Pizza Hut allows customers to carry, but not employees.

[lupis42]

You can't make this stuff up.

http://azstarnet.com/business/local/article_eac10bf7-363c-5acf-b899-dc012bfa04fe.html

The new policy doesn't apply to employees, who won't be able to carry guns at work. "For safety reasons we have always had a 'no weapon' policy (while working) for all of us at Pizza Hut of Arizona," McKinney wrote.

Interesting discussion over at the Consumerist too. _http://azstarnet.com/business/local/article_eac10bf7-363c-5acf-b899-dc012bfa04fe.html

 

[Rob Boudrie]

It's easy to understand There is no such assumption of responsibility of actions for a patron as there is for an employee, making a successful suit for a bad shoot a longshot rather than a slam dunk. It might not even be possible to find an attorney to take a case on a contingency fee basis where a patron shot someone, but they would be lining up if an employee did.

The math is easy - what costs less? The hiring and training costs for a new minimum wage employee or a defending a contingency fee lawsuit?

 

[jkeeley1]

I would guess that near 99% of "retail" employee's are forbidden from carry at work. That's why they call it concealed.

 

[Pete85]

It's easy to understand There is no such assumption of responsibility of actions for a patron as there is for an employee, making a successful suit for a bad shoot a longshot rather than a slam dunk. It might not even be possible to find an attorney to take a case on a contingency fee basis where a patron shot someone, but they would be lining up if an employee did.

The math is easy - what costs less? The hiring and training costs for a new minimum wage employee or a defending a contingency fee lawsuit?

THIS.

From a business perspective, what is less expensive? Training new employees in the event that someone comes in shooting and kills someone, or defending the actions of an employee in court after he shoots someone (good or bad shoot)? You'd see these policies reversed in almost all cases if an employer was held criminally and civilly accountable for any employee that was left defenseless by company policy.

 

[JayD]

I know where I work I cannot cary while on the clock but any time I have ever been there not working I sure have.

 

[drgrant]

I would guess that near 99% of "retail" employee's are forbidden from carry at work. That's why they call it concealed.

In a job like that you just use it as a "one strike". Not like there aren't plenty of other pizza joints out there.

A few years ago a guy in Indiana worked for Pizza Hut, was robbed at gunpoint, and he gunned the bastard down with his lawfully carried handgun, and then got fired... and then went to work for a smaller pizza place that didn't care whether or not he carried a gun.

All of this really isn't news.... the bottom line is places like Pizza Hut don't give a rats ass about their employee's welfare. To large corporations, people are largely expendable.

-Mike

 

[drgrant]

You'd see these policies reversed in almost all cases if an employer was held criminally and civilly accountable for any employee that was left defenseless by company policy.

Under what law? Criminal prosecution of the employer is impossible- you can't criminally prosecute someone for the actions of some criminal the pizza joint had no knowledge of. You -might- get somewhere in civil court if you could prove somehow that the employee was endangered directly by the company policy. That would be a VERY tough sell, you'd have to find the perfect plaintiff in order to do it.... eg, a person who normally carries a gun and has prevailed in previous attempts on his life; and then "disarms" for a pizza joint and is injured or killed because of it. Such a person is likely too smart to allow themselves to be disarmed by some silly company policy.

The other problem too is greed- in a civil suit, if you are "that guy" are you going to stay and fight (and possibly, not get what you really want) or are you going to sign the non disclosure agreement and take the gigantic cash settlement the corporation is going to offer you to go away and shut up? Are you going to turn down, saya quarter million dollars on principle?

All of the above is why such a suit would never happen. (Or, at least not in any kind of a way that would provoke a change in these policies. ) In a civil suit the corporation usually attempts to buy out the plaintiff- and it usually works.

-Mike

 

[MassMark]

I would guess that near 99% of "retail" employee's are forbidden from carry at work. That's why they call it concealed.

I know brother. Some people miss out on the whole "concealed" part of CCW....

In a job like that you just use it as a "one strike". Not like there aren't plenty of other pizza joints out there.

A few years ago a guy in Indiana worked for Pizza Hut, was robbed at gunpoint, and he gunned the bastard down with his lawfully carried handgun, and then got fired... and then went to work for a smaller pizza place that didn't care whether or not he carried a gun.

All of this really isn't news.... the bottom line is places like Pizza Hut don't give a rats ass about their employee's welfare. To large corporations, people are largely expendable.

-Mike

Ayup...

 

[terraformer]

As others have pointed out, this is a business decision and not a political one on the part of mega-food-services-corp X. I will add it's a dangerous game trying to play politics with these corps over store policies as the brady bunch have a built in advantage. That being ceteris paribus, the mega corp will do the legally conservative thing to limit their exposure to liability. Starbucks handled it really well but many others will not wrt consumers. But we should not pick these fights, especially over employees. We will NEVER win and if you engage hard enough the loss will look bad against you. Best to work towards starbucks like outcomes. Demand the stores respect local law and leave it there. That is a huge win frankly.