minimizing , or human life?
To hell w/ the lives of the employees
Posted on 01/14/2015 9:54:03 PM PST by Lexinom
If this pizza delivery gal loses her job for protecting her life in order to satisfy a corporate policy that - had she followed it - would have cost her her life, I think Papa Johns deserves to go on our black list. What's more important? A corporation minimizing litigation, or human life?
We’ve had at least two incidents in the Pittsburgh area of pizza delivery drivers being killed or seriously wounded by robbers. One guy crawled to a nearby postal processing facility at 2 AM leaving a trail of blood.
They’ve been on my black list for awhile now anyway.
‘Corporate food’ tends to suck, especially with pizza!
Papa Johns should rethink.
Or maybe they should just think.
My guess is that if this delivery person goes down, the pappa john dweeb and his lacky-manning get muy pay back. Just something to think about pizza boyz!
All pizza delivery drivers should be armed since they are targets for criminals. Assuming she gets fired according to policy, the franchise owner should immediately rehire her.
When it comes down to being murdered by a couple scumbag maggots over a few bucks and a pizza or losing the pizza delivery job for capping the bass turds, I’ll go with the latter.
A friend of mine’s son delivered pizza and was being followed by a couple of guys. He wrote on a piece of paper a description of both men and the license of the vehicle and stuck it under the seat before he was shot to death. Too bad he didn’t have a gun. The police were able to catch the guys though.
Their wimp-a$$ company doesn't deserve my money.
A couple of store bought frozens are just as good.
I’d file a class-action lawsuit to overturn the corporate policy.
I shouldn’t be asked to choose between doing my job and protecting my life.
The pizza delivery industry cares more about avoiding litigation than protecting its employees.
That’s simply unacceptable.
Here's a question for a couple of lawyer types - why do corporations have a no gun policy? My guess is that they're worried about marginal cases where employees shoot people they shouldn't have (non-criminals, bystanders or maybe criminals who can nonetheless make a good case they weren't doing anything wrong vis-a-vis the employee), and the corporation gets slapped with a multi-million dollar suit. Is it much more expensive, premium-wise, to take out the no gun clause from the insurance agreement? What about reputational costs?
I would still like to see an “after” mugshot.
Any ideas where one might be?
We need a “pizzagofundme” sight, where the food corps can contribute, and workers can be helped out.
These companies should hire their drivers as independent contractors instead of being an employee, that should solve that problem.
Absolutely.
There will be alot of companies more than willing to hire her and give her a job that pays a lot more than being a pizza driver.
Doubtless true, but they still need to feel the consequences of their policy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.