Libertarians be upset! Pizza Hut Delivery Driver fired for defending himself!

[7960]

Originally Posted by kombayn

.... and Pizza Hut (PepsiCo) are technically a traded company in the public through Wall Street.

Please do not tell me you think "publicly traded" is the same as "public."

[kombayn]

I know that it's not the same. But if stockholders held a protest in this human resources affair, you don't think Pizza Hut would change its policy? I think they certainly would. As being a representative of the company, I don't think any customer would really object to a delivery driver with no criminal record defending himself from being robbed or possibly killed.

[7960]

Originally Posted by kombayn

I know that it's not the same. But if stockholders held a protest in this human resources affair, you don't think Pizza Hut would change its policy? I think they certainly would. As being a representative of the company, I don't think any customer would really object to a delivery driver with no criminal record defending himself from being robbed or possibly killed.

And I think a lot of people would have a serious problem with it if pizza hut allowed drivers to "carry a gun right up to my door!"


And I put "'carry a gun right up to my door!'" in quotes because that's how you'd hear it on the evening news as anti-gun people protested the policy that allowed pizza drivers to "carry a gun right up to my door!"

[northhunter]

It's not that drivers are being allowed to arm themselves. It's that they are being prevented from it.

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by JaJae

That's not true at all. As an employer I can limit my employee's speech on basically anything. I can even give them scripts to say and if they deviate at all I can terminate them. I can say no discussion of such and such on the job and I'd be perfectly within my rights. You absolutely do not have the right to say whatever you want on the job. The employer can limit your speech.

Your employer cannot have you refuse to answer official questions.

Your employer cannot prevent you from praying.

There is no absolute right of the employer to dictate all worker behavior either on or off the clock. That would be slavery.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by RockPusher

Your employer cannot have you refuse to answer official questions.

Your employer cannot prevent you from praying.

There is no absolute right of the employer to dictate all worker behavior either on or off the clock. That would be slavery.

I didn't say all worker behavior. But they can limit just about everything. I don't know what you mean by "official questions", but yes the employer cannot force an employee to not cooperate with law enforcement or government officials. But the very fact that you don't have freedom of speech in almost every natural sense (with a few exceptions) means you don't have freedom of speech on the job. Your rights are restricted, legally by your employer. The same goes for gun laws. Your employer also has rights.

[JaJae]

Look at it this way. You have constitutional right to wear an anti-Bush tee shirt. Freedom of speech right? But if your employer says you can't wear it while on the job you can't wear it or you face being fired. The same as if the employer says you can't carry a gun on the job you can be fired.

There are celebrities out there who hire body guards and tell them not to be armed. If they showed up carrying a legal fire arm one day they could be fired. There is absolutely no grounds for your argument that I can see. When you accept a job you are agreeing to an employment contract set forth by you and the employer or the default employment rules of your state. In every state I'm aware of your employer has the right to restrict its employees from carrying firearms, even law enforcement if they wanted to.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by RockPusher

Your employer cannot have you refuse to answer official questions.

Your employer cannot prevent you from praying.

There is no absolute right of the employer to dictate all worker behavior either on or off the clock. That would be slavery.

You're just repeating yourself at this point, and you've failed to address the points I've made.

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by motivez

Sorry, don't buy it. I also don't see how this view is in line with libertarian beliefs about business and the free market.

I am not a fundamentalist libertarian. I am a Constitutionalist.

If their policy is so unpopular, no one will want to work for them, and people wont buy their goods, forcing them to change the policy or go out of business.

It is not a matter of whether the policy is popular, but whether it violates the rights of the workers... whether or not the worker agrees.

How is it acceptable, for example, in another thread, for a business to say "We don't hire blacks", but not for them to say "If you want to work with us, you can't carry a gun while in the performance of your duties"?

There is no constitutional protection against discrimination based on racial preference. It is despicable to discriminate against someone on the basis of race. It is illegal to violate their protected rights.

I don't think you've made a case that it's unconstitutional for a business to impose those restrictions given your previous position on other issues similar to this.. and the fact that it's entirely different than praying to god or whatever, I think your comparisons are completely off the mark.

All rights in the B of R are equally protected. You can no more restrict someones freedom of religion than you can restrict someones 2nd amendment rights.

If you are free to pray, you are free to keep and bear arms.

[7960]

Originally Posted by RockPusher

I am not a fundamentalist libertarian. I am a Constitutionalist.

so you don't believe in right to privacy, then? or separation of church and state?

[motivez]

Originally Posted by RockPusher

I am not a fundamentalist libertarian. I am a Constitutionalist.

Where in the Constitution does it say that a business cannot set rules of conduct, dress, speech, etc, for people who are employed by it?

Can a person enter a contract that restricts their rights at all in your mind?

Originally Posted by RockPusher

It is not a matter of whether the policy is popular, but whether it violates the rights of the workers... whether or not the worker agrees.

Why does it "violate" the rights of the worker if they choose to work for the company in the first place? It's not slavery as you've put forth, because the worker decides for themselves to enter into employment, and has the ability to end that employment whenever they want.

Originally Posted by RockPusher

There is no constitutional protection against discrimination based on racial preference. It is despicable to discriminate against someone on the basis of race. It is illegal to violate their protected rights.

Again though, how is it a violation of their right? The 2nd Amendment places restrictions on government from creating a law preventing them from owning a gun, but if a person decides not to carry a weapon, he hasn't violated his own rights, he's made a decision.

