Pizza Delivery Driver Saves Life, Loses Job

[Spanky The Dolphin]

No, but I think this pissing match you're trying to start is getting pathetic.

So just drop it.

[Kelly Antilles]

*sigh* I have said my thoughts over and over. Wong even backs me up, but because my debate techniques pale in comparison to others, I can't seem to get it across to you what I mean. If you would actually read Robert Treader's and Wong's posts, you will see what I've been trying to say.

[Perinquus]

Sod off. When I want your input, I'll ask for it. I'm sure Kelly Antilles is quite capable of speaking up without you to do it for him.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

It comes across perfectly.

Per just seems to want to butt heads and refuse to let go of this old sock.

PS: Kelly is a woman, Per.

[Kelly Antilles]

Sod off. When I want your input, I'll ask for it. I'm sure Kelly Antilles is quite capable of speaking up without you to do it for him.

I'm a her, not a him. Please don't confuse my gender.

Secondly, leave Spanky alone. He was just making a statement that you should let old dogs lie. And this old dog won't hunt anymore because you have set up the wall of ignorance and not looked at the whole picture.

[Perinquus]

*sigh* I have said my thoughts over and over. Wong even backs me up, but because my debate techniques pale in comparison to others, I can't seem to get it across to you what I mean. If you would actually read Robert Treader's and Wong's posts, you will see what I've been trying to say.

That's not what bothers me. I've pretty much conceded that the driver being out of her area and giving people rides on company time are examples of misconduct she should be disciplined for. What you said that bothered me is:

I don't believe anyone here has ever been in that position other than you and me.

which smacks of the suggestion that the rest of us aren't qualified to have an opinion one way or the other. That's pretty much the same thing that set me off last time.

[Colonel Olrik]

Spanky is right, Peringuus. You're not adressing other's points, including the ones made by Darth Wong, and persist in going after Kelly.

Stuff it, or I'll close this thread.

[Perinquus]

Spanky is right, Peringuus. You're not adressing other's points, including the ones made by Darth Wong, and persist in going after Kelly.

Stuff it, or I'll close this thread.

At this point that would probably be a good idea, since there doesn't seem to be anything useful left to say.

[Kelly Antilles]

That's not what bothers me. I've pretty much conceded that the driver being out of her area and giving people rides on company time are examples of misconduct she should be disciplined for.

You have? Well, I must have missed the post where you conceeded that point.

What you said that bothered me is:

I don't believe anyone here has ever been in that position other than you and me.

which smacks of the suggestion that the rest of us aren't qualified to have an opinion one way or the other. That's pretty much the same thing that set me off last time.

I apologized the first time.

How does that suggest that anyone else isn't qualified to have an opinion? I am merely saying that Sokar and I *seem* to be the only ones with experience in this situation. As I said before, my debating tactics are not what they should be. I misspoke and you took it wrong anyway.

[Perinquus]

That's not what bothers me. I've pretty much conceded that the driver being out of her area and giving people rides on company time are examples of misconduct she should be disciplined for.

You have? Well, I must have missed the post where you conceeded that point.

Have you read the entire thread Mike? I agreed earlier that the woman should be subject to discipline for being out of her area, and for having an unauthorized passenger - though termination might not be necessary, depending on her work record.

I apologized the first time.

Fine, I accept. Let us bury the hatchet then.

[Kelly Antilles]

I accept.

[Coyote]

In re: the actual pizza delivery girl...

It is probably quite logical to assume that having a passenger in a company vehicle on business time is grounds for some sort of discipline. In that sense I agree with what Kelly and Mike are saying (as well as others). Perinquus has not disputed this as well.

What I saw as piss-poor judgement was the manager's decision to fire her in the wake of this action. Discipline, yes, but an astute manager would have to bear in mind the publicity-- which has surely cost them a lot more than the actual infraction. He probably fired her rigth after the incident, before it made news, but if he's so worried about lawsuits he should see this coming.

If the driver has a history of doing this, fire her a couple months down the road when things are quiet. If this is a first time, then he should discipline her in some manner relating to work (counciling or withholding an expected raise, etc) and make it obvious that it must not happen again (the rides with friends).

The giving rides was the infraction, relatively minor and worth a disciplinary note in an employee file. Once drawn into the situation, though, the girl had little choice but to follow through. That was where I (and Perinquus) were saying that it would be unacceptable to leave the scene on the pretext of pizza delivery.

