A frame of reference.

Pizza Hut says no guns at work, employee broke the rule. Employee gets fired. I don’t see what the issue is here. If I break my company rules I get fired, regardless of whether the activities in question are legal or not…

Pizza Hut set up rules and regulations, the man did not follow these and was dismissed. Your personal politics should not enter into it.

It’s their right to set policy for their company. It’s our right to call the policy sheer, dangerous foolishness.

Stop with the rights already. Nobody is saying that they don’t have a right to set policy. Everybody is saying this particular policy is madness, and should be reversed.

Liberals whine about “free speech” when somebody points out how loathsome their comments were, but pointing out loathsome remarks does not endanger free speech. Likewise, pointing out bad policy does not endanger liberty to set policy. The fact that a company (or person) has a right, does not make every execution of that right immune from criticism. Some policies, like this one, are just bad, and deserve comment.

Again, I am mystified that so many here are on a private companies ass over clearly stated policy- that is their right.

Why not?

It’s their right to set the policy.

It’s our right to object to the policy.

Why do you imagine that the right of a company to set policy supersedes the right of the public to call the policy dangerous idiocy — especially if, as in this case, it is dangerous idiocy?

Miss_Anthrope on April 3, 2008 at 2:42 PM

That’s relevant why?

Pizza Slut.

Taco Hell.

I’d shoot myself if I had to eat that dung.

Parley on April 2, 2008 at 3:43 PM

All this debate over the right to carry…has anyone mentioned that Pizza Hut (and Taco Bell) are just like Progressive? IOW, they are run by big-time Lefties who donate to all those Soros-funded organizations?

Just curious…that may explain their reaction to this situation.

A big pizza corporation has deep enough pockets to give any lawyer wet dreams. If the company looks the other way on guns, or “strongly suggests” carrying them, but does not require them, that gun can become equipment necessary for the safety and health of the employee that the company allowed the use of, but did not require.

What if your delivery driver misses the thuglet trying to rob him and hits an innocent bystander while wearing your uniform? What if your delivery driver by day knocks over liquor stores by night with the gun you required him to buy? Yup, you’d be on the hook for that too.

Furthermore, what it takes to have a permit to carry a gun legally on your person is more or less what it would take to become a bonded security officer. Not only may your company have to pay for that training in some states (and pizza corporations span multiple states), but they would have to pay pizza drivers wages competitive with bonded security officers. How much do you really want to pay for what is supposed to be cheap pizza?

sleepy-beans on April 3, 2008 at 12:23 PM

No, you’re thinking Dominos. Pizza Hut is a laxative with tomato sauce.

beefytee on April 3, 2008 at 12:21 PM

Praise Jesus! A voice of reason!

I would boycott Pizza Hut but I stopped eating their pizza years ago simply because their pizza tastes like cardboard.

sleepy-beans on April 3, 2008 at 12:23 PM

Pizza Huts in Europe are so much better than they are in the US.

It is a company rule to wear a shirt to work…not a NY state law.

It is a company rule not to drink (too much) at work…not against the law in NY.

It is a company rule not to bust in on a client meeting and sing the opening number in Jesus Christ Superstar. Phantom might be illegal in NY, but not JCS.

The fact that it is a second amendment right here should not cloud the issue.

Pizza Hut set up rules and regulations, the man did not follow these and was dismissed. Your personal politics should not enter into it.

…hunger rising….rising…

Additionally, Iowa is a discretionary issue state, meaning that the county Sheriff has full discretion in determining whether or not to issue the permit on a case-by-case basis.

Virginia is permit-on-demand thanks to Gov. George Allen. At one time the Sheriff had the say. The Police Chief in the town across the river from me made it his business to turn down everybody for a permit before the law was changed. He was of the mind nobody but his cops should have guns. He liked the police state that was his mini-Washington DC.

