Comments on: Bainbridge to Crime Victims: Relax and Enjoy It

By: TJ Jackson

TJ Jackson — Sun, 19 Jun 2005 20:22:37 +0000

Nice article and anaysis. I found Mr. Bainbridge’s assumptions and logic to be a great comfort to robber barons and sweat shops owners everywhere. We have seen other corporations fire smokers as well as attempt to regulate other employee personal habits or life style. Certainl;y I can understand dress codes and even drug testing (if universal within a firm) but Mr. Brainbridge’s rationale just doesn’t hunt.

I wonder how robbery statistics compare at similar stores where such a policy isn’t in force. It would seem to me that would be thugs now know that at 7-11 they do not risk their lives. Hence the Southland corp has decided to sacrifice its employees for the sake of profits and liabilities.

By: Doc Rampage

Doc Rampage — Tue, 14 Jun 2005 08:57:46 +0000

a right to self defense

I wonder how the professor would feel about, say, a night club that fires a waitress for making a scene when a customer tries to drag her into a restroom to rape her. What if they instituted a policy that employees are not to resist rape by customers…

By: Adam

Adam — Tue, 14 Jun 2005 06:02:21 +0000

The policy is obscene, and I will boycott 7-11 because of it (in my case a completely symbolic act), but Bainbridge is right that it should be 7-11’s right to terminate employees who don’t follow it. Idiotic, but people (and corporations) have a right to do a lot of idiotic things.

By: Fraternitas Vitae

Fraternitas Vitae — Tue, 14 Jun 2005 03:53:27 +0000

I’ll See Your At-Will, and I’ll Raise You Self Defense

The 2001 West Virginia court decision is ruffling some feathers in a discussion on whether an individual’s right to self defense should trump an employer’s policy of emloyee submission in the face of imminent harm. Professor Bainbridge is of the…

By: mikem

mikem — Tue, 14 Jun 2005 03:08:52 +0000

Bainbridge has jumped the shark. I wanted to assume that he misspoke in referring to the victim as a gun nut, but his reply to critics belies that assumption.

Bainbridge’s hatred of gun rights is so profound, he is willing to be seen as smearing a non gun wielding victim for taking a gun away from a robber. Apparently there is now a new category, transitional gun nut, for those who survive a robbery by disarming their assailant.

By: Kevin Murphy

Kevin Murphy — Mon, 13 Jun 2005 22:11:08 +0000

I had a conversation several years back with a Southland executive, who asserted that their policy saved lives, as it 1) reduced the danger that employees would be shot out-of-hand by criminals fearing armed employees, and 2) reduced the danger to customers who might be shot in a gunfight. I didn’t buy it, but that was their assertion. It is possible that they know.

Personally, I find their policy to be on a par with 19th Century industrialists who didn’t care how many workers got killed on the job. I also expect that, since they can make their employees (but no one else) indemnify them, the policy relieves Southland of a great amount of potential liabilty.

By: ProfessorBainbridge.com

ProfessorBainbridge.com — Mon, 13 Jun 2005 17:45:01 +0000

At will employment: Should there be a public policy exception for gun nuts?

David Kopel blawgs a West Virginia case holding that 7-11 could not terminate an at-will employee for violating company policy by using a firearm to resist a hold-up. Kopel doesn’t explicitly provide normative commentary, but the overall tone of the