Slashdot Mirror


Papa John's Sued For Unwanted Pizza-Related Texts

jfruh writes "Nationwide pizza chain Papa John's is finding itself on the receiving end of a $250 million text spam lawsuit. From the article: 'Seattle law firm Heyrich Kalish McGuigan, representing three Papa John's customers, alleged that the pizza delivery service has sent 500,000 unwanted text messages to customers. If the court finds that Papa John's violated the U.S. Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the pizza maker could have to pay damages of $500 per text message, or US$250 million, one of the largest damage awards under the 1991 law, the law firm said. "Many customers complained to Papa John's that they wanted the text messages to stop, and yet thousands of spam text messages were sent week after week," Donald Heyrich, attorney for the plaintiffs said in a statement. "This should be a wake-up call to advertisers. Consumers do not want spam on their cell phones."'

418 comments

  1. it would have been more cost effective by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Funny

    to just have pirated 3 movies and be done with it.

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    1. Re:it would have been more cost effective by Quakeulf · · Score: 1, Funny

      If they really want to get rid of so much money so quickly they could just fund someone's Kickstarter, or give it to me!

    2. Re:it would have been more cost effective by tqk · · Score: 1

      ... or give it to me!

      Get in line, pal.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
  2. This is wrong. by RudyValencia · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Companies should honor requests for people to be able to opt out of their text messaging programs. I used to work in a call center supporting a major cellular carrier and their devices. The most common problem people called about was text messages they did not want and needed help in stopping. All we could do was educate the customer on how to opt out of the text messaging spam. This was one year ago. I left and never looked back.

    1. Re:This is wrong. by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Companies should honor requests for people to be able to opt out

      No, they should all be "op-in"...

      (...otherwise they just set up a new company every week and we have to "opt-out" all over again)

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:This is wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything (virtually) should be opt-in.
      Opt-out is a violation of our civil liberties/rights.
      Opt-out is immoral and unethical.
      I apply this to snail-mail as well as electronic communications

    3. Re:This is wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your tinfoil is on too tight.

    4. Re:This is wrong. by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As Sheldon would say, "Oh, good lard!" Dude, your tinfoil is leaking.

    5. Re:This is wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ideally they should be both at the same time, if it is solely an opt-in process they'll do what spammers have been doing for ages, they'll attach it to the end of long eulas/contracts in a tiny font.

    6. Re:This is wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop a think for a second. I know it might be hard but just try it.

      There is another possibility you are missing. Rather than 'payback' you could be witnessing the result of a CEO that has already proven he is a douche by being willing to give away two million free pizzas on promotion but not eat 14 cents on margin for his employee healthcare costs, and that said same CEO being a douche would also not understand how spamming millions of people is at the least unethical and most likely illegal.

      I know it was hard, but if you keep trying it will get easier.

    7. Re:This is wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Teach a man to opt-out and you solve only one problem. Teach a man to never opt-in, and you solve his problems for the lifetime of his contract.

    8. Re:This is wrong. by geminidomino · · Score: 2

      Bullshit. The law is right on, for once (if a little toothless, like most good laws).

      You want to send people your shit, you get them to Opt-IN. Not out.

    9. Re:This is wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read something yesterday about how texting rates declined recently for the first time, and they were wondering if this is the beginning of a trend.

      I have no idea (and sort of doubt it--at least it will be a long slow decline).

      However, I've noticed a definite increase in text spam myself in the last year or two. It's been horrible for some of my family members, and I recently decided to block all texting to my phone because I couldn't handle it. I'm not sure what started it, because I've generally been pretty careful about who I give my number to.

      Anyway, I'm sick of it, and would prefer that everyone use some sort of IM anyway, like Google Chat or whatever. I suppose you need a smartphone, but I could care less.

    10. Re:This is wrong. by shentino · · Score: 1

      Opt out my ass.

    11. Re:This is wrong. by shentino · · Score: 1

      Doesn't help if companies opt you in themselves.

      Or better yet, get a deathgrip on an essential service and force you to agree to it before they do business with you.

    12. Re:This is wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a moron.

      Go back to whining about the election. Romney lost because of...
      the liberal media
      Democratic vote suppression
      lazy minorities voting themselves stuff
      masses of illegals voting

      Pick one. Or more.

    13. Re:This is wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Opt-IN should indeed be the norm. Then the offers would even be presented in a more competitive and helpful manor. The rub of course is that we would need politicians that are public servants instead of money/power chasing party whores. At some point America must break the two party system of fail. This is just a small example of the failure state.

    14. Re:This is wrong. by cusco · · Score: 1

      So somehow Obama convinced a fairly conservative office of lawyers to file a class action suit? These suits take months to prepare, they have to collect a large enough list of plaintiffs to convince a judge to make them the attorney of record for the suit, so somehow these mostly-Republican lawyers knew months ago that the idiot CEO was going to make that statement? Did Obama also backdate the law to 1991 (the administration of Bush the Elected) to make text spam illegal?

      Damn, is it painful to be that stupid? If not, it should be.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    15. Re:This is wrong. by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Rather than 'payback' you could be witnessing the result of a CEO that has already proven he is a douche by being willing to give away two million free pizzas on promotion but not eat 14 cents on margin for his employee healthcare costs,

      I imagine that as Obamacare becomes more and more implemented, we're going to see more business have to make these kinds of decisions, especially with regard to part time help,etc.

      These min wage jobs aren't meant to be living careers...they're for highschool and college kids to make extra $$. These kids don't need separate health care as that they're usually covered still by parents or schools....but this is now an extra burden put on by the Feds and the new laws.

      I never expected health care when growing up doing jobs in HS and through college.....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    16. Re:This is wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every commercial website that I have used to purchase goods and services during the last decade has always included an option to opt-in or opt-out of receiving occasional communications from the by email and in a few cases by text message. I have only received such messages if and when I explicitly opted to received them and can always toggle the opt-in/opt-out status. This article seems like a law firm trying to make a name for itself in the litigation field. The judge should toss out the lawsuit if the defendants can show they provide an easy opt-in/opt-out toggle. If the defendants show this functionality is in-place, the judge should fine the law firm for incompetence and professional misconduct.

    17. Re:This is wrong. by Cosmo-san · · Score: 1

      A large number of people disagree with a business's practices and vocalize their disapproval?

      Oh, the humanity!

    18. Re:This is wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The solution is socialized health care.

      Our current system places the burden of health care on employers. For the vast majority of businesses, the increased taxes required for a single-payer system would be more than offset by by removal of the expense of insurance.

    19. Re:This is wrong. by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing that you're one of these "free market" loons; if not, then I apologize because this isn't addressed specifically to you but to others that are.

      I love how you dipshits go on and on about the free market being able to take care of everything, but then when the free market does actually take care of something (such as boycotts against organizations that espouse bigoted ideologies), you get all up in arms about it. You know what? The market has spoken. If you're going to promote hate and bigotry against gays, it's not going to be tolerated. You're still free to hate them all you want, and the flip side of that is that the rest of the civilized country is free to mock and boycott you for it.

      And companies that push liberal ideas are praised for being progressive so it's not as simple as people don't want politics mixed with business.

