We here at TRS talked about Pizza Hut’s truly absurd punishment of their driver for having the bad manners to lawfully defend his life by resisting an armed robber. The suspension proves that Pizza Hut’s risk/benefit analysis has concluded that it is riskier for the company to be sued because a driver used a weapon than if the driver is robbed or killed, as a few pizza drivers are every year.
Merely reducing the risk of adverse litigation is of course, not the only principle at play. The inherent right to life includes the right to protect oneself, up to and including the use of deadly force (e.g. the Second Amendment). This week we had one of our own Polk County Republicans display some real leadership on this aspect of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Sen. Brad Zaun, of Urbandale, adopted the issue last week. Brad’s point is pretty clear; Pizza Hut’s attempts to impair and chill the fundamental right of self-defense are offensive to American culture and tradition, as well as to fundamental principles of well established American law.
A large part of leadership is telling people what you beli ofeve, why you believe it and why the audience should agree with you. Brad Zaun’s seizure of this important civil rights issue demonstrates the kind of leadership of which we Republicans are in need.
For that, Sen. Brad Zaun gets a Real Sporer “Hero of the Week”award.
Merely reducing the risk of adverse litigation is of course, not the only principle at play. The inherent right to life includes the right to protect oneself, up to and including the use of deadly force (e.g. the Second Amendment). This week we had one of our own Polk County Republicans display some real leadership on this aspect of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Sen. Brad Zaun, of Urbandale, adopted the issue last week. Brad’s point is pretty clear; Pizza Hut’s attempts to impair and chill the fundamental right of self-defense are offensive to American culture and tradition, as well as to fundamental principles of well established American law.
A large part of leadership is telling people what you beli ofeve, why you believe it and why the audience should agree with you. Brad Zaun’s seizure of this important civil rights issue demonstrates the kind of leadership of which we Republicans are in need.
For that, Sen. Brad Zaun gets a Real Sporer “Hero of the Week”award.
14 comments:
Well I suggest brad, go out and buys a pizza place and then allows all his drivers to carry, until then All GOPers must subscribe to their party's mantra to keep gov't out of business. No Selective usuage is allowed it is all Black and White!
Did brad allow his hardware store employees to carry handguns? If not practice what you preach and bug out!
I am sure Senator Zaun treats everyone pretty fair considering whenever I entered his business he was the guy working there. Senator Zaun took the time to talk to everyone who entered and doesn't strike me as the easily angered type.
I agree that Pizza Hut is sending the wrong message and I will personally stop ordering their pizza as a result.
sporie:
You conservatives are that short on heroes?
Truly this was an unfortunate situation, yet one which we are all inclined to applaud for its example of human bravery and seeming justice.
My reading of the issue, from Pizza Hut's perspective, is not what happened, rightly or wrongly, but that the employee violated company policy by carrying a gun while at work. His suspension was no different than what happens to any policemen who shoots a presumed criminal; they would be suspended during the investigation.
You conservatives always tend to talk out of both sides of your mouth. You're always demanding responsibility/accountability for actions but then want to make exception in those situations that appeal to your emotions. If the company has a policy against their employees carrying guns then they should fire the delivery man. There are company rules, the violation of which might be mitigated, but carrying firearms in violation of policy is fairly serious. We all realize the risk associated with a job requiring carrying cash. As a society we may not want to presume the stability and sound judgment of all those carrying weapons if the practice became prolific.
Many of us disagree with company policies on a variety of issues. That disagreement does not give us the right to violate them even if we are willing to accept the consequences of those violations.
Rules is rules guys. If you disagree with them then fight the rules. Don't glorify their violation based on a perceived happy ending.
Put your conservative hats on straight. Quit pandering!
kennie:
It would be better for your health and your waistline if you stopped ordering all pizzas, not just Pizza Hut's.
ken
This isn't about brad being a fair man. This is about an elected official interfereing in a corporations policy! The GOP screams about any amount of government regulation to the point that the Good businessmen now are allowed to slaughter diseased cows and buy products made in China that is laced with hallucagenics, yet not a peep of outrage out of you guys.
