippling him.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
I have. In almost every thread, you have been engaging in a "magician's force" with this kind of question. In the past, when I've taken it as a general question, you've accused me of not answering the question. So now, I did, in which case you flamed me saying you weren't asking it directly of me. Your tactics are obvious. You're just mad because I called you on it.

I'm not mad - I'm not the one screaming my head off in a frenzied rage, remember? I just think that your attempt of dragging this down to a kindergarten level is hardly productive for an honest debate.

"Tit-for-tat", is that how it is going to be? How childish can you get, shanek?

[materia3]

The job of a delivery man includes in great part going into the private property of dozens of citizens,

Not exactly They are required to go ONto the property to reach the front door of a premises. They are not, nor should they ever go into a premises. They should remain outside the premises, hand over the pizza and receive their money at the door, not inside it. No delivery guy/gal should accept an invitation to go inside, nor should any customer invite a delivery guy/gal inside unless both parties knew each other. Even then I would have to say knew each other well, e.g. with mutual trust.

[Donks]

Originally posted by materia3
Not exactly They are required to go ONto the property to reach the front door of a premises. They are not, nor should they ever go into a premises. They should remain outside the premises, hand over the pizza and receive their money at the door, not inside it. No delivery guy/gal should accept an invitation to go inside, nor should any customer invite a delivery guy/gal inside unless both parties knew each other. Even then I would have to say knew each other well, e.g. with mutual trust.
The front porch of a house is private property, isn't it? They may not get inside the door, but unless they stay on the sidewalk or the street I don't see how they can avoid going into private property.

[materia3]

Property is not premises. There is a distinction and it's more than merely a fine line. The front porch is property, as is the path leading to the porch and the front door.

Being inside ones premises as opposed to merely being on one's property has legal ramifications not only for this obviously but in other instances. I cannot, for example, reasonably decide to shoot and kill someone who is walking on my lawn, is on my porch (and may be lost and seeking directions) or on the path from the public sidewalk to my house (which, said path, is my property). I could reasonably ask a tresspasser to remove themselves from my property but I cannot risk shooting them without knowing what their purpose was.

The exception may be premises open to the public such as commercial establishments. In this case smeone may be inside the premises during normal business hours and the owner or his agents have the right to ask them to leave but cannot shoot them withut first ascertaining that they or others are at risk of being killed. The mere presence or threat of a gun on the part of the intruder is sufficient cause. Police shoot and kill such individuals all the time.

On the other hand if a stranger is walking around inside my house who was not invited by me to do so, this person(s) can be construed to be up to no good and I would be legally entitled to assault and even shoot him.

[Donks]

Is there a legal distinction for Pizza Hut if their delivery man shoots the customer while on the lawn or inside the house?

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I'm not mad - I'm not the one screaming my head off in a frenzied rage, remember? I just think that your attempt of dragging this down to a kindergarten level is hardly productive for an honest debate.

"Tit-for-tat", is that how it is going to be? How childish can you get, shanek?

YOU'RE the one refusing to take responsibility for your own words. YOU'RE the one dragging this through the mud. From your VERY FIRST POST in this thread, using the EXACT SAME TACTICS you've used in just about every other thread. Pathetic.

[materia3]

Originally posted by Donks
Is there a legal distinction for Pizza Hut if their delivery man shoots the customer while on the lawn or inside the house?

That would depend on the circumstance. There would be no distinction if the customer announced he was robbing the delivery man and pointed a gun or uttered a threat of a gun at the delivery man. The delivery man should not have been inside the premises unless he was invited in by the so-called customer.

If the delivery man was confronted by an armed robber anywhere, inside, outside on the property or on the public street he would be legally entitled to defend himself. Last time I heard self-defense is a cogent and valid defense against being charged with murder. Imminency of the threat is often a factor such as in the cases of battered women who claim self-defense for killing their abusive husbands while failing to make other remedies available to themselves. These are tough and heart rending cases. If the threat to life, yours or others, is imminent and unambiguous, however, there is no reason not to defend
oneself or others.

[Donks]

Originally posted by materia3
That would depend on the circumstance. There would be no distinction if the customer announced he was robbing the delivery man and pointed a gun or uttered a threat of a gun at the delivery man. The delivery man should not have been inside the premises unless he was invited in by the so-called customer.
If the delivery man was confronted by an armed robber anywhere, inside, outside on the property or on the public street he would be legallt entitled to defend himself. Last time I heard self-defense is a cogent and valid defense against being charged with murder. Imminency of the threat is often a factor such as in the cases of battered women who claim self-defense for killing their abusive husbands while failing to make other remedies available to themselves. These are tough and heart rending cases. If the threat to life, yours or others, is imminent and unambiguous, however, there is no reason not to defend oneself
or others.