It seems that for the most part everyone else here seems to agree to that, but I have to admit for a moment there it looked kinda... well... part of that "don't get involved" mindset that allowed that one guy to die in the gas station around several witnesses who cared not a whit...

[Robert Treder]

In re: the actual pizza delivery girl...

It is probably quite logical to assume that having a passenger in a company vehicle on business time is grounds for some sort of discipline. In that sense I agree with what Kelly and Mike are saying (as well as others). Perinquus has not disputed this as well.

What I saw as piss-poor judgement was the manager's decision to fire her in the wake of this action. Discipline, yes, but an astute manager would have to bear in mind the publicity-- which has surely cost them a lot more than the actual infraction. He probably fired her rigth after the incident, before it made news, but if he's so worried about lawsuits he should see this coming.

A manager shouldn't feel pressured to neglect his duties simply because the public might be all hot and bothered.

If the driver has a history of doing this, fire her a couple months down the road when things are quiet. If this is a first time, then he should discipline her in some manner relating to work (counciling or withholding an expected raise, etc) and make it obvious that it must not happen again (the rides with friends).

Fair enough, but Sokar has experience in the industry in question, and has indicated that this is a terminable offense. It seems fair to me that if a low-level employee so egregiously violates well-known company policy, that employee should get the shaft.

The giving rides was the infraction, relatively minor and worth a disciplinary note in an employee file.

It doesn't strike me as very minor. The employee had an unauthorized, uninsured passenger in her delivery vehicle. Ask yourself why your workplace doesn't allow you to have friends hang out with you afterhours. Ask yourself why your school doesn't allow non-students to sit in on a class they aren't enrolled in. It might at first glance seem cold and unfriendly, but there are extremely good reasons.
The pizza delivery woman's choice to have an unauthorized passenger was an insurance risk, a distraction from diligent work (the driver went off-course to investigate her friend's call), and just a bad idea in general.
What if, upon arriving at the crime scene, the shooter was still there? What if he shot either the driver or the passenger, or both? Can you imagine the absolute mess this would be?
If this isn't grounds for termination, I don't know what is.

Once drawn into the situation, though, the girl had little choice but to follow through. That was where I (and Perinquus) were saying that it would be unacceptable to leave the scene on the pretext of pizza delivery.

I agree that once she was at the scene, the morally correct thing to do was to provide aid. This is not in contention. The question is whether her employer was correct in firing her for getting into the situation in the first place. The answer to that question is 'yes'.

It seems that for the most part everyone else here seems to agree to that, but I have to admit for a moment there it looked kinda... well... part of that "don't get involved" mindset that allowed that one guy to die in the gas station around several witnesses who cared not a whit...

You're right, we do agree on that. The "Good Samaritan Law" is another debate entirely; what is in contention here is whether or not her employer was justified in firing her for her severe transgressions.

Also remember, she's not some veteran, high-paid employee with tenure. She's a pizza delivery woman. I'm sure that others in her profession have been fired for much less than that.

[salm]

ok, we don´t even know if the driver wasn´t allowed to have passangers. AFAIK there´s nothing in the article that clears that up.

anyway, i can see that the manager was theoretically right to fire her. but, hell, that´s just something you don´t do. she saved a life by breaking the rules. i think that´s enough to compensate for her mistake. that´s what makes the manager an asshole.

[neoolong]

ok, we don´t even know if the driver wasn´t allowed to have passangers. AFAIK there´s nothing in the article that clears that up.

anyway, i can see that the manager was theoretically right to fire her. but, hell, that´s just something you don´t do. she saved a life by breaking the rules. i think that´s enough to compensate for her mistake. that´s what makes the manager an asshole.

It's common policy that passengers aren't allowed. It's assumed, liability reasons and all usually prohibit it.

Even if not stated we just assumed it because it's common policy.

[salm]

ok, we don´t even know if the driver wasn´t allowed to have passangers. AFAIK there´s nothing in the article that clears that up.

anyway, i can see that the manager was theoretically right to fire her. but, hell, that´s just something you don´t do. she saved a life by breaking the rules. i think that´s enough to compensate for her mistake. that´s what makes the manager an asshole.

It's common policy that passengers aren't allowed. It's assumed, liability reasons and all usually prohibit it.

Even if not stated we just assumed it because it's common policy.

mmmh, ok, it´s different here. a friend of mine is the driver of a pizza restaurant and the boss doesn´t care if he takes someone for a ride. so i assumed it might be possible that the friend the woman had in the car might not be a problem but apparently it is, which sucks.