      And again, even though you haven't provided any specific examples, this would be an example of the free market doing its job. If progressively-minded companies get praised, it's because the free market has decided that this is something worthy of praise. If you claim that it's the government doing the praising, therefore not really the free market, well, AGAIN, the free market of voters decided that this was the government they wanted, and it is acting, at least nominally, in the way that they expected it to when they voted for it.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    20. Re:This is wrong. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      You're an idiot.

      And yeah, saying hateful thing sis going to rile up some citizens. So what?
      Boy Scouts enjoy government entitlements, as such they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate.
      Chick fil a said something I don't agree with, so I wont go there. SO what?

      Don't confuse the market with 'being attacked'.

      Of course how all of a sudden liberal meant "People being treated equally" I'll never know.

      oh wait, yes I do. The religious right infected the republican party. Now everything they don't agree with is an attack.
      And you have been spoon fed and turned into a non thinking bitch.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    21. Re:This is wrong. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Please don't quote the horrible, horrible show.
      It insults intelligent people and praises stupid people, and the writers seem to have no idea about what nerds are like.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    22. Re:This is wrong. by fadethepolice · · Score: 1

      Geekoid. Sorry I missed your comment the other week to my post. You commented that I was wrong wrong wrong when I stated that jesus was for returning all of the money to caeser and just sharing the food. I have over 10 years of bible study, 20 years after that of independent study on religion, and am interested on any facts you have from the bible that contradict my assertation on this. Please provide citations, and a realistic motivation for the roman and hebrew establishment at that time for the execution of jesus.

    23. Re:This is wrong. by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Wrong.

      Companies should be required by law to NOT SEND ANY advertisements to users who do not explicitly OPT-IN.

      OPT-IN should be required to be a LINE ITEM on its own, not allowed to be part of ANY other item. I really don't give a fuck how many people lose their jobs because of it.

      I did not opt in to AT&T advertisements about crap because I signed a contract to use their service.

      I did not opt in to the cable company calling my cell phone and trying to sell me their shitty VoIP crap service.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    24. Re:This is wrong. by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      If you're going to promote hate and bigotry against gays, it's not going to be tolerated.

      You are an idiot.

      Please show me the organization you think lost business because they openly opposed homosexuality.

      I really hope you aren't trying to use the Chik-Fil-A thing as an example considering the 'boycott' didn't even show up on the radar and the 'we support chik-fil-a day was a record success.

      Hell, even gays we making fun of the douches like you who think you're any less of a bigot for being all pissed off when someone doesn't agree with you.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    25. Re:This is wrong. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      DUDE... Those four characters are extreme caricatures of me in my youth (except the comic books, costumes, and card games). When I talk to normals about science or computers it's like Sheldon talking to Penny. A former girlfriend to her sister "did you understand any of that?" when I was explaining what was wrong with her computer. The sister says "nope, not a word." I'm sure you've been there yourself. Every character on the show is a caricature, from the "normal" slutty Penny to the stupid boyfriend who thought Leonard's laser was going to blow up the moon.

      Regular Mayim Bialik holds a PhD in neuroscience. Guest stars have been Leonard Nimoy, George Takai, LeVar Burton, slashdotter Wil Wheaton, and other Star Trek actors. More prominent (to nerds) guest stars have been astrophysicist George Smoot, physicist Steven Hawking, and astronaut Buzz Aldrin.

      The show is hilarious. I think you watched with a preconceived mind set. My daughter turned me on to it when she bought the first two seasons on DVD as a gift because "you'll get all the jokes." She was right, there is a LOT that would go over normal peoples' heads. Give it another watch with an open mind.

  3. Law Firm: $50 mil - You: $1 off next pizza by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Enjoy your justice - American sytle.

    1. Re:Law Firm: $50 mil - You: $1 off next pizza by c0lo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      (hmmm.... can't stop thinking... a dozen more suits like this and the US economy would be growing... right?)

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    2. Re:Law Firm: $50 mil - You: $1 off next pizza by Sulphur · · Score: 5, Funny

      (hmmm.... can't stop thinking... a dozen more suits like this and the US economy would be growing... right?)

      A gross domestic product.

    3. Re:Law Firm: $50 mil - You: $1 off next pizza by azalin · · Score: 3, Funny

      "gross" describes Papa John's "Pizza" quite adequately.

    4. Re:Law Firm: $50 mil - You: $1 off next pizza by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (hmmm.... can't stop thinking... a dozen more suits like this and the US economy would be growing... right?)

      Nope, a dozen more suits like this and then we can all afford to buy a large cheese pizza (with coupon). ;-)

    5. Re:Law Firm: $50 mil - You: $1 off next pizza by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (hmmm.... can't stop thinking... a dozen more suits like this and the US economy would be growing... right?)

      More like some Americans' waistlines will be growing. LOL

    6. Re:Law Firm: $50 mil - You: $1 off next pizza by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

              Law Firm: $50 mil - You: $1 off next pizza. Enjoy your justice - American sytle.

      As if the trial lawyers are at fault here. It's the corporate powers that demonize trial lawyers, because otherwise they don't even have to pay the $50M to the class action suit. They can just screw you all over and over for the$1 less that it would cost you to recoup their scams. E.g. You lose $100 of pay to go to court, you "win" $99 or justice back, most people won't bother, so the net cost to them is $0.

  4. They need a new tagline... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Real spam, real annoying: Papa John's

    1. Re:They need a new tagline... by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 2

      Terrible ingredients, Terrible pizza: Papa John's

      --
      I got here through a series of tubes
  5. If I get spam from a pizza company, by Threni · · Score: 0

    I'm going to order so many pizzas to be sent to random addresses with the name "sam spam" etc they're likely to get the message pretty quickly. Or perhaps not. But it's gonna cost them!

    1. Re:If I get spam from a pizza company, by houghi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It will cost the pizza drivers, not so much the company.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    2. Re:If I get spam from a pizza company, by Threni · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      The pizza drivers pay for the ingredients, lose from the lack of space in the oven for genuine customers' pizzas etc? The drivers are paid anyway - all they're losing is the tip. But yeah, if you work for that sort of company there'll be disadvantages at all levels.

    3. Re:If I get spam from a pizza company, by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm going to order so many pizzas to be sent to random addresses with the name "sam spam" etc they're likely to get the message pretty quickly.

      Be sure to order a spam, spam, spam, spam, cheese, tomato and spam topping.

      --
      No sig today...
    4. Re:If I get spam from a pizza company, by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      I don't want spam, I want pepperoni!

    5. Re:If I get spam from a pizza company, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woosh. Way to ruin a good joke.

    6. Re:If I get spam from a pizza company, by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 2

      lack of space in the oven for genuine customers' pizzas

      ... so the pizza parlor just tries to pass on those pies to other customers who ordered a similar one.

      ==> So, when playing this prank, remember to ask for extra anchovies...

    7. Re:If I get spam from a pizza company, by tangelogee · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't want spam, I want pepperoni!

      Well, you could order the spam, spam, pepperoni and cheese, that hasn't got much spam on it.