I think you missed my entire point. The circumstances I mentioned is when the Pizza Hut delivery man shot the customer (particularly not in self defense). That's when Pizza Hut would be most vulnerable, as they sent the delivery man to the person's house. I don't know why you brought up robbery again.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
YOU'RE the one refusing to take responsibility for your own words. YOU'RE the one dragging this through the mud. From your VERY FIRST POST in this thread, using the EXACT SAME TACTICS you've used in just about every other thread. Pathetic.

Still screaming your head off in a frenzied rage, I guess.

[materia3]

Originally posted by Donks
I think you missed my entire point. The circumstances I mentioned is when the Pizza Hut delivery man shot the customer (particularly not in self defense). That's when Pizza Hut would be most vulnerable, as they sent the delivery man to the person's house. I don't know why you brought up robbery again.

Yes, I certainly did miss your point since your scenario was non-specific and did not include any circumstance. Circumstance is everything.

But you still did not come back with the circumstance. You said not in self-defense which leaves a lot of territory out there uncovered. Please be more specific. I will assume for now you mean accident: gun is dropped and goes off kinda thing.

If someone is accidentally shot and killed, everyone gets sued regardless of what rules Pizza Hut or anyone else has. They will be sued anyway. Having the rule is unlikely to mitigate their liability if they in fact are found to have any liability for an accident that results from someone doing something they are legally allowed to do: e.g. carry a gun (with a permit) or drive a car (with a driver's license). You and I both know that they are more likely to be sued for a car accident than a gun accident. In fact I don't even think the latter has ever happened. And yes they are insured. SO if the insurer weighs the risks versus the benefits, they would be the one's to call that shot (forigve the pun).

On the other hand making a no-carry policy (or a no-in-car weapon rule) company policy, violating an employee's legal rights to carry or posess that weapon and that employee is shot and killed by a robber (something that happens frequently) puts them at far greater risk. We will never know since the company settles these cases. You may ask why and I stated that they are extremely shy of any publicity for these cases since it will prevent them from carrying out their business by even recruiting drivers.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Still screaming your head off in a frenzied rage, I guess.

He just doesn't get it.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
He just doesn't get it.

Oh, yes, he does. Shanek is not stupid. He just doesn't want to get it.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by materia3
It was unfair to fire him because they fired him for fighting back and winning.

Nooooooo.....they fired him for violating company policy by carrying a gun.

Originally posted by materia3
If he had done so without a gun, but with a baseball bat or his fists it would have been just as unfair because these comanies have another policy, a rule; they tell their drivers not to fight back, not to defend themselves.


Can you post a link to this "rule"? Oh, and by the way, most police departments offer the same advice.

Originally posted by materia3
2. It is questionnable whether a private company such as Pizza Hut can make a rule and be the law unto themselves when such rules explicitly counteracts one's legal right, given by government, to say carry a firearm. I wonder if it were some other government sanctioned and licensed privilege whether there would be so much hullabaloo about the subject.

Actually, it's not questionable at all. I have a right to wear a t-shirt that says "Domino's Pizza Tastes The Best!!!" Are you suggesting that Pizza Hut cannot have a policy against employees wearing such a shirt while on duty? Absurd.

Originally posted by materia3 I have a friend whose son who went to work for Dominos in Queens who has been robbed three times, and beaten severely (last time) once. He no longer works for them to say the least. The manager of his store on the first robbery asked him to make good on the lost money and pizza pie.

It sounds like he made the correct decision in quitting.

Originally posted by materia3
In one case in Florida I am aware of there were more than 40 such assaults (over 3 months) and three delivery boy deaths. The police wanted to go undercover and start delivering pizza to catch these robbers. The delivery chain refused to cooperate. This was back in the 1970s and never made it to the press but is from personal knowledge of the situation. The perpetrators were finally caught w/o the cooperation of the company by having undercover cars follow the delivery guys into areas where the chance of a robbery was high. The companies, knowingly or not, set up these kids to be bait.

Assuming your "personal knowledge of the situation" is accurate, Pizza Hut did the right thing. What if the undercover pizza delivery boy/cop gets into a gun battle with the robbers and an innocent bystander gets killed? Guess who gets sued? Give up? I'll give you a hint - the initials are P.H.

Originally posted by materia3
4. And finally, as a skeptic, I ask to see the written contract or agreement this driver had with Pizza Hut which he and they signed and agreed to which specifically prohibited him from legally carrying a firearm in his personal vehicle he is required to use to deliver or on his person. Legally. Allowed by law. And if such a rule exists, I suggest it violates this driver's legal rights. Notice I did not say constititional but if a state constitution or charter allows the state to legally permit him to carry a firearm a case could be made for that as well.

Perhaps you can call Pizza Hut and obtain a copy of their employee manual. I doubt you'll get one. And, oh, I also doubt a minimum wage pizza delivery boy would have an employment "contract".

Originally posted by materia3
I hope this makes my babble clearer for you.

It does. It also makes it clear that you are mistaken.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Oh, yes, he does. Shanek is not stupid. He just doesn't want to get it.

Point well made.

