Alot of the people in this thread seemed to have missed the entire point of the article and its subsequent link into this thread. The point being made was not whether the robber was/should-have-been shot, but about the company policy that cost the man his job for performing a legal (though admittedly contrary to company policy) act while in employment for Pizza Hut, Inc. Ethics of murder/self-defense aside, that is the issue of this thread. It's been taken rather off-topic by the last half-dozen or so posts. Let's stick to the issue--analysis of the policy that cost the man his job.
Regarding that, and having been a former employee of Pizza Hut, I offer this defense of their policy, and yes, I do take the corporate standpoint and back them 100%
Quote:
Originally posted by rat
Ok, having worked for Pizza Hut as a delivery driver at one of their corporately-owned stores here locally, I can attest to the fact that not only were we NOT allowed to carry weapons while working, but we were also told to cooperate with any robbery attempts made upon our person or the store, regardless of any training or weapons we may have that would incline us to do otherwise.
The maxim is this: YOU CAN ALWAYS MAKE MORE MONEY, BUT YOU CAN'T RESURRECT DEAD EMPLOYEES
Makes a little bit of sense from a corporate standpoint, doesn't it? To codify in company policy that you value your people more than you value the money in the cash drawer or safe...that's an uncaring corporation there. The policy is instituted to prevent any would-be heroes that weren't as lucky as the above driver from being injured in a misguided attempt to "protect the company"
The guy knew this when he started working there, and it's reinforced in the training. He accepted the potential negative consequences of his action when he chose to carry the handgun.
|