[neoolong]

[mmmh, ok, it´s different here. a friend of mine is the driver of a pizza restaurant and the boss doesn´t care if he takes someone for a ride. so i assumed it might be possible that the friend the woman had in the car might not be a problem but apparently it is, which sucks.

Is that store/company policy or only the boss doesn't care? Because just because the boss doesn't care, doesn't mean it isn't policy. Unless he owns the store or something.

[Robert Treder]

mmmh, ok, it´s different here. a friend of mine is the driver of a pizza restaurant and the boss doesn´t care if he takes someone for a ride. so i assumed it might be possible that the friend the woman had in the car might not be a problem but apparently it is, which sucks.

Just because some people run businesses poorly doesn't mean everybody should.

[XPViking]

A manager shouldn't feel pressured to neglect his duties simply because the public might be all hot and bothered.

I agree. But seeing how this incident garnered media attention, she should have been fired when things were quiet. Heck, immediately after the manager could have cut down her hours and disciplined her about being a taxi. If her immediate manager couldn't see that someone higher up should have. As is, the media portrays him as a cold SOB which is not good for business.

XPViking

[Edi]

mmmh, ok, it´s different here. a friend of mine is the driver of a pizza restaurant and the boss doesn´t care if he takes someone for a ride. so i assumed it might be possible that the friend the woman had in the car might not be a problem but apparently it is, which sucks.

Just because some people run businesses poorly doesn't mean everybody should.

It doesn't necessarily mean that the business is run poorly, as you imply. Sure, in America it might not be a smart idea because your legal system is so fucked up it allows people to sue with impunity to get compensation for real and imagined injuries that are in no way the sued party's fault. In most other places, they'll be laughed out of court and slapped with the tab for both parties' legal fees, so shit like that does not happen. Salm and I have grown up in countries like this, so we'll disagree with you on this point. Just because it's done a certain way in America doesn't mean it should be done so everywhere else too.

Edi

[Robert Treder]

mmmh, ok, it´s different here. a friend of mine is the driver of a pizza restaurant and the boss doesn´t care if he takes someone for a ride. so i assumed it might be possible that the friend the woman had in the car might not be a problem but apparently it is, which sucks.

Just because some people run businesses poorly doesn't mean everybody should.

It doesn't necessarily mean that the business is run poorly, as you imply. Sure, in America it might not be a smart idea because your legal system is so fucked up it allows people to sue with impunity to get compensation for real and imagined injuries that are in no way the sued party's fault. In most other places, they'll be laughed out of court and slapped with the tab for both parties' legal fees, so shit like that does not happen. Salm and I have grown up in countries like this, so we'll disagree with you on this point. Just because it's done a certain way in America doesn't mean it should be done so everywhere else too.

The fear shouldn't be that the passenger (or the passenger's family) will sue the company. It's insurance, not litigation. If an employee causes harm to a non-employee (such as the passenger), then the employee and his employer should be held responsible.

And insurance aside, it's still a bad idea to bring an unauthorized passenger along for the fact that the passenger distracts from the working environment. I'm sorry if these delivery people don't have fun while they work, but that's really too fucking bad.
It's not like this is just a theory; we know for a fact that the woman in this case was distracted by her friend enough to go off route and investigate gossip. This is not a professional working environment.
If a pizza company felt that it was necessary for their delivery employees to be accompanied by a friend, then they can go ahead and insure and compensate this friend for their services.

What it comes down to is that there's really no good reason to have a friend in the car, and there are several bad reasons to have a friend in the car.

[Edi]

The fear shouldn't be that the passenger (or the passenger's family) will sue the company. It's insurance, not litigation. If an employee causes harm to a non-employee (such as the passenger), then the employee and his employer should be held responsible.

True that, but about the only way I can see that happening is the delivery person getting into a road accident. I don't know how it works in America, but here the procedure is as follows: Any medical costs and compensations for injuries to the driver and passengers of a vehicle involved in a crash are taken out of the insurance of the guilty party (so if the delivery person was at fault, it goes out of that insurance, but if it was the other driver's fault, his insurance company gets to pay and his insurance rates go up). I don't quite remember how the particulars went and who gets paid how much out of whose insurance, but generally it was so that the guilty party's insurance company gets most of the tab, which they can possibly later get back from them. It's part of the mandatory car insurance policy here.