[materia3]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
Nooooooo.....they fired him for violating company policy by carrying a gun.

If pizza delivery boys do not have employment agreements, then there is no policy to which the delivery person agreed to.

Can you post a link to this "rule"? Oh, and by the way, most police departments offer the same advice.

sorry no, it is common knowledge as you youself admit. The problem is in some situations it can get you killed. Might as well go to Iraq.Oh well.



Actually, it's not questionable at all. I have a right to wear a t-shirt that says "Domino's Pizza Tastes The Best!!!" Are you suggesting that Pizza Hut cannot have a policy against employees wearing such a shirt while on duty? Absurd.

In a highly publicized case last year a Coca Cola driver got fired for openly drinking Pepsi while unloading cases of Coke. I think he won that case but it sorta dissapeared off the airwaves or hasnt been litigated yet.

Do you think their is a no-competitor tee-shirt rule in PH's emloyee manual? In any case your example does not rise to the life or death level this matter aspires to.

It sounds like he made the correct decision in quitting.

without a doubt.

Assuming your "personal knowledge of the situation" is accurate, Pizza Hut did the right thing. What if the undercover pizza delivery boy/cop gets into a gun battle with the robbers and an innocent bystander gets killed? Guess who gets sued? Give up? I'll give you a hint - the initials are P.H.

it wasn't PH, they actually stopped delivering in the area. It was the big D. Their drivers were heavily targeted throughout the area (Palm Beach and Broward) for a year+. And yes, they got sued but not by the perpetrators, but by the families of the dead drivers and by the injured and maimed drivers. Frankly I would have rather risk taking a chance of getting sued by the perps who don't have much of a leg to stand on then by their own employees or worse, their survivors, who they send out as targets, complete with beanies, colorful shirts and lighted signs strapped to the roof of their cars, advertising "hey, come get me."


Perhaps you can call Pizza Hut and obtain a copy of their employee manual. I doubt you'll get one. And, oh, I also doubt a minimum wage pizza delivery boy would have an employment "contract".

yes, I agree, no contract meaning in effect there is no agreement. The company is going to get sued no matter what the drivers do if somebody is injured and killed.

........It also makes it clear that you are mistaken.

....about what exactly? That a driver legally allowed to carry a firearm and does, and then uses it to save his life or that of others is entitled to be fired for his actions? If so, I agree. As I said before, he should say good riddance to Pizza Hut. He has the courage and conviction to aspire to a better job. Insofar as PH is concerned, they should get all the bad press they deserve in this case, which translates into boycotts and lost income, something they are worried about on their insurer's behalf but apparently not on the side of their own drivers. This type of criminal is apt to have done this before and would have done it again. Not only has this man saved his own life, he quite possibly saved the lives of others. He deserves a medal.The idiots at PH who made this rule are just that, idiots.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by materia3
If pizza delivery boys do not have employment agreements, then there is no policy to which the delivery person agreed to.

Great! Then if there is no employment agreement, I guess Pizza Hut doesn't have to pay them.

Originally posted by materia3
sorry no, it is common knowledge as you youself admit. The problem is in some situations it can get you killed. Might as well go to Iraq.Oh well.

Where did I say this Pizza Hut "rule" was common knowledge? What does Iraq have to do with delivering pizza?

Originally posted by materia3
In a highly publicized case last year a Coca Cola driver got fired for openly drinking Pepsi while unloading cases of Coke. I think he won that case but it sorta dissapeared off the airwaves or hasnt been litigated yet.

Link?

Originally posted by materia3
Do you think their is a no-competitor tee-shirt rule in PH's emloyee manual?

No. There is also probably no rule against punching a customer in the nose, or spitting on their pizza. So unless something is specifically prohibited in the employment manual, it is ok to do? Are you really that naive?

Originally posted by materia3
In any case your example does not rise to the life or death level this matter aspires to.

So an employee cannot be fired for breaking company policy unless it rises to the level of life or death? Interesting legal theory...


Originally posted by materia3

it wasn't PH, they actually stopped delivering in the area. It was the big D.

Oh, I see. Since it was Domino's instead of Pizza Hut, I guess my analogy is completly void.

Originally posted by materia3
yes, I agree, no contract meaning in effect there is no agreement.

Oh believe me, there is definitley an agreement. Have you ever had a job? What are you, like 14?

[materia3]

None of your responses have much merit and since suffering fools lightly is not something one should waste their time on, I leave you to consider the morality of your position. What makes you think Dominos or PH drivers are paid by the company? They are franchises and have different arrangements, most of which allow drivers to be compensated by tips only. The customer is paying the drivers, not PH or Dominos which merely gives them a franchise to deliver their pissas and get those tips. The drivers must supply their own cars, auto liability insurance, gas, oil and reapirs. In addition they wash their own uniforms. They get next to nothing from these parasitic agencies and are now not allowed to protect themselves and when they do they lose their franchise. And what makes you think there is an difference between PH and Dominos or that I care. I corrected the subject of your assertion for purposes of accuracy and in the event anyone wishes to research the attacks on DOminos drivers mentioned. It is is only necessary for you to acknowledge that. Both companies where their drivers safety is concerned are no different: they don't give a damn.

