« If only we could | Main | Zombie Fish »

Comments

Rackey_Man

As a pizza delivery driver I feel this is pure undilluted BULLSHIT. The policy for NO weapons just means you are out there with money a car food and NO DEFENCE nor are you even allowed to fight back. YES I get that you MIGHT get away with your life but there are TOO many times where the driver is severly injured (with life threaning injuries) or outright killed JUST for $20 a pizza a cell phone.

The problem lies in how these companies keep redefining the term weapon. HOW IN THE FRACK DO YOU "DEFINE" a weapon???? Do car keys count??? Does a PEN count???? CAN any of these companies really give you a straight answer now after this incident????

Yes the guy still has a job (most companies will fire you after a short period of suspension) and I do NOT for a minute believe they have given him comperable hours. They will find a reason to kick him to the curb after all of the hubbub has died down (again this has happened too many times).

What burns me is when a driver is actually killed on the job and the company is suddenly immune to a wrongful death lawsuit due to some imaginary infraction of the safety and security rules.

The Last Archimedean

A better policy, and one that needs to put in as a federal law, is that any employee of any company can fight back if they are physically attacked. They just can't attack first. And if they defend themselves successfully, the company has to either give them a promotion or a bonus.

Nomnom

Ridiculous. People have the right to defend themselves - regardless of who they are employed with. It should be illegal to punish or fire employees for defending themselves - though we all know even if it was the little shits would still find some way around it.

I had a pizza delivery guy (and older guy) show up at my door to deliver my pizza and tell me he had just had to punch out someone in the ghetto defending himself and had maybe broken his hand doing it. I tipped him extra.

Spritzy

I only shudder to think what will happen to various female employees who do deliveries or work with the public in general, now that VAWA is not in effect anymore.

NC Tony

And the higher ups in companies wonder why the employees hate them and don't give a shit about their jobs. It's because of shit like this. What did they want him to do, take a severe beating and possibly get killed? They probably would have come out and said he should have defended himself.

Companies are two faced bastards. Like I mentioned in my Retail Contradictions thread a while back:

"Telling you to be on the lookout for NATs... and then turning around and telling you you're not allowed to do anything about it. And Kratos forbid you try and stop the theft, even if you're successful, you'll run the risk of getting written up or (even worse) fired. This leads to employees not caring about theft and letting it happen. This of course leads to the managers (and corporate) wondering why the store is suffering losses from stock shrinkage."

And unfortunately in this shitty economy it's not easy to just find another job, because if it were I'm sure a lot of our stories (and news stories we reference would end with "and I quit and found a new job a couple weeks later".

Kristina

Crap like this always gets my blood boiling. I usually order from the same Chinese take out place a few times a month. The owner's older brother(guy is pushing 70) does neighborhood runs. Everyone calls him uncle, always calls me sister and is the most loving man you will ever meet. Middle of last year I stopped seeing him and asked the owner's nephew( another one of the regulars for the neighborhood) what had happened to Uncle. come to find out Uncle had been beaten up by a pair of punks who didn't want to pay their bill(was like $40-50). they took the food and what money Uncle had on him.

I made me cry to know this sweet older man who probably weighed as much as I did had been brutally attacked over freaking Chinese food. thankfully he recovered, and is back to doing deliveries, but only to well known regulars.

The Last Archimedean

Correct me if I'm wrong, Spritzy, but isn't violence against ANYBODY a criminal act? I'm certainly not anti-women, but even without VAWA don't we already have laws on the books to protect people of *all* genders from thugs? Last time I checked, if you beat someone up it's still assault. There are still laws against groping people. [I don't want my junk being grabbed by someone either -- even though I'm male that's just as much of harassment as someone groping a woman's chest or crotch.] Rape is still a crime in all 50 states even without VAWA. Or have those laws been repealed as well?

If the laws we still have on the books are enforced properly and people who commit violent acts against someone of ANY gender are removed from society, we shouldn't need additional laws. Of course, that's the rub; the laws we do have aren't enforced, and scummy jerks who have no business interacting with civilized people aren't properly punished.

AmigaTech

The laws are there, they're just not enforced.

There's no 'sexing up' enforcing an existing law for a politician, and so they 'make new laws!' that solve an already-solved problem. There's no return (for them) in enforcing the laws that already exist.

--AT

Skittles

Yeah god forbid someone defend themselves from violence on company time. What we need, though I know it will never happen, is a law or ammendment that states something to the effect of 'no employer may make any policy or rule, that contradicts federal or state laws'. Not sure if my writing is clear enough but I think it makes the point.

Tsuhna

Skittles what the fox, company policy that's against law is not illegal/ can still be grounds for firing an employee? How does anyone dare to even breathe, left alone work on company time?


In here the employer would be first ordered to pay the fired employee for illegal firing, then the company would get a huge fine for both illegal firing, and if the firing was due to a company rule/ a condition in a contract that's against the law, for that too, and possibly even the boss who fired the employee could also find him/herself in a court as an individual.

Also if the legal system can't do anything, there's always the threat of employees going on strike (EVEN if the strike is illegal, our unions have tons of money to support illegal strikes, the worst government can do is fine the unions, but as I said, the unions have tons of money.)

Skittles

Tsuhna
Part of the issue is that yes companies can have policies that violate laws they simply force employees to sign waivers, what I was talking about would simply prevent that. What I proposed would not prevent anyone from working, in any way. How is preventing abuse of employees rights going to make work harder?
I may have misunderstood your comment or we may be talking about different countries legal systems. I'm refering to the USA legal system which has slowly become a joke over the last 20 or so years.

Tsuhna

Skittles what I meant by "How does anyone dare to even breathe, left alone work on company time?" was that if companies in USA can make employees abide by rules and policies that violate the law, how do the people actually manage to work without constantly fearing losing their jobs over something ridiculous, such as firing someone for defending him/herself, I NEVER said ANYTHING about your proposal preventing people from doing job, I DARE YOU TO POINT ME WHERE I SAID THAT!

And yes, we are talking about differend legal systems, your original comment sounded like it's legal to enforce rules and policies that are against the law. So you were talking about waivers, I'm not sure if our legal system even recognizes waivers, left alone considers them binding.

Skittles

Tsuhna I think we may have a misunderstanding here, at least on my part. Sorry about that. Yes sadly in the US companies can require employees to sign waivers and they are legal, technically. The way it works is an employee would have to take the situation to court and it would have to be pushed up to a higher court, until it reaches the supreme court. Then it could be determined whether or not the company policy is constitutional or not. Take for instance the employees who are required to allow managemant to search their bags. This directly violates the fourth amendment which reads as such

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Clearly having a manager at a company being allowed to search your private property violates this ammendment. Does that stop companies? Nope it just increases the amount of money they pay politicians off with. This practice is commonly called lobbying but bribing is more accurate.

The comments to this entry are closed.