Now oh great protectors of the Constitution if a Muslim Pizza deliverer insists on stopping to pray during deliveries making the deliveries late will you fight for his First Amendment rights? How about you Thaddeus will you represent the Muslim, will you represent the Pizza Guy in Court? You don't have to worry about a license to practice in this state in this state?
Sounds of crickets! Sounds of silence! It sort of remind me of the sound of a GOP guy enlisting, Total Silence!
Ghost of gerald Ford
anon 2:23
I take it you never went to Zaun's trustworthy Hardware store. I think he was the only employee
Art,
And how does that contribute to this discussion?
Yawn.
anon 12:10:
I do realize that many here cannot comprehend much of what is posted here; you most specifically. That should not function as a deterrent to those of us with differing viewpoints attempting to add a little reason to the dialog.
Perhaps when you grow up and gain a little education you will better understand. In the interim; don't let the bed bugs bite.
One word...Jurisdiction.
According to Wikipedia:
“Jurisdiction is the authority given to a legal body, or to a political leader (Prime Minister, President, etc.) to deal with legal matters, and to pronounce or enforce legal matters.”
Funny, I don’t see anything about “corporation” in there.
Corporations simply lack the legal jurisdiction to dictate policy which contradicts civil or criminal laws.
Discriminatory racial, gender, religious, sexual preference, age, etc. “policies” corporations used to excercise were found to be in violation of the Constitution (pesky document, eh?) and were outlawed.
They do have the right to establish policy regarding their property, i.e., store locations, company vehicles.
They also have the responsibility to disclose the fact of these policies to potential employees.
The right to carry “weapons”, be they sharp pencils, pizza cutters, or firearms, is afforded by the Bill of Rights. In other words, Pizza Hut cannot “give” permission or “remove” permission to possess firearms or any other weapon simply because it is out of their “jurisdiction” to do so.
James Spiers lawfully used his firearm, had legal authority to carry it, and notified Law Enforcement properly, subsequent to the incident.
George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, et al, constructed the Constitution to protect us from Government. They never imagined that an American Corporation could or would arrogantly exercise “authority” contradicting the freedoms most of us hold dear.
Slavery was abolished? This amounts to “financial slavery”.
“You want to keep your job? Give up your American citizenship for that of the XYZ Corporation, in exchange for the privilege of the small wages we pay you. Also, your life may be in peril during the course of your employment, but you won’t be allowed to defend yourself. If you choose to violate this policy, we will be forced to fire you. We won’t protect you from harm in exchange. If you don’t like this “policy”, don’t work here because you need us more than we need you.”
Many Corporations (Home Depot, Wal-Mart, etc) have similar policies.
Only by “due process” are rights taken away. Meaning, when accused of breaking the law, you are entitled to a trial and if convicted, your rights may be taken away.
Your employer doesn’t have this right.
Perhaps we should discuss whether or not we wish to be human property subject to the whims of our employers. Since most of us don’t grow our own food, looks like we have to put up with it, because we need to eat.
Perhaps the goverment entities who issue Corporate Charters, should also ensure these entities aren’t violating our Bill of Rights.
Perhaps the Congress should look into these types of issues and let corporations who do business in the U.S. be aware that they do not supercede or regulate the Bill of Rights.
And enforce it.
Why? Because every individual whom is elected or appointed within any legal jurisdiction, has sworn to "uphold the Constitution".
You don't like the Constitution? The Bill of Rights?
Then go change it using due process...in the meantime, Elected Officials....do your job and uphold the law.
M:
Always remember fondly that the reagan era brought those rulings into effect that basicaly said that the Rights of the people stopped at the corporation door.
Corporations also enjoy full rights of citizenship that way they can lobby, give campaign contributions and generally tip the scales from the people to where it resides at this time. I agree that they should not have jurisdiction but the GOP awarded them the rights.
My point was to point out the hypocrisy of people like ted, who have no problem with corporations limiting your rights through their employment policy and endangering your life with dangerous work rules. They are selctive in their defense of your rights. The GOP folks are just pandering. They love their actors as leaders because substance does not matter to Thaddeus or Rush or name your pick of GOP hypocrits.