Now in Virginia, you take a gun safety course if you dont have a military discharge, apply to the county clerk’s office, pass your background check and get your permit it two to six weeks.
The editor of the local liberal rag had his shorts all in a bunch when Allen proposed this. There was one editorial after the other how Virginia’s cities were going to turn into Old West Dodge City, and the streets would run red with innocent blood. He was of the mind only the cops should have guns too. None of that happened of course, and crime went down in the Commonwealth. And the editor was eventuallly demoted. He now works for some rag in Florida.

FloatingRock on April 2, 2008 at 9:33 PM

Everyone should be allowed to carry a gun, period. I stating thatbefore you crucify Pizza Hut for what they did to actually think about it from their stance. But no, it’s hard to get anyone to think that around here when the Pavlovian reponse to the word “gun” is to start drooling. I’ve worked in resutrants, I’ve been a pizza delivery person. I heard the reasons behind that type of rule. It makes sense to me. But when it comes to 2nd Admendment rights and the right to carry guns, we have people here who turn into a pack of liberals (for lack of a better word) screaming about how neglectful this corporation is and they should have a right to carry their guns anywhere regardless what others think. Like the second admendment gives you the right to overstep what another property owner wants or doesn’t want. “To Hell, with you, I have a right to carry this.” You can deny it all you want but it’s up and down this damn thread. I’m sitting here reading posts from Officer Tackleberry accusing me of being anti-gun just becuase I’m not willing and quick to jump on the “Boycott Pizza Hut” bandwagon and I wonder how many of you people have ever run corporations with thousands of stores all over the world and have ever had to deal with lawsuits that pop up from money-hungry attorneys over the dumbest things. It makes anyone afraid to do anything becuase nobody likes to get sued. It’s makes doing the right thing nowadays that more difficult.

Go ahead an label me whatever the hell you want. I’m sorry that I’m the only one looking at this through all sides.

Let’s look at it from the company’s perspective:

They would have to either ban it for everybody, or make a CCP/CCL a requirement for a pizza delivery job. It’s cheaper to forbid guns to everybody.

To make packing heat optional just means that if someone who elects not to carry a weapon gets shot, he can sue on the basis of not being provided or required to provide equipment necessary for his or her safety.

If they make a CCP/CCL a requirement for the job, they could end up on the hook for the required classes for what usually ends up being a minimum wage job.

Won’t be buying products from any of Yum’s establishments anymore. I don’t do business with pro-criminal enterprises.

Congratulations, you’ve taken grasping for straws into a new art form.

Pcoop on April 2, 2008 at 8:14 PM

If so, I apologize—but then what was the point of your hypothetical in your 6:02 post? It is identical to the rhetoric used by gun control groups to argue against concealed carry laws. They say that people who have concealed guns and try to defend themselves are more likely to get themselves killed along with innocent bystanders, yet statistics show that every state that allows concealed carry has a significant reduction in crime.

In your 5:51 post you said,

“I’m sorry that happened to you. But really, statisically, the huge percentage of handgun violence occurs with people who know each other already.”

Again, this sounds very similar to anti-gun rhetoric we’ve all heard before where they dismiss the value of having a gun for self-defense…. They say that having more guns in circulation leads to more accidents and such and that we’d all be better off if we weren’t allowed to have guns. The costs outweigh the benefit.

And some of your other statements, such as in your 3:35 post in which you said,

“Yeah because we all know the potential loss of property or lives (yours and other people’s) is no where near as important as nailing the son of a bitch who tried to hold you up. The people who run businesses have no clue what’s going on, they’re all ignorant as hell. (note: heavy sarcasm)”

I’ve taken notice of your heavy sarcasm remark but in the context of the comment, which perhaps I’ve misinterpreted, it sounds like your suggesting that people who attempt to defend themselves are actually being macho or are eager to kill the perpetrator for their own personal gratification, damn the consequences. Again, this sounds similar to anti-gun rhetoric I’ve heard.

But still, looking over your posts, you’ve stated several times that you’re OK with guns and concealed carry laws so maybe I’ve misjudged your intent, and I apologize if I have, but I’ve also often noticed that gun opponents will pretend to accept guns in a limited capacity but who in reality clearly don’t and only use it as a Trojan horse to strengthen their argument. That was the context of my post at 6:31.