In response to your one serious question, demanding a link to the driver fired for drinking pepi case, I offer you the following, a few of 8,100 on the case, searching Google: "Coca Cola driver fired for Drinking Pepsi on the Job"

From page 1 of hundreds on Google:

The cola wars get personal - Jun. 16, 2003... a Coke (KO: Research, Estimates) delivery truck driver was fired for drinking ... Santangelo said Rick Bronson, a driver who had been with Coca-Cola Bottling Co ...
money.cnn.com/2003/06/13/news/funny/coke_pepsi/ - 45k - Dec 10, 2004 - Cached - Similar pages


BeyondUnreal Forums - Fired for drinking Pepsi...... 34 PM. LOS ANGELES (AFP) - A US truck driver who worked ... The union alleges that Coke fired Bronson under a company rule ... A spokesman for the Coca-Cola Bottling Co ...
forums.beyondunreal.com/archive/index.php/t-108486.html - 9k - Cached - Similar pages


On the Fritz - Observations of Modern Life: Pepsi Drops 'Joy of ...... alleged a Coke delivery truck driver was fired for drinking a ... to feature, Rick Bromide, the terminated Coke driver who had been with Coca-Cola Bottling Co. ...
www.fritzliess.com/movabletype/archives/001389.html - 13k - Cached - Similar pages


REM Fan Forums - Drink a Pepsi, lose your job?... Research, Estimates) delivery truck driver was fired for drinking a ... Santangelo said Rick Bronson, a driver who had been with the Coca-Cola Bottling Company ...
www.myrem.com/archive/index.pages/t-8872.html - 10k - Cached - Similar pages


Coke Driver Allegedly Fired For Drinking Pepsi..12 yrs driving for ...... in arms Friday after a 12-year route driver for Coke ... Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 848, was fired Thursday after ... "Coke is really grasping at straws on this one ...
www.hypocrites.com/article12708.html - 19k - Cached - Similar pages


local6.com - News - Coke Driver Allegedly Fired For Drinking Pepsi... in arms Friday after a 12-year route driver for Coke ... International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 848, was fired Thursday after ... Bob Phillips of the Coca-Cola Co ...
www.local6.com/news/2270427/detail.html - 49k - Cached - Similar pages


Coca-Cola Teamster Fired for Drinking Pepsi Gets Job Back... CA) – A Southern California area Teamster that was fired from his job with Coca-Cola for the sole ... Rick Bronson, a 12-year route driver for Coke with a ...
www.teamster.org/03news/nr_030718_1.htm - 10k - Cached - Similar pages


Teamsters Online: Brewery & Soft Drink Conference: Newsletters ...... A Southern California-area Teamster that was fired from his job with Coca-Cola for the sole ... Rick Bronson, a 12-year route driver for Coke with a spotless ...
www.teamster.org/divisions/ brew/newsletters/fall03news.htm - 39k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from www.teamster.org ]


CNN.com - Union disputes firing of Coke driver who drank Pepsi ...... Instead, the union contends, Rick Bronson was fired for promoting the union to ... Santangelo said Bronson, a driver who had been with the Coca-Cola Bottling Co ...
edition.cnn.com/2003/US/ Northeast/06/13/coke.pepsi.firing/ - 32k - Cached - Similar pages

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by materia3
None of your responses have much merit and since suffering fools lightly is not something one should waste their time on

You aren't very bright. And since I like smacking around stupid people, I will continue with you...

Originally posted by materia3
What makes you think Dominos or PH drivers are paid by the company?

It makes no difference who pays them, or whether they are paid at all. Listen very carefully - They are acting as agents of the company, therefore the company is allowed to set rules for their conduct.

Originally posted by materia3
They are franchises and have different arrangements, most of which allow drivers to be compensated by tips only. The customer is paying the drivers, not PH or Dominos which merely gives them a franchise to deliver their pissas and get those tips. The drivers must supply their own cars, auto liability insurance, gas, oil and reapirs. In addition they wash their own uniforms.

Are you really claiming that each individual driver has a franchise agreement with Pizza Hut International? Because that is what you wrote. Or is English a second language for you?

Originally posted by materia3
They get next to nothing from these parasitic agencies and are now not allowed to protect themselves and when they do they lose their franchise.

If they are not employed by the company, then they shouldn't get anything from them. They are independant contractors. Or are you now changing your story?

Originally posted by materia3
In response to your one serious question, demanding a link to the driver fired for drinking pepi case, I offer you the following, a few of 8,100 on the case, searching Google: "Coca Cola driver fired for Drinking Pepsi on the Job"

Unless there is a pizza drivers union, and that union has a contract with Pizza Hut, it has no relevance at all to the Coke case. And, if as you say the drivers do not get a paycheck, then from where does the union deduct its membership fees? Hmmm?