And insurance aside, it's still a bad idea to bring an unauthorized passenger along for the fact that the passenger distracts from the working environment. I'm sorry if these delivery people don't have fun while they work, but that's really too fucking bad.
It's not like this is just a theory; we know for a fact that the woman in this case was distracted by her friend enough to go off route and investigate gossip. This is not a professional working environment.
If a pizza company felt that it was necessary for their delivery employees to be accompanied by a friend, then they can go ahead and insure and compensate this friend for their services.

What it comes down to is that there's really no good reason to have a friend in the car, and there are several bad reasons to have a friend in the car.

I'm not disagreeing here, and it is quite within the company's rights to forbid such extras and fire people if they break that rule, but of a company does not have a problem with it, I don't see as how that would necessarily be running a business badly, and this is why I objected to your blanket statement. Also, it's a different thing to have a large chain with dozens of outlets and a uniform policy or if you have a single pizza place (or a couple of outlets at most) that is basically a family business, with small outfits, they have more leeway on taking things case by case, something that a big corporation simply can't do because it causes more problems than it solves.

Edi

[Robert Treder]

The fear shouldn't be that the passenger (or the passenger's family) will sue the company. It's insurance, not litigation. If an employee causes harm to a non-employee (such as the passenger), then the employee and his employer should be held responsible.

True that, but about the only way I can see that happening is the delivery person getting into a road accident. I don't know how it works in America, but here the procedure is as follows: Any medical costs and compensations for injuries to the driver and passengers of a vehicle involved in a crash are taken out of the insurance of the guilty party (so if the delivery person was at fault, it goes out of that insurance, but if it was the other driver's fault, his insurance company gets to pay and his insurance rates go up). I don't quite remember how the particulars went and who gets paid how much out of whose insurance, but generally it was so that the guilty party's insurance company gets most of the tab, which they can possibly later get back from them. It's part of the mandatory car insurance policy here.

Yeah, I'm not an insurance expert either, and I probably agree with whatever Finland's legal rules are anyways, so I'm going to suggest we don't go further into this topic at this juncture. Let's just agree

And insurance aside, it's still a bad idea to bring an unauthorized passenger along for the fact that the passenger distracts from the working environment. I'm sorry if these delivery people don't have fun while they work, but that's really too fucking bad.
It's not like this is just a theory; we know for a fact that the woman in this case was distracted by her friend enough to go off route and investigate gossip. This is not a professional working environment.
If a pizza company felt that it was necessary for their delivery employees to be accompanied by a friend, then they can go ahead and insure and compensate this friend for their services.

What it comes down to is that there's really no good reason to have a friend in the car, and there are several bad reasons to have a friend in the car.

I'm not disagreeing here, and it is quite within the company's rights to forbid such extras and fire people if they break that rule, but of a company does not have a problem with it, I don't see as how that would necessarily be running a business badly, and this is why I objected to your blanket statement. Also, it's a different thing to have a large chain with dozens of outlets and a uniform policy or if you have a single pizza place (or a couple of outlets at most) that is basically a family business, with small outfits, they have more leeway on taking things case by case, something that a big corporation simply can't do because it causes more problems than it solves.

While I still don't think it's wise even for a small company to be so lax, I agree that it's quite acceptable for a company to set their own standards of conduct. Well, since we're not even disagreeing here...I guess that's it.
I think that one time Darth Wong said something to the effect of, "Arguing with someone you agree with is intellectual masturbation." Of course, I've never been averse to masturbation.

Oh, and according to my post count, I am now officially 1337.

[Stormbringer]

A manager shouldn't feel pressured to neglect his duties simply because the public might be all hot and bothered.

I agree. But seeing how this incident garnered media attention, she should have been fired when things were quiet. Heck, immediately after the manager could have cut down her hours and disciplined her about being a taxi. If her immediate manager couldn't see that someone higher up should have. As is, the media portrays him as a cold SOB which is not good for business.

I agree with that. Be a bit more diplomatic about it but there's no question she deserved to be fired.

[salm]

mmmh, ok, it´s different here. a friend of mine is the driver of a pizza restaurant and the boss doesn´t care if he takes someone for a ride. so i assumed it might be possible that the friend the woman had in the car might not be a problem but apparently it is, which sucks.

Just because some people run businesses poorly doesn't mean everybody should.

meh, it´s a pretty well run business. the delivery guy does his deliveries just as good as without company. and happy employees are good employees. (sometimes).

one thing is different though. someone else mentioned the pizza restaurant in the article might not be property of the manager. well, i assumed it was. as you discussed with edi already the insurance thing over here works different, too.

MAHOK!