    8. Re:If I get spam from a pizza company, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The pizza drivers pay for the ingredients, lose from the lack of space in the oven for genuine customers' pizzas etc? The drivers are paid anyway - all they're losing is the tip. But yeah, if you work for that sort of company there'll be disadvantages at all levels.

      Drivers buy their own gas and put miles on their own vehicles.

      By the way, "Sam," you'd be committing fraud, and on the scale you're suggesting, there's no way it would be a misdemeanor.

    9. Re:If I get spam from a pizza company, by Y2KDragon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No, the drivers lose in the cost of gas to go out. They lose tips for non-existent deliveries. They lose income from people being angry and petty. Remember, the people working in the stores aren't the ones who sent the spam, but they will be the ones to bear the worst of the punishment for such actions. Best response is to just not buy from them anymore. I've stopped ordering a long time ago when I found out he was a heavy political backer of the "nut-job right" (not to be confused with actual Conservatives).

    10. Re:If I get spam from a pizza company, by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      Hey, I think I got one of your orders... "I C Weiner".... BRB, going to sit down and rest at this table in front of a bunch of tubes....

    11. Re:If I get spam from a pizza company, by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      This "legitimate conservative" idea intrigues me and I would like to know more. Do you have a newsletter I can subscribe to? I have been frequently assured, on these very pages, that any opposition to liberalism is, in fact, racism of the overt or disguised type. No joking. I am curious to find what sort of dissent would be acceptable. Please provide real-life examples and positive, non-derogatory references to such in the pages of the New York Times. Thanking you in advance.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    12. Re:If I get spam from a pizza company, by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 1

      I've stopped ordering a long time ago when I found out he was a heavy political backer of the "nut-job right" (not to be confused with actual Conservatives).

      I didn't realize this. I won't be as bummed out that they won't deliver in my area now.

    13. Re:If I get spam from a pizza company, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what then is the remedy to pay back all those folks who had to pay money to receive each of those illegal spam text messages on their phones? A coupon for free pizzas?

    14. Re:If I get spam from a pizza company, by Golddess · · Score: 1

      Drivers buy their own gas

      Not always. I don't know if this is on a store-by-store basis or what, but my brother who works for Dominos is reimbursed* for his gas.

      *Setting aside the semantics of paying up front vs paying after the fact.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    15. Re:If I get spam from a pizza company, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sir, are a fucking retard of the highest caliber. Good Day.

    16. Re:If I get spam from a pizza company, by Darby · · Score: 1

      I have been frequently assured, on these very pages, that any opposition to liberalism is, in fact, racism of the overt or disguised type. No joking. I am curious to find what sort of dissent would be acceptable.

      Given that America was founded on Liberalism intentionally and that the constitution was written specifically to eliminate any possibility of right wing ideas from our nation's government perhaps you should just leave and go live somewhere that supports right wing ideology like Saudi Arabia.

      No, you'll just keep whining like a little crybaby making up idiotic crap. "Whaaaaa I get called racist when I support the enemies of my nation and piss in the face of it's founding principles Whaaaaaa". You'd actually need to have integrity to go live under a real right wing government like the ones America defined itself by it's opposition to in the American Revolution and the two World Wars.

      America is the original real world instantiation of Liberalism. This was by design. If you hate the fundamental basis of the country leave. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. This is not a Democracy specifically so that losers like you couldn't destroy the nation through your cowardice, your ignorance, and your douchebaggery. Grow up and deal with the fact that you and those like you were defined as the nation's worst enemies over 200 years ago.

    17. Re:If I get spam from a pizza company, by houghi · · Score: 1

      Best is to find a local mom-and-pop store that delivers. Or do what I do: go to the restaurant.

      e.g. a Pizza at Domino's will set me back 8EUR. At the local pizzeria (pizza made by real Italians in a stone oven) it costs me 5.50EUR for a Pizza Margarita. Pizzahut would set me back 7,25EUR.

      The local real restaurant is cheaper, tastes much better, is nicer to sit, does sponsor local economy and not some remote CEO, so why should I order out again?

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    18. Re:If I get spam from a pizza company, by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      It seems to me, from what I understand from politicians, that’s really rare, If it’s a legitimate conservative, the country has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn't work or something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the voters, and not attacking the constitution.

    19. Re:If I get spam from a pizza company, by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      You might want to go back and watch the Monty Python sketch before you're so quick to say 'whoosh' to people who got the joke that you didn't...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    20. Re:If I get spam from a pizza company, by cusco · · Score: 1

      Damn. Best rant I've read all week.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    21. Re:If I get spam from a pizza company, by immaterial · · Score: 1

      You shouldn't, obviously. I can't imagine how a crappy chain pizza restaurant stays in business wherever it is you live. But here in the US (most places, anyway) the local places are going to cost double what the shitty chain stores charge.

    22. Re:If I get spam from a pizza company, by jjsimp · · Score: 1

      If that was the case, there would be no delivery drivers. Most of them make minimum wage and deliver way more than one pizza an hour. With a tank of gas going for 3+ a gallon, a highly doubt any of them do. And as the comment below said, I definetly know dominoes reimburses for gas. I worked for one back in the late 80's as a teen, back when gas was no more than $1.5 and they reimbursed then.

    23. Re:If I get spam from a pizza company, by jjsimp · · Score: 1

      Who the hell cares how the CEO foolishly spends his money? Do I care that Tom Cruise gives money to his wacky Religion? No, I decide if I want see his movie based on the previews/reviews not his political affiliation. I'm not pro-life, but I will tell you Chic-fil-a makes a tasty chicken sammich.

    24. Re:If I get spam from a pizza company, by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Dominoes costs $4.90NZ and Pizza Hut costs $4.90NZ. Local pizzerias cost between $15 and $30NZ. You get boned by pizza chains in Europe. (FYI, $4.90NZ is about 3.14EUR)

    25. Re:If I get spam from a pizza company, by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      .... and I'm going to push your chair over


      - Nibbler

    26. Re:If I get spam from a pizza company, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A legitimate conservative would be someone who's ideology is, at a minimum, internally consistent. Similarly, in my mind, there are legitimate liberals and nut-job liberals too.

      If you want smaller government, that means a smaller military. If you want your freedom to own guns, pray in public, etc, then you need to give others the freedom to use drugs, marry whomever they choose, etc. If someone has a core set of non-overlapping principles and derives all their political opinions from that core set of principles, I may disagree with them but at least there is a logic that I can follow.

      I lose all respect for both liberals and conservatives when they attempt to impose their own beliefs on others. A liberal pushing gun control is just as nutty as a conservative trying to outlaw gay marriage or abortion. In both cases you're trying to control a decision that just doesn't affect you.

    27. Re:If I get spam from a pizza company, by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Not sure what country you live in, but in America the company is actually required to provide compensation for that by law. If you're driving and not getting properly paid, you should be filing some legal paperwork.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    28. Re:If I get spam from a pizza company, by mike1218 · · Score: 1

      Given that America was founded on Liberalism intentionally

      Yes; classical liberalism. Not modern Leftism.