[materia3]

For those party to this discussion who have not researched it, there are several side issues which greatly concern PH, Dominos and other food delivery operations. One is to arm both store and delivery personnel and the other is the formation of a national pizza deliveers union which will send the big chains and many smaller companies howling. Can one say they brought it on themselves? I do. The other issue is Domino's failure to redline areas where there is high crime rate. They have a policy about doing this but do not let their delivery people know about it.

Domino's routinely sends drivers back into unsafe, crime ridden areas right after another driver is assaulted, robbed or murdered. Failure to make the run is grounds for dismissal or rather losing the franchise. The following document which now appears on the USDOJ website IS NOT distributed to or made availabvle to drivers which is a remarkable circumstance in of itself. The Association of Pizza Delivery Drivers has reproduced it and I reproduce here. It's too bad nobody delivering pizzas knows about it, at least not many.:

This document has not been pilfered in any way from any Domino's store. Indeed, it would be interesting to see if it could be found at one. Instead, this page has been copied verbatim from a US Department of Justice web page, which makes it a matter of public record. Domino's is copyrighted by, and a trademark of, Domino's Pizza, LLC.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


DELIVERY AREA SECURITY
PROCEDURE MANUAL

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


BACKGROUND
Violent crime is a reality in various geographic areas. Consequently, under certain circumstances a good business plan probably includes a procedure to investigate whether it may be unsafe or impractical to offer delivery service to every customer in the store's delivery area at all times the store is open.

Being in the position of having to investigate the practicalities of limiting delivery service is a difficult one that should be made only by, or under the supervision of, upper level management. Appropriate policies and procedures for the investigation of the circumstances can be useful to assist management in promoting the safety of employees; further fair and ethical business practices; and, enhance good will in the communities. Above all, safety of employees must continue to be the top priority.


OBJECTIVES

Our primary mission is to safely deliver each and every order in such a way that we always exceed our Customer's expectations for product, service, image and value. Ideally, we will accomplish this mission for every person who resides in our delivery areas. Realistically, we understand there may be situations where delivery service is not totally free of all limitations. However, arbitrary decisions to limit delivery service, without a documented and legitimate basis for the decision, do not serve our best interest or those of the residents of our communities. We can establish objectives to assist us in accomplishing our mission; such as:


Identify areas within the delivery and service areas of stores that may present an unreasonable risk of harm to employees making deliveries.

Create policies and procedures designed to help assess the degree of risk involved in making deliveries to a specific area.

Identify persons to be charged with the responsibility of investigating the circumstances pursuant to written policies and procedures.

Implement the policies and procedures in the stores.

Enlist the support of the community in resolving the problems that cause the need for delivery limitations.

Monitor any limitations and be prepared for change.

DOMINO'S PIZZA, INC.'S LIMITED DELIVERY SERVICE POLICY

Safety of employees must continue to be the top priority.

Only documented and legitimate concerns can serve as a reason for appropriately deciding to limit delivery service.

FACTORS SUCH AS RACE, NATIONAL ORIGIN, RELIGION, SEX, AGE, OR ANY OTHER CHARACTERISTIC PROTECTED BY LAW, SHALL NEVER BE LEGITIMATE CONSIDERATIONS IN DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT TO LIMIT DELIVERY SERVICE.

In the event any person running a shift in a store operated by Domino's Pizza, Inc., or that person's supervisor, has a good faith reason to believe that conditions in the store or the store's delivery area are such that the workplace is no longer reasonably safe for team members to perform their duties of employment, or the store becomes aware of a complaint by any person about the store's delivery practices, the person running the shift is to immediately report the situation and/or complaint by calling the Domino's Pizza Hotline at 1-800-284-0911. Domino's Pizza, Inc. will promptly investigate all calls and determine whether delivery service should be suspended or limited in order to protect the safety and well being of team members.

In the event of extraordinary circumstances that indicate immediate action is required in order to promote the safety and well-being of team members, the person running the shift may temporarily suspend or limit delivery service to the limited area presenting an unreasonable risk of harm to team members. Although it is impossible to identify every one of these circumstances, some examples of situations which indicate an immediate response include multiple security incidents at a specific location, a security-related injury to an employee, police action in response to an event in a delivery area, civil unrest, or serious threats of harm to employees. The person running the shift, or the supervisor, must still immediately report the situation to the Domino's Pizza Hotline at 1-800-284-0911.

Limitations on delivery service are to be reviewed under the direction of the Director of Safety and Security on an annual basis, or more frequently as circumstances may warrant, to determine whether or not there has been a change in circumstances that will permit a reduction in or elimination of limitations on delivery service. The Delivery Service Committee shall determine whether to change or affirm the limitations.

Failure to follow this Policy and the procedures implementing the Policy may result in disciplinary action, up to and including immediate termination of employment.