Guys like Ted make sure that the regular guys rights are limited, that is their job. He rails of the injustice but he hasn't offered his legal services yet. Why for such a noble cause and the publicity Old teddy would be renting the sound boom, make up girl and write the script. The problem is he is all talk no action. He, brad Zaun, Chrissy rants like the spotlight they just can't be bothered about the details or actually get involved.
remeber ted and his ilk are just little cheerleaders encouraging others to be brave while avoiding the real work!
mary Louise Smith
MLS-
Your point is well taken.
However, whom to blame for mis-deeds of the past isn't nearly as important as whom we, the people hold accountable.
Right/Left; Liberal/Conservative - no matter. Neither party is lily-white.
The sooner we all realize that today's partisan meanderings are ineffectual and hypocritical - on both sides.
Our elected officials, whether Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, etc., are required to uphold the Constitution and we need to make them accountable for not doing so.
We should not defend the members of our Party affiliation when they are wrong.
The people who spend such inordinate amounts of time and effort writing commentary, be it a blog such as this or to a formal media outlet, spent some of that time writing to their elected officials (local, county,state,federal), we would have constructive change because they would know we are paying attention - formally.
Democracy is hard.
Everything else is harder.
So write your Representatives, Senators, Mayors, Governors, your President.
It does matter and they will listen.
Slinging mud guarantees one thing: Expect to get dirty.
m:
I did suggest in my post that if you disagree with the policy attack the policy. Should the employee object to a policy and can point to that policy as the reason he didn't get a job then he might have a legal argument to adjudicate. If he felt his "rights" were being violated it would not be much different than the same premise should he have felt he was being discriminated against for race, etc.
One should note, however, when considering "jurisdiction" in a court of law, Wikipedia will not be a point of reference.
Employment is a contract. When you accept that contract you agree to obey the rules and regulations that are embodied in that contract. This agreement might include some interruption of some of your Constitutional "rights" while working in the service of the company. If you accept and agree to the terms and conditions then the employer has not "removed" your "rights", you have made a voluntary decision to be denied certain rights while on company time.
Since bearing arms is a “right” and not a command or requirement, it follows that you have a “right” not to bear arms or a “right” to agree not to bear arms during specific circumstances. Once agreeing to that exception to your “rights” you are presumed to be honor bound to live up to your agreement.
Doubt you'll find any court holding that an employment contract is coercive, even though it appears to be at times.
In addition to, store locations and vehicles, corporations also have a "right" to protect their most precious asset; their Brand; that is their name. Public knowledge of delivery persons carrying firearms could severely impact that Brand. Further when an employee is at work, he/she is presumed to be under the "jurisdiction" of his employer and its rules and policies. Many employers have been sued successfully based on that premise.
Corporations as with all individuals have the right to set the rules that they feel are in the best interests of their prosperity. You can establish a rule that you will not allow anyone, other than law enforcement, to be on your property carrying a handgun. That "anyone" has a right to carry a gun anywhere that it is not prohibited by someone's rules, affecting their "rights".
"Rights" can get complicated when weighing one person's versus another's. The issue here is not "jurisdiction" but contract, employment law.
A corporation is not compelled to follow "due process". “Due process” is generally a protection from any state (government) to deny your “rights”. Contracts, entered into by two or more agreeing parties do not lead to a “due process” consideration unless or until a civil action is brought, maintaining a violation of the contract terms. It is in a company’s best interests to do an investigation and to document any termination decision due to the possibility of such a civil action.
Should Pizza Hut, in the future, allow their delivery personnel to carry firearms, would you agree that they should publicly convey that fact to the general public? Are they bound, in full disclosure, to add that their drivers should be considered dangerous as well?
What you posit is a very slippery slope, one which would eventually lead to the elimination of many kinds of deliveries and the attendant jobs.
Mary Louise.
Dude, you are truly demented.
Thats a good picture of a Grunt-stall... hehe
Post a Comment