      As a matter of fact, successful revolutions such as the American Revolution had strong conservative streaks; such revolutions overthrew existing regimes in the name of ancient and long established principles that the regimes had been undermining and corrupting. The American Revolution was meant to revive the rights of Englishmen, restoring the principles of the Glorious Revolution and the natural law it was based upon.

      Needless to say, those like you have once again undermined and corrupted the long-established principles of natural rights, liberty and limited government.

  6. Statutory damages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interesting to see if outrageous statutory damages are imposed on a company (they're just like a person, remember!) as they are with individuals who pirate movies. Wouldn't want there to be double standards or anything...

  7. Re:Who doesn't want Pizza? by dosius · · Score: 1, Informative

    I wouldn't call that crud pizza. Fake mozz? Hell, every pizzeria around here uses the real thing, whole-milk mozzarella.

    -uso.

    --
    What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
  8. The law says... by iYk6 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The law says that you aren't allowed to spam cell phones with commercial advertisements. No opt out necessary.

    1. Re:The law says... by houghi · · Score: 3, Informative

      In Belgium this is different. We can (and do) send commercial offers to our customers. Two things:
      1) We honor the opt-out
      2) The customer never has to pay when receiving messages (unless he is in another country and roaming is on)

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    2. Re:The law says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      But of course there's a loop hole... one used by a company during this past election.

      You don't spam the phone by sending text messages... you spam the phone by sending "emails" to
      @

      Such as 8145553345@vtext.com or whatever Verizon's service is. The company in Virginia that was doing this hasn't gone to trial yet but many see it as "breaking the spirit of the law but not actually the law its self".

    3. Re:The law says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn it slashdot for stripping my text. The lone @ should read
      Phone number @ carriers email to text gateway

    4. Re:The law says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      3) You can only send such messages to people that have either opted-in (usually by failing to uncheck a check box on some online for for something unrelated) OR you must be able to prove a "business relationship" exists with that person. In principle it is enough to show that this person has at some point purchased something from you.

    5. Re:The law says... by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      There are things like that I wish are the same in all countries. In France for instance, you may receive spam mail just because the site is buggy. Out of laxity, some sites do deal with unsubscribe and all, but it's so buggy it doesn't work well - it's not deliberate, people just don't care. Having mil$ to pay would certainly help the said sites to improve their IT/programming.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    6. Re:The law says... by kbdd · · Score: 4, Funny

      You don't spam the phone by sending text messages... you spam the phone by sending "emails" to @

      I would like to hear what they tell the judge when he asks where did they think the messages would end up if not on a cell phone as a text message?

    7. Re:The law says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How would this apply to Apple's iMessages. (Wasn't it in the news yesterday that texting is actually decreasing! iMessage is taking more and more of the texting business and depriving the "evel" phone companies of revenue. We use Sprint which is unaffected since they do not charge for text messages. Verizon and AT&T the time we looked for phones.)

    8. Re:The law says... by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 2

      If you pay somebody else to carry out a crime or civil offence on your behalf you're also guilty.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    9. Re:The law says... by franciscohs · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So how do you know if the customer is in another country?

      Last time I travelled I paid more for text and call spam than what I spent myself with legitimate texts and calls (which were very few, not that I got hundreds of spam messages, but still).

    10. Re:The law says... by GNious · · Score: 2

      How to opt out of the daily calls from peoplethat only speaks french and wants to sell wine/cheese/kitchens/furniture/other-crap ?

      THOSE are the ones that are driving me mad, and no, they don't honor anything.

    11. Re:The law says... by orangesquid · · Score: 1

      AHA! So THAT is Anonymous Coward's phone number!!!

      Hmm... "Your call can not be completed as dialed." I should've known.

      --
      --TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
    12. Re:The law says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they have a business relationship with the number in question, it does not legally qualify as spam. If you order pizza on your cell phone, you just established said business relationship. As such, an opt out may well be necessary.

    13. Re:The law says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's an imaginary number. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again.

    14. Re:The law says... by Synn · · Score: 1

      Sounds fair. I'm going to have 10,000 companies swing by your office today and try to sell you shit. You're free to tell each of them to not stop by every day and each of them will honor that request.

      Of course tomorrow I'll send over another 10k companies.

    15. Re:The law says... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So how do you know if the customer is in another country?

      They don't know and they don't care. Why is it the Belgian government's problem that US carriers have stupid "receiver pays" billing policies? Belgium can't fix an American problem.

    16. Re:The law says... by houghi · · Score: 1

      We don't. Extra charge of SMS (and phonecalls) are due to roaming in another country and will depend on your provider.

      I receive about 4 commercial offers per year via SMS in total and no calls whatsoever. But then I opt-out as soon as I can most of the times and I see that I give my phone number only if it is really needed.

      I have walked into stores with my phone in hand and when they asked for my phone number told I did not have a phone (while talking on the same phone)

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    17. Re:The law says... by Obfuscant · · Score: 0

      They don't know and they don't care.

      That's right, the companies that spam text messages (and email) don't know and don't care.

      Why is it the Belgian government's problem

      Who said it was? The comment was about it being legal in Belgium to send spam texts unless the recipient is roaming and thus is charged roaming rates. That's a law covering the companies, who we already know don't know and don't care. So the law does nothing to protect anyone.

      that US carriers have stupid "receiver pays" billing policies?

      Stupid is a subjective evaluation. Why should it even matter if someone has to pay per-text message for spam to be unethical and a morally bankrupt practice, including the common practice of hiding a tiny checkbox that is pre-checked with permission to spam as much as a company wants? Such a practice is essentially changing an opt-in system into an opt-out system, because the user must take an explicit action to NOT participate -- the definition of "opt-out".

      I just ran across a site run by a travel agency that would RECHIECK the "spam me until my eyes bleed, please" box every time there was a problem on submitting a checkout. "Please enter your phone number, and don't notice that I've re-enabled the 'spam me until my eyes bleed, please' option for you because you obviously wanted that box checked, didn't you"?

      Even if someone doesn't pay in cash for each text, each text spam takes up very limited memory on the phone, which can mean that real texts (like a system status report letting someone know there is a critical issue with a computer he's responsible for) will not get delivered. "Message memory full" is a DOS attack just as real as any other.

      Belgium can't fix an American problem.

      Spam is not an American problem, my friend.

    18. Re:The law says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah!? Well AT&T says they don't care. They make money on both the sending & the receiving end, and they won't do anything to block commercial text ads from your phone. It's up to you, the customer, to pay for yet-another-monthly-service from them and block the originating number yourself.

      I've had numerous 'conversations' with the nice Indian, Phillipino, Malaysian guy/girl on the other end of the customer service call, and all they do is tell you that have no way to block these messages. But you can, all for only $5.95/month.

      The carriers are complicit and it's profitable. The FCC doesn't give a fuck, and people with Unlimited plans facilitate the morass.

    19. Re:The law says... by jjsimp · · Score: 1

      I usually just give out the last landline phone number I no longer have or my work number without my extension.

    20. Re:The law says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it's not a text message. It's an email. It doesn't matter that the client is a cell phone. The entire transaction from a senders point of view is no different than sending an email.