PROCEDURES

Every area is different. Consequently, it is difficult to establish hard and fast rules for every set of circumstances. For example, how many incidents are too many to permit safe and unrestricted delivery service? What if there is a low frequency of incidents, but one serious incident occurs in an area? Does one serious incident warrant limiting delivery service? Suppose it becomes known that other businesses have been the victim of security incidents but Domino's Pizza employees have not experienced problems? Do those facts warrant limiting service? Finally, what kind of change in circumstances is needed before normal delivery service can be resumed? Those may be questions without a single right answer and that makes providing the best delivery service possible to all of our customers while keeping the safety of team members a top priority a difficult task.


BASIC PRINCIPLES
Having recognized that there are numerous ways to accomplish our mission, there are some basic principles that serve as the foundation for our procedures concerning delivery security issues, including:


Safety of employees must continue to be the top priority.

Only documented and legitimate concerns can serve as a reason for appropriately deciding to limit delivery service.

Factors such as race, national origin, religion, sex, age, or any other characteristic protected by law, shall never be legitimate considerations in deciding whether or not to limit delivery service.

IDENTIFICATION OF AREAS
Management can not act if it is unaware of a situation. Our first step is to obtain .information about the possibility that an area may not be reasonably safe at all times, or that an area that was once considered unsafe needs to be re-evaluated. Allow store employees to report facts known to them. Local management and team members need to monitor events that occur in a store's delivery and service area. Store employees should build a cooperative relationship with local law enforcement officers and other businesses that make deliveries in the area. Generally, team members are to know their customers and the store's delivery area.


POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
Step One: Request for Investigation. Make a request for an investigation as to whether or not an area is reasonably safe to make deliveries at all times by calling the Domino's Pizza Hotline at 1800-284-0911.

When calling in a request for investigation be prepared to give the following information:


Name and telephone number of the person making the request;

Date of request;

Specific area in question;

Detailed summary of the reason for the request; and,

Any suggestions as to what measures could be taken to continue to make deliveries to the area.
Step Two: Receipt of Request. Upon receipt of a call requesting an investigation, the persons operating the Domino's Pizza Hotline will generate a written report of the call and deliver the report to the Director of Safety and Security.

The reports and documents associated with each investigation should be kept for the entire time that any limitation on delivery service is in effect and for a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of the Request or for three (3) months following the removal of the limitation. If the documents are possibly needed for litigation or some other lawful purpose, the record retention policy is to be suspended for those particular documents and they are to be transferred to the safekeeping of corporate counsel.

Step Three: Investigation

An investigation of a Request shall be conducted under the direction of the Director of Safety and Security. The investigation shall include a prompt collection of such relevant information as is appropriate, considering the Request, and as is reasonably calculated to facilitate a well-informed consideration of all relevant factors. Appropriate action may include:


Collection of relevant documents;

Collection of relevant information and statistics concerning the area under investigation, where available;

Conducting a thorough visit to the area under investigation and recording the visit with photographs and written notes;

Interviews with store employees, especially those who are more familiar with the area under investigation;

Consultation with law enforcement personnel;

Consultation with representatives from local businesses and community organizations that have a presence in the area under investigation;

Obtaining advice from corporate counsel to ensure compliance with Federal, state and local laws and regulations;

Observing the type of security measures being used by residents and businesses in the area and recording your observations by photographs and/or notes; and,

Such other action as may be deemed necessary or useful to complete the Investigation.
Collection of Documents. Some examples of the kinds of documents that may be collected include:


Prior internal incident reports and complaints;

Relevant worker's compensation documents for employees at the store nearest to the area under investigation;

A list of names, addresses and telephone numbers of store employees and other supervisory personnel whose work may bring them into contact with the area;

Store delivery map;

Information pertaining to the frequency and patterns of other deliveries being made from the store; and,

The facts and circumstances of security incidents which have occurred in the delivery area but outside the area under investigation.
Collection of Relevant Information. Some examples of the kind of relevant information that may be collected include:


Incident Reports from the local police and/or sheriff's department;

Crime analysis of area, if possible;

Newspaper articles concerning the area under investigation;

Delivery policies of other delivery businesses in the area and their experience with deliveries;

The content of training provided to store employees as well as when the training was provided, and the names of the employees who received the training;

Review of performance of store employees, including a review of how well the employees are implementing the safety and security training they have received.
On-Site Visitation. As soon as is practicable after receipt of a Request for Investigation, a personal visit to the entire delivery and service area of the store and the area under investigation may be in order. Consider an actual walk-through of the area under investigation, both during daylight hours and later in the evening. Representative photographs of the area under investigation should be obtained, if possible, and notes of problems, circumstances, names and telephone numbers should be made.

Interviews With Store Employees. As soon as is practicable after receipt of a Request for Investigation, relevant information should be obtained from the store employees, by way of personal interviews, if possible. Relevant information may include personal experiences with the area under investigation; feelings about working in that area; names and addresses of other persons who may have information about the area under investigation; extent of training and the use of the techniques covered in the training material.