Likewise if he makes the decision to seek employment from a company with a policy that tells him he can't carry a weapon while on the clock, hasn't he made a similar decision?

Originally Posted by RockPusher

All rights in the B of R are equally protected. You can no more restrict someones freedom of religion than you can restrict someones 2nd amendment rights.

Again though, how is it different from a person deciding on their own not to carry if they're making a choice to work for a company with that policy?

Originally Posted by RockPusher

If you are free to pray, you are free to keep and bear arms.

I don't think the two are similar at all really.

[Linzyhop]

as a former domino's driver back in college, we could choose to play by the rules domino's set forth, or we could work elsewhere.

simply put.

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Look at it this way. You have constitutional right to wear an anti-Bush tee shirt. Freedom of speech right? But if your employer says you can't wear it while on the job you can't wear it or you face being fired. The same as if the employer says you can't carry a gun on the job you can be fired.

An employer cannot tell you that you cannot have an anti-bush message on penned on your underwear.


I agree that an employer has the right to tell you that you cannot open carry, and I agree that an employer can demand that while on the job you not display a particular message overtly.

There are celebrities out there who hire body guards and tell them not to be armed. If they showed up carrying a legal fire arm one day they could be fired. There is absolutely no grounds for your argument that I can see.

I make a distinction between job related weapon use and personal weapon use. In MyTopia, the bodyguard could wear the concealed weapon for personal protection, but he could be fired for using it to protect his employer.

When you accept a job you are agreeing to an employment contract set forth by you and the employer or the default employment rules of your state. In every state I'm aware of your employer has the right to restrict its employees from carrying firearms, even law enforcement if they wanted to.

That is where the state and local govs are at loggerheads with my political ideals.

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by motivez

Where in the Constitution does it say that a business cannot set rules of conduct, dress, speech, etc, for people who are employed by it?

Can a person enter a contract that restricts their rights at all in your mind?

Taking real-estate law as an example, in most cases any contractual terms that violate the law are not enforceable. This makes such contracts voidable in some cases. An example would be a contract stating that the property owner is not responsible to repair new ceiling damage, but if the damage violates the habitability standards of the law, then the property owner can be found to be responsible to repair the damage.

Why does it "violate" the rights of the worker if they choose to work for the company in the first place? It's not slavery as you've put forth, because the worker decides for themselves to enter into employment, and has the ability to end that employment whenever they want.

The above explains my take on this. An employer, in my eyes, can make almost any demand for voluntary employment... but there are some limits. Employers cannot force an employee to lie, especially to an officer of the courts or law enforcement personnel. Lying to customers can be a grey area, but the line is drawn when the employee becomes personally liable for fraud or libel.

Again though, how is it a violation of their right? The 2nd Amendment places restrictions on government from creating a law preventing them from owning a gun, but if a person decides not to carry a weapon, he hasn't violated his own rights, he's made a decision.

You have got me there. Who does the bill of rights effect and how does it effect them. Most of the perturbations from our rightful government have been the result of interpreting the Bill of Rights to be a limit on the actions of the people.

If we could roll back to only the court decisions that recognize the B of R as limiting the actions of the federal government, you would be correct.

I believe that it is proper to impose the B of R restrictions on state and local governments, but I have not found a clear legal reason to do so.

The B of R should not effect individuals or corporate personages as it is written. This is where I deviate from the Constitutionalist perspective. Company store operations and slavers are examples of where the line lies in my field of view because they involve duress.

Modern corporate jobscapes are to me a complex and indirect form of company store.

Likewise if he makes the decision to seek employment from a company with a policy that tells him he can't carry a weapon while on the clock, hasn't he made a similar decision?

I agree regarding open carry. I disagree regarding concealed personal protection.

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by 7960

so you don't believe in right to privacy, then? or separation of church and state?

The right to privacy is integral to the right to own property.

The separation of church and state restrains the state from enacting religious laws. It prevents Sharia law.



You guys are all going to BANNED from Utopia if you keep it up. I have corrected some of the issues with the COTUS in Utopia, where this conversation is moot.




........~
---> 0 0 <---
\ ...../....... /
\.. (==).. /
....\.. |... /
----------
Lalalalalllaaalalalalalaaallalalalalala!!!!!

[7960]

Originally Posted by RockPusher

The right to privacy is integral to the right to own property.

The separation of church and state restrains the state from enacting religious laws.

Way to avoid the questions, because (being a constitutionalist you should already know that neither of those is in the constitution and has been interpreted to be in the constitution.

So why is it you're ok with some things being interpreted but others are not so ok?

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by 7960

Way to avoid the questions, because (being a constitutionalist you should already know that neither of those is in the constitution and has been interpreted to be in the constitution.

So why is it you're ok with some things being interpreted but others are not so ok?

The COTUS is a document that describes the scope and powers of the federal government. The law of the states and the UCC are decended from common law, which has already defined the elements of property ownership. Exclusive rights includes private enjoyment. The bill of rights sets standards for the federal government, which applies those standards to decisions regarding the laws of the individual states. This is where the federal government is supposed to safeguard against such things as Sharia Law instituted by majority vote.

[wanna be drummer]

It's a stupid policy, and I don't think he should've been fired, but hey, it's their call to make. If he wanted to carry his gun at work, maybe he should've gotten a different job