    21. Re:The law says... by TemporalBeing · · Score: 2

      US carriers have stupid "receiver pays" billing policies? Belgium can't fix an American problem.

      It's worse than that - both sender and receiver pay. That is why I went into my AT&T account on-line and just flat out disabled texting.

      If it was sender pays, I might have kept it on, and may have even eventually used it.

      It's bad enough to charge for sending, let alone also charging for receiving given that the SMS/Text messages are entirely carried within the extra unused bytes of the already existing Control Messages on the network. It's pure profit - well, nearly so (e.g. 99% profit at worse).

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    22. Re:The law says... by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      That's a problem with the law. The law should not specify spam as text message is illegal, it should be saying spam in any form is illegal.

    23. Re:The law says... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You are correct. However, the law also says it is not spam when you have requested the information by having a business relationship with the advertiser. Of course the FCC rules indicate that the advertiser has to show written authorization or consent to do so.

      But that isn't all that hard to do. All those sign up sheets for drawings and so on usually contain some fine print about being able to contact the number with advertisements and so on. If any of the local Papa John's pizza joints had "win a pizza party" fill this out things happening, the consumer may have given consent without realizing it. It further goes that if you list your wireless phone number as your home phone number, you could have consented to a business relationship insomuch as you have authorized their use of your cell number under the same rules as the home number.

      All this could have been sorted out with complaints to the FCC. A favorable ruling by the FCC would have given a slam dunk case to anyone wanting to seek the compensation. I suspect that the lawsuit, timing, and the publicity has more to do with the founder's claims that they will have to raise prices and cut employee hours to comply with the Obamacare regulations. It is strikingly coincidental that it came about just now- right after he released his statement. Perhaps they can get Papa john's to close down and fire everyone at their less profitable stores or something by this.

    24. Re:The law says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the message is delivered via email and the recipient agreed to receive occasional notifications via email, the lawsuit is without merit. Most businesses offer an opt-out option in the email and/or through your account management portal on their website. Text messages delivered via SMS or MMS are another matter all together unless the recipient agreed to receive such communications and is not offered a mechanism to stop receiving the messages.

    25. Re:The law says... by tqk · · Score: 0

      How's about if I come over to your place and put a bullet in your head? It'll be quicker.

      Just a thought.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    26. Re:The law says... by tqk · · Score: 1

      Damn it slashdot for stripping my text.

      That joke just never gets old. You haven't noticed the "Preview" button, I take it? As in proofread? As in, "A good carpenter doesn't blame his tools"?

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    27. Re:The law says... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Nope. I have the right to express myself; just like you have the right not to read my text.

      Of course one should never be charged in any way for receiving texts, and you should be free to block texts however you want.
      Then the problem fixes itself.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    28. Re:The law says... by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      If you don't want to be charged for receiving calls and text messages, don't choose a plan that does so.
      Helps in NZ where its impossible to find a plan that will charge to receive something.
      Its kind of confusing in USA though, since if I roam there, I don't get charged for receiving messages, but a customer on the same network I'm roaming on does.

    29. Re:The law says... by tqk · · Score: 1

      How would this apply to Apple's iMessages. (Wasn't it in the news yesterday that texting is actually decreasing! ...

      Don't know. Seriously, don't care. FFS man, "How would this apply to Apple's iMessages?" Who would ask such a stupid question?!?

      Jeebus.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    30. Re:The law says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So how do you know if the customer is in another country?

      Country codes in the telephone number would help. Someone should invent that.

    31. Re:The law says... by BitZtream · · Score: 2

      You do not have the right to express yourself in anyway you see fit. You do not have the right to express yourself on/in/with anything that is considered 'mine'.

      You can take your retarded understanding of 'freedom of speech' and shove it up your ass. Freedom of speech does not mean what you think it does.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    32. Re:The law says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who is Belgium to decide what their recipients' bill is like? Best practice says to assume that the recipient is billed. Even if not necessarily monetarily.

      Belgium is unethical.

    33. Re:The law says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So how do you know if the customer is in another country?

      They don't know and they don't care. Why is it the Belgian government's problem that US carriers have stupid "receiver pays" billing policies? Belgium can't fix an American problem.

      Belgian customers roaming in Liechtenstein would have to pay as the receiver. See, he was bragging about how Belgians never pay for spam texts and then corrected himself by noting they *do* pay if they are outside of Belgium and have roaming on. Are you going to remain dumb on this and claim Belgium can't fix a Liechtensteiner problem now?

    34. Re:The law says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You comment holds merit on its own but not in context of this topic. The real question is why should spam be allowed by default in the first place? Yes, some countries have draconic carriers fleecing their customers, but that does not make it right to engage in spam as the default and opt-out as an option consumer have to actively and consciously invoke.

      Imagine if your town has garbage collection for free where it is sponsored by the business alliance, would that mean it is ok for any business to dump garbage on your lawn, with an option for you to opt out per different types of garbage by different business. What is the harm there? You get free garbage removal anyway, you can opt to not participate after the fact. Doesn't compute does it?

    35. Re:The law says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A mailbox? No seriously, technically speaking if I send an email, I expect it to arrive at a mailbox and technically that is correct. Remember they are sending emails here. The the case is about spam in general or spam to Verizon's mail servers then I would see relevance.

    36. Re:The law says... by submit+your+site · · Score: 1

      The law says that you aren't allowed to spam cell phones with commercial advertisements. No opt out necessary.

      it is totally disturbing & spam. i like to ur reply.

      --
      Submit your Site URL to the Best of the Web Directory.
  9. Papa John by nospam007 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Just as info for those who don't know these morons.

    "Before the election Papa John’s CEO John Schnatter, a big Romney supporter, was one of the highest profile CEOs threatening layoffs and pizza price hikes (god forbid!) if Obama won. He doubled down after the election, like the Vegas man saying he’d start making layoffs and reducing hours at Papa John’s locations rather than having to provide healthcare for people working more than 30 hours per week."

    http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/190955/idiots-line-up-to-thank-papa-johns-for-screwing-them-out-of-healthcare/

    1. Re:Papa John by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      did not know that and now that I do, they are on my do-not-buy list.

      in my area, they had semi-ok pizza but now that I know the ceo is like that chick-fil-a guy, I want no more part of them.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    2. Re:Papa John by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So, you are saying this lawsuit is merely payback for his opposition to Obama?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    3. Re:Papa John by kenh · · Score: 2

      The truth is that Papa John's franchisees will likely cut hours to avoid Obamacare tax/penalty, not corp parent, and the comment was a prediction, not a promise.

      --
      Ken
    4. Re:Papa John by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      "...doubled down"?

      Is that the latest trendy phrase over there?

      Scott Adams mentioned it today, I thought he was exaggerating. Apparently not.

      --
      No sig today...
    5. Re:Papa John by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow the haters are really out against this person.

    6. Re:Papa John by RabidReindeer · · Score: 3, Informative

      "...doubled down"?

      Is that the latest trendy phrase over there?

      Scott Adams mentioned it today, I thought he was exaggerating. Apparently not.

      Yes. You're late to the party.

      Translation: It didn't work before, so now we'll do it twice as hard.