Consultation With Law Enforcement Personnel. As soon as is practicable after receipt of a Request for Investigation, a personal visit should be made to local law enforcement agencies to obtain relevant information about prior incidents; law enforcement policies for the area under investigation, and other relevant advice and suggestions. Record the name and badge number of the officer or officers with whom you speak, as well as the date and time of your conversation. If a Freedom of Information Act Request appears necessary to obtain documents from the law enforcement agencies, obtain the name and address of the Freedom of Information Act Officer for the agency. In certain circumstances it may be appropriate to request a heightened presence of law enforcement personnel in the area.

Consultation With Representatives From Local Businesses And Community Organizations. As soon as is practicable after receipt of a Request for Investigation, consider making personal visits to local businesses in the area to learn of their experiences. Interviews with convenience store employees, cab drivers, florist delivery personnel, UPS and Fed Ex drivers, rubbish haulers, utility companies, and other delivery businesses may be sources of information. Also, interviews with local political figures, "block leaders", religious leaders, and leaders of other civic organizations may provide other useful information.

Obtain Advice From Corporate Counsel To Ensure Compliance With Federal, State And Local Laws And Regulations. An experienced corporate counsel can provide an overview of applicable laws and regulations and direct that portion of the investigation that pertains to compliance with the law.

Step Four: Evaluation. Promptly upon the completion of the investigation the information collected is to be presented to the Delivery Service Committee, which shall be a sub committee of the Legal Committee and shall include:


Appropriate upper-level management;

Representatives with training in the areas of safety or security;

Corporate counsel; and,

Other representatives of the company.
The Committee's charge shall be to evaluate the results of the investigation as promptly as possible and to reach a determination as to whether or not deliveries can be made to all or a part of the area under investigation with reasonable safety to employees, based on the information gathered during the investigation. A reasonably safe work environment for employees shall remain the paramount consideration. FACTORS SUCH AS RACE, NATIONAL ORIGIN, RELIGION, SEX, AGE, OR ANY OTHER CHARACTERISTIC PROTECTED BY LAW, WILL NEVER BE CONSIDERED IN THE EVALUATION.

Promptly upon completion of the evaluation, the Committee's recommendations will be delivered to the Operations representative on the Committee for implementation.

Step Five: Other Actions. Simultaneous with the Investigation, the area supervisor shall review the store's training and hiring practices, and the role the store and Domino's Pizza, Inc. plays in the community.

Training. The supervisor should verify that store employees are being properly trained in areas of safety and security. This undertaking is also to serve as an opportunity to heighten awareness of the absolute requirement that all employees must promote anti-discrimination policies and treat everyone with equal respect and courtesy, regardless of age, sex, race, religion, social standing, national origin, or other characteristics protected by law.

Hiring Practices. The supervisor should verify that the store is making reasonable efforts to recruit employees from the area and that all other aspects of the equal employment opportunity policy are being promoted.

Community Involvement. Efforts are to be made to verify that Domino's Pizza, Inc., and the tradename under which it conducts business, is known in the community for participation in appropriate community programs and is a supporter of worthy causes. Meetings with community, religious and political leaders may provide an opportunity to identify problems in the community, such as crime, poor lighting, loitering, unemployment, lack of house numbers, and similar issues, and serve as a way to become a part of the solution to these problems.

Step Six: Decision To Limit Delivery Service.

Once an area has been validly investigated and legitimate safety or other business concerns have been documented, a decision to depart from the standard practice of offering delivery service to all residents of the area during all times the store is open for business may be appropriate. Once this decision is made, Operations shall do the following:

Communicate the Limitations


Advise store employees of the limitations

Explain that the company hopes the limitations are temporary and that it plans to re-evaluate the limitations at a time in the future

Request assistance from store employees in monitoring the circumstances

Advise delivery drivers to not drive through an area where delivery service is limited, during times when service is not offered, in order to make a delivery in another area.
Adjust the Phone Message.

Consider the fact that in advising a customer that the store does not deliver to them, it may be taken to mean that the store is implying that the customer is a security risk. Chances are, the person calling in to place an order is not the cause of the area's problem. The issue of declining to make a delivery can evoke a strong emotional response and store employees should be trained to respond to the caller in an appropriate manner.


Reinforce the importance for store employees to exhibit the utmost sensitivity and courtesy to those customers not receiving full delivery service. All customers should be treated as we would like to be treated in a similar situation.

Forbid the use of terms such as "red zone", "security area", "red lining" and the like. Those terms have negative connotations to some persons and may be considered inappropriate. Those terms should have no place in a Domino's Pizza store. A better term is "limited delivery service area".

From time to time consider offering an alternative such as a special carryout offer.

Train store employees to use the following phone message:
"We do not currently deliver to the address you have given. May I have your name and telephone number so that I may Have someone call you back to discuss our store's delivery policies in greater detail?"


Train store employees to remain polite and courteous even if the caller becomes excited or agitated. If the caller asks to speak to the manager or supervisor that request should be granted or an explanation should be given as to why the manager or supervisor can not come to the phone. The store employee should continue to explain that a return call will be made. In the event the caller remains unsatisfied with the circumstances, despite the store employee's polite efforts, the store employee should politely asked to be excused from the call in order to have the opportunity to contact someone about the caller's concerns and should then immediately report the incident to the Domino's Pizza Hotline at 1-800284-0911.
Step Seven: Monitor the Area and The Decision.

Circumstances may change over time. Reasons once valid to support a decision may at some time become less valid. The decision to limit delivery service shall be reviewed under the direction of the Director of Security on an annual basis, or more frequently as circumstances may warrant, who will report to the Delivery Service Committee, in an effort to detect a substantial change in circumstances that may suggest modifying a delivery practice.

Step Eight: Emergency Response.

Unfortunately, situations may arise which indicate action is required sooner than can be expected from following the procedures outlined above. Although it is impossible to identify every one of these circumstances, some examples of situations which indicate an immediate response include multiple security incidents at a specific location, a security-related injury to an employee, police action in response to an event in a delivery area, civil unrest, or serious threats of harm to employees. Under these limited and extraordinary circumstances, the person running the shift in the store at the time shall have the authority to suspend delivery to the area posing a risk of harm to employees. That action shall be limited to that which is required to promote the safety and well being of employees.

However, the person making the emergency decision shall immediately contact an appropriate supervisor to report the emergency situation. Such a report should be made as soon as is possible, and by initiating a page to the supervisory person if necessary, but no later than 9:00 a.m. the morning following the initiation of the emergency response action. At that time, a more formal investigation could be instituted in accordance with the company's policies. Simply initiating an emergency decision to limit delivery service and placing a call or page to a supervisory person does not mean that local law enforcement personnel should not be called. Report all security incidents to local police.

Step Nine: Sanctions. Failure to follow the established procedures within the time allotted will result in disciplinary action, up to and including immediate termination of employment.


LEGAL ISSUES AND AUTHORITIES

Decisions to limit or suspend delivery service have resulted in claims of illegal discrimination by persons in the area not receiving full delivery service. Problems have arisen because in many instances the area where delivery service has been limited is occupied predominantly by persons of a protected class. While there are few court decisions concerning refusal to deliver, the statutes on which claimants have relied have been in force for 30 years, or longer. It is only the application to delivery service that is relatively new.

Legal authority on which a person can rely in bringing an action for illegal discrimination in Federal Courts because of limited delivery service is Title 11 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a, which provides as follows:

"§2000a. Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation

(a) Equal access. All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

(b) Establishments affecting interstate commerce or supported in their activities by State action as places of public accommodation; lodging; facilities principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises; gasoline stations; places of exhibition or entertainment; other covered establishments. Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title [42 USC §§2000a-2000a-6] if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:

.... (2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station."

Furthermore, the statute makes it illegal for a person to "withhold, deny, or attempt to withhold or deny, or deprive or attempt to deprive, any person of any right or privilege secured by § 2000a or § 2000a-l."

Most, if not all, states and a large number of local governments have enacted similar or even broader laws and ordinances prohibiting illegal discrimination.

Rev. 121911999 1999 rev, a little old now.

[materia3]

Check out/search Association of Pizza Delivery Drivers and pizza delivery unions.

As one of the most hazardous jobs in the U.S., there is a broad call for unionization and the teamsters are taking an interest. Again, if this happens and it probably will, PH and Dominos, PJ's and others will have brought this on themselves.

......you are probably in favor of total abolition of handguns including licensed ones. Your rhetoric stinks up the place; why don't you tell us what your agenda is? One can only assume by your total disinterest in the welfare and safety of the people who bring pizza to your door that you are either a management member of the same pizza companies that totally disregard their employee's safety or you work for Donald Rumsfield. Like the SOD, you have a morally indefensible position.

July 16, 2004Indianapolis Star

Chains won't let workers carry guns, but local eateries say employees need protection from robbery hazards.Personal protection has become just as much a part of the pizza delivery business as pepperoni and tomato sauce.But even in a field that is among the nation's most dangerous, workers, managers and safety experts remain divided on whether guns provide additional protection against robberies and other forms of violence.Many national chains bar drivers from carrying weapons, saying firearms are too risky. Yet most local restaurants contacted by The Indianapolis Star will not stop a worker from taking a gun along if the employee can do so legally.

Delivery work is getting more dangerous. U.S. Department of Labor statistics showed an increase in deaths among pizza and other delivery drivers, from 27 per 100,000 in 2000 to 38 per 100,000 in 2002, the most recent year for which numbers are available. That includes laundry route drivers, vending machine stockers and milk delivery drivers.Many of the fatalities are from traffic crashes, but an increasing share -- almost a quarter -- are a result of crime.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Does anyone get the idea that materia3 has some sort of bizarre fetish for pizza delivery drivers?