    7. Re:Papa John by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 4, Funny

      Because it's a job creator taking a brave stand against Comrade Obama. A job creator, cutting jobs and pay of already poorly paid employees, is an admirable stand against the communism that is causing the EU and Canada to descend in to governmental Orwellian surveillance, economic ruination, soccer, no freedoms and a whole bunch of stupid national anthems and incomprehensible languages.

      I salute Papa John's financially successful and well educated Facebook fans. Fight for the job creators, not the White House Politburo!

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    8. Re:Papa John by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      did not know that and now that I do, they are on my do-not-buy list.

      in my area, they had semi-ok pizza but now that I know the ceo is like that chick-fil-a guy, I want no more part of them.

      You realize, of course, that by doing that, you're hosing the employees even further, because not only will hours be cut, but so will the number of employees.

      So instead of 10 people working 28 hours, you'll see 8 working 28, and 2 not working at all.

    9. Re:Papa John by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      did not know that and now that I do, they are on my do-not-buy list.

      You realize, of course, that by doing that, you're hosing the employees even further, because not only will hours be cut, but so will the number of employees.

      Perhaps they can go to work for a more ethical pizzeria when Papa John's cuts back locations due to reduced business. I suppose you'd prefer that nothing ever get better at all because some people will suffer if it does.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:Papa John by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How are they morons when it was Obama that said he wanted the 30 hour maximum for workers in order to reduce unemployment? Blame the guy that created the policy rather than the victim of the policy.

      You should have blamed BOOOSH!

      Remember, the All-Hallowed LIghtBringer Obama the Messiah is blameless in everything.

    11. Re:Papa John by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 2

      The truth is that Papa John's franchisees will likely cut hours to avoid Obamacare tax/penalty, not corp parent, and the comment was a prediction, not a promise.

      <sarcasm>Yes, but we must show our support for the workers who have had their hours slashed by not spending our money with their employer. Once they lose enough money and go out of business, they will realize that they shouldn't have cut those hours!</sarcasm>

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    12. Re:Papa John by JackieBrown · · Score: 0, Troll

      did not know that and now that I do, they are on my do-not-buy list.

      in my area, they had semi-ok pizza but now that I know the ceo is like that chick-fil-a guy, I want no more part of them.

      Like everything else, this is a perspective thing.

      On Friday I will be buying pizza from Papa John's. This is the first delivery pizza I have bought in 2 years.

      Now that I know the ceo is like the chick-fil-a guy, I want to support them.

    13. Re:Papa John by arth1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      You realize, of course, that by doing that, you're hosing the employees even further, because not only will hours be cut, but so will the number of employees.

      People won't stop buying pizza. They'll buy from other places instead, which means other places will be hiring.

      Anyhow, I don't really get the whole pizza delivery thing. Where I live, it's quicker for me to make a pizza from scratch than to order one.
      It's really not hard - if it were, those guys wouldn't be able to do it...

    14. Re:Papa John by mea_culpa · · Score: 2

      How is that illegal? Do we need government further micromanaging businesses? How has that ever helped the economy?
      It is his view as CEO that people are going to buy less pizza under Obama. Even though we don't see it, he does.
      Let his business sink or swim on its own merits.

      Personally, I think it is ridiculous that he is making a political statement at the expense of his employees. But from a business point of view (political posturing aside) I does make business sense.
      PPACA (Obamacare) is a radical change for many businesses. Although I don't agree with these CEOs, Many of them truly believed that Romney was somehow going to heal the economy and end PPACA. Even if Romney didn't achieve that, businesses in general would have had less perceived uncertainty under Romeny and taken more risks in the form of investment and expansion giving a measurable boost to the economy.

    15. Re:Papa John by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      A job creator, cutting jobs and pay of already poorly paid employees,

      How much money should a pizza delivery driver make?

      Anyways, they make the bulk of their money on tips which they don't report so they don't have to pay taxes on them. You really have no idea how much they make.

      My wife worked at a car wash for 3 years. The detailers made 5.15 an hour. They made an unreported extra hundred in tips daily.

    16. Re:Papa John by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trade sanctions are the first thing to be enacted on rogue dictators, but it's true, they tend to ineffective and hurt innocent people.
      Hopefully the US will send troops in to arrest Schnatter and bring him to the Hague for trial.

    17. Re:Papa John by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I think it is ridiculous that he is making a political statement at the expense of his employees."

      I guess you don't watch Hollywood movies or USA television, do you?
      Many producers, directors, and starts will not work with others of a differing political strip.
      Jay Leno, the Great Democrat, will not hire a Republican.
      Dwight Schmidt (A-Team) was not hired for another series because he is a Republican.
      This is a trend in the USA entertainment industry today. Just check the news.
      If the Left can do it, then why can't the right?

    18. Re:Papa John by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Yes. You're late to the party.

      I don't live in the USA so I guess I missed it.

      --
      No sig today...
    19. Re:Papa John by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you think there will be similar threats if he loses this lawsuit?

      Considering the amount of money he's citing that "Obamacare" is costing him, it would be comparable in cost.

    20. Re:Papa John by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      The negative score is telling about how much liberals like to suppress opposition. You basically said the exact thing as the +4 post you responded to (except to state a positive action,) and your post got modded as flamebait.

      The fact that someone actually used one of their few mod points to hide your post is key to their insecurity.

    21. Re:Papa John by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Because he is a republican?

      The difference between Papa-Johns CEO the the Chick-fil-a CEO is former is against a policy, and the later is against a group of people.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    22. Re:Papa John by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Translation: It didn't work before, so now we'll do it twice as hard.

      This is usually my approach to anal sex as well!

    23. Re:Papa John by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it would be much easier for them to just hire twice as many 20 hour a week employees instead of paying for the healthcare. Businesses do this stuff all the time. My brother was at a unionized retail store and he was "temporary part time" for years so that he wouldn't be in the union, and they could pay him half of the other guys. After that he was "permanent part time" which was in the union, so he go a little higher wage, but no benefits still. After about 7 years he was classified as "permanent full time" and finally was a full member of the union working at retail location making over $25 an hour + benefits. So the old boys club gets to rake in all the money and new employees have to work for close to minimum wage. Oh, and he was working 35+ hours a week for his entire "career" even when he was classified as temporary part time.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    24. Re:Papa John by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 2

      How much money should a pizza delivery driver make?

      Anyways, they make the bulk of their money on tips which they don't report so they don't have to pay taxes on them. You really have no idea how much they make.

      My wife worked at a car wash for 3 years. The detailers made 5.15 an hour. They made an unreported extra hundred in tips daily.

      Basic pay depends on the location. I don't have precise figures, but I can say straight off that there's a serious problem if someone is earning approximately fifty dollars gross a day with an additional hundred in undeclared earnings. Why isn't the job creator getting a cut of this, and paying taxes? The employees will probably blow that money on short-term goals, like food. The job creator will invest in their business to further enhance their business. Better that than the black economy you describe.

      By poorly paid I consider the overall renumeration package. The employees will tend to be part-timers, generally meaning that benefits due to full-timers wouldn't apply. Well done Papa John's for using this wheeze to save money. If people get sick, for chronic conditions they have Medicare. For non-chronic conditions they can go to emergency rooms or use their tips to purchase medical insurance. The IRS probably won't think it a bit odd that someone earning a declared gross income of 100-200 dollars a week is frittering away a substantial chunk of that on medical cover and other health-related costs.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    25. Re:Papa John by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      Anyways, they make the bulk of their money on tips which they don't report so they don't have to pay taxes on them.

      Not sure about pizza drivers, but waitresses' tips are taxed even if they make no tips; they add a % to their wages for tax purposes. And waitresses earn LESS than minimum wage because of tips. If you make no tips (midnight shift at Denny's) you're paying too much tax. How many trips can a driver make in an hour? Yes, even with tips they're in poverty.

    26. Re:Papa John by ehynes · · Score: 4, Informative

      How can it be payback? The lawsuit is being brought by a private law firm and it was certified as a class-action case by a Reagan appointee.

    27. Re:Papa John by clonehappy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Don't bother. People on here don't understand basic economics. They think that somehow these pizza joints (franchises mostly that have nothing much to do with John Schnatter anyway...barely keep their heads above water) are raking in cash hand over fist and greedily sticking it into their vaults to swim in occasionally. This is patently false.

      If it costs them an extra $50,000 a year to run a restaurant, many will be forced to lay people off, simply because they can't afford to pay them anymore. Some restaurants may even close. But somehow, in the new Amerika, this is progress?

      It boggles the mind. Fix the problem within the healthcare system, then worry about forcing the poorest individuals to pay a tax if they don't have healthcare. But since it was packaged up and shoved in the sickly-sweet loving liberal exterior, it has to be good...and anyone who understands the real ramifications of the healthcare act is a very very bad person and/or a racist.

    28. Re:Papa John by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 2

      People won't stop buying pizza.

      People without jobs will cut back on pizza...

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    29. Re:Papa John by ElWojo · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up (despite the misspelling of America): Extremely accurate depiction of the whole political nightmare that is the Affordable [sic] Care Act.

    30. Re:Papa John by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      in my area, they had semi-ok pizza but now that I know the ceo is like that chick-fil-a guy, I want no more part of them.

      You mean he's a Republican? Because that's about the only similarity I can see between the two.

      Papa John's is reacting to the new economic reality they face under the Obama regime. It's that simple. Obamacare will force them to cut hours and let people go. They know that. We know that. This has never changed since the concept was first floated. It's reality.

      Now that they know they're not going to get a last minute reprieve from a sane administration, they're forced to go through with cost-cutting measures to meet the new economic realities they will face, rather than coasting on existing momentum in the hopes that a change of administration will restore sane economic policy.

      Compare to Chick-fil-A, which merely pushes a moral agenda and a return to the values that made America the greatest nation on Earth. Sure, you might be against a return to American morality, and therefore against Chick-fil-A, but that has nothing to with Papa John's. Papa John's is reacting to basic economic reality.

    31. Re:Papa John by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That proves it! I mean, amazing how all the details of this case are known, including the political leanings of the judge, but it aint political. Nosireebob, nothing political here. Same with all of the lawsuits against Palin when she ran.

      Liberals should stop trying to white wash everything with... "But it was a Republican eye-dear" and "He was appointed by a Republican". It has been known for a while that Alinskyites use infiltration tactics.

    32. Re:Papa John by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      Are you following me?

      kidding.

      As far as how much pizza driver make and living in poverty, I really don't think that all jobs created are made with the intention of being full time jobs with livable wage.

      I worked at Subway as a "sandwich artist" and later as an usher at a movie theater. Neither of these jobs paid me a livable wage. I would argue that these jobs were not targeting people that where looking for that kind of job. There was no way for me to own a house, pay for a car, pay for health insurance, and pay for my food with those jobs and with the skill/work involved for those jobs, I would not except to be paid enough for all that.

    33. Re:Papa John by dnahelicase · · Score: 2

      How is that illegal? Do we need government further micromanaging businesses? How has that ever helped the economy? It is his view as CEO that people are going to buy less pizza under Obama. Even though we don't see it, he does. ... Even if Romney didn't achieve that, businesses in general would have had less perceived uncertainty under Romeny and taken more risks in the form of investment and expansion giving a measurable boost to the economy.

      Spamming people on their cell phones is illegal. Firing people based on their political beliefs might not be illegal, but firing them because they are hispanic and probably voted for Obama might be (as one Papa John's franchisors might have done.)

      People are probably going to buy less pizza under Obama's next four years, at least from the big pizza chains. (http://www.qsrmagazine.com/competition/fall-pizza) They probably would have under Romney as well. Big pizza has been declining over the past decade, and all signs point to that continuing, but not because of the economy. Small pizza restaurants are doing great, as are small breweries. In a time when the rest of the big pizza industry was declining, Papa John's took a gamble and tried to massively expand. They are facing competition from healthier eating, as well as faster, cheaper, and/or different chains that have grown lately, like Panera, Chipotle, and Jimmy Johns. I imagine they will contract over the next few years, but it's BS to say it's because of the requirement of healthcare. It's a small percentage of costs, and it's something all of the competition has to deal with as well.

      You can say Romney would have improved investment and created expansion through less perceived uncertainty, but I completely disagree. I believe he would have created a tidal-wave of uncertainty, with an unknown tax plan, an unknown relationship with congress, and a huge question mark with healthcare. I believe we are more comfortable than we were before, having essentially four years of history with this president and with (essentially) this congress.

    34. Re:Papa John by RobertLTux · · Score: 2

      err FEDERAL LAW requires
      1 an absolute minimum wage for tipped employees
      2 if tips are not enough to make the difference between the absolute minimum and the federal minimum then the employer must make up the difference
      3 various bits on the extent of tip "pooling" (this prevents your top employees from funding the wages of the bottom ones)

      any employer that is not keeping good track of tips is
      1 an idiot
      2 violating federal law

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    35. Re:Papa John by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      I have no idea, but that seems to be what the poster I was replying to was implying. Otherwise their entire post was irelevant.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    36. Re:Papa John by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God bless the selfish cunts of America. Jesus would have supported health care. Greedy CEOs and CEO fed politicians aren't actually Christ followers.

    37. Re:Papa John by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Now he's at +5, so your complaint is void.

      But good show, Republicans NEVER CENSOR, NEVER TRY TO MAKE ANYBODY SHUT UP....except when they do.

      See for example, your attempt to shame liberals into the false worship of letting a damn fool speak without criticism. Conservatives and right-wingers can't handle being criticized, can they?

    38. Re:Papa John by Tarlus · · Score: 1

      If you lack the ingredients/time/energy, it sure is nice to have pizza already made and ready to eat.

      --
      /* No Comment */
    39. Re:Papa John by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Charity only comes from your own volition, not when forcibly taken by the state.

    40. Re:Papa John by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Informative

      Papa John's is reacting to the new economic reality they face under the Obama regime. It's that simple. Obamacare will force them to cut hours and let people go. They know that. We know that. This has never changed since the concept was first floated. It's reality.

      Some people knew it - but many people lived under a reality distortion field that lead them to believe that there would be no consequences of any kind under the new law. Those of us who pointed out the flaws in the plan and pointed out that you couldn't alter the trajectory of billions of dollars without consequences were and are being called haters, and liars, and ignorant... and worse.
       
      The worst part is that Obamacare doesn't actually do anything to reform health care or control costs. It's a shell game to hide the mounting costs.
       
      Still, the effects of this farce are only beginning to be felt. The shell game they've been playing about funding is going to end, with a shell lifted to reveal... nothing. Expect a wave of insurance companies going under over the next decade, if they aren't bailed out to the tune of billions or trillions (which the government doesn't have). Since many underwriters and insurance companies also provide other forms of insurance, the ripple effects through the economy will be staggering.
       
      And those ignorant people under the reality distortion field won't understand that these consequences were as predictable as the sun rising. They simply cannot comprehend TANSTAAFL.

    41. Re:Papa John by Dragonslicer · · Score: 2

      Maybe it's been overused lately, but it isn't a new term. It's originally from Blackjack. At least it's usually being used somewhat correctly.

    42. Re:Papa John by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The negative score is telling about how much liberals like to suppress opposition. You basically said the exact thing as the +4 post you responded to (except to state a positive action,) and your post got modded as flamebait.

      The fact that someone actually used one of their few mod points to hide your post is key to their insecurity.

      It cuts both ways. Slashdot tends to have a liberal slant, ergo there'll be liberals with mod points who think downmodding is the way to deal with opposing views. Head over to forums/sites with a conservative bent and you'll see the same. This isn't a phenomena exclusive to any particular ideology.

      Chick-fil-a as a company is perfectly entitled to sponsor anti-gay efforts. Hell, let them fund efforts against interracial marriage if they wish. I'd defend their right to be utterly unpleasant, while still considering anyone who supports their right-wing fundie positions to be vile bigots.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    43. Re:Papa John by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      did not know that and now that I do, they are on my do-not-buy list.

      in my area, they had semi-ok pizza but now that I know the ceo is like that chick-fil-a guy, I want no more part of them.

      Like everything else, this is a perspective thing.

      On Friday I will be buying pizza from Papa John's. This is the first delivery pizza I have bought in 2 years.

      Now that I know the ceo is like the chick-fil-a guy, I want to support them.

      Sounds like you'll enjoy the papa johns pizza. It matches your lifestyle.

    44. Re:Papa John by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      right... because you have no idea what the costs are either, clearly.

      have you seen papa john's owner's house? He is nearly literally swimming in cash. He owns a private golf course on his property, for example. Seems he can afford to pay his employees so they could maybe buy a putt-putt course of their own?

    45. Re:Papa John by jackbird · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, the clusterfuck that ended up being the ACA was an attempt to get republicans on board. The actual sickly-sweet loving liberal version is single payer, like, you know, the rest of the developed world. And small business owners should be first in line to ask for it (perhaps only after large corporations with large retiree healthcare expenses), but somehow they've all been convinced it's anathema.

    46. Re:Papa John by strikeleader · · Score: 2

      That's what food stamps are for

    47. Re:Papa John by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're misunderstanding the idea of capitalism again.

      He has a right to try to make a profit. He has confused this to be a right of continuing to make the same level of profit he has made previously, in perpetuity. Most businessman don't realize this. They will need to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the idea that their workers are people, not 'human resources' to have the maximum value extracted from for the minimum cost of hiring. And this is a 'need'; and we should never venerate the people who need to be dragged into this.

      Papa John's is run by the typical plutocrat who complains about having 22 million instead of 23 million, and thinks that you should go bleed on someone else's lawn if you get injured. Especially during your shift for his unsafe job. (Driving is absurdly unsafe from a statistical standpoint, add in delivering to complete strangers...)

    48. Re:Papa John by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

    49. Re:Papa John by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      No, its clearly a troll post.

    50. Re:Papa John by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      good reading comprehension, friend.

      GP is talking about owners of the individual franchises, who don't actually make all that much..

    51. Re:Papa John by fuzznutz · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it would be much easier for them to just hire twice as many 20 hour a week employees

      That works in a high unemployment environment; not so much long term. Labor rates usually rise and/or labor quality usually drops when companies resort to these kind of tricks. Crappy employees can kill a business as quickly as high cost. Health care rules are now the new norm, like it or not. Businesses can try to avoid it, but labor will shift to jobs where they qualify for health care unless employers make it worth their while. No business exists in a vacuum.

    52. Re:Papa John by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyways, they make the bulk of their money on tips

      Have you ever delivered pizza? You underestimate the number of cheapskates that order delivery.

    53. Re:Papa John by kimvette · · Score: 2

      I'm sure that if you're willing to pay two to three times the current price for pizza to cover the $8.5K-$24K additional each employee will cost the company, then papa john's will happily cover 100% of health insurance costs for their employees. Are you willing to pay that increase for pizza?

      I didn't think so.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    54. Re:Papa John by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      Ain't democracy great, as long as everyone agrees with you?

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    55. Re:Papa John by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because such enlightened countries as Greece and Spain have shown us the way to economic prosperity through confiscatory taxes and overly generous social programs.

    56. Re:Papa John by amoeba1911 · · Score: 1, Funny

      Chick-fil-a: bigotry never tasted this good!

    57. Re:Papa John by Renevith · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I can't help but picture this CEO as a 6-year-old who's been prevented from stealing his younger sister's toy and is now throwing a tantrum.

      I am a libertarian. It should be a no-brainer for Republicans to attract my support (over the Democrats at least). Instead they're giving me and everyone else the finger with their absurd rhetoric and childish political games. This goes for their politicians, their pundits, and quite a few of their supporters. Everything Obama supports is automatically bad, even if it's the same thing the Republicans earlier supported.

      This insane prioritization of winning vs. losing and minor social issues instead of real governance is why I agree with the sentiment of this post. The Republicans are a menace and must be stopped.

    58. Re:Papa John by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obamacare will force them to cut hours and let people go. They know that. We know that

      Yes, all their full time employees (none of which are likely to be laid off and all of which probably already HAVE fully-compliant insurance) having to have insurance is forcing them to cut the part-timers' hours and let people go.

      Your face makes me fire people. It's just as valid of an excuse.

      Or who knows? Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Papa John's has full time drivers and the company doesn't have a group health plan. I have a hard time believing that either of those are true.

    59. Re:Papa John by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ad hominem and strawmen. How is this +5 Interesting?

      It boggles the mind. Fix the problem within the healthcare system

      Yeah, okay. And how do you intend to do that, exactly? What do you think Congress has been arguing over for the last several decades? You are quick to criticize, but fail to really say anything of substance.

      The problem isn't liberals and it isn't conservatives. The problem is that our career congressmen have demonstrated that they are both unwilling to accept defeat gracefully and unable to even compromise without trying to sabotage or derail the entire effort. And yet we continue to support this partisan bullshit by voting to retain incumbents or at best replacing them with yet another member of the same two incompetent parties.

      You say you want to fix our problems, but it looks like all you really want to do is blame the guys on the other side of the aisle. You are the problem.

    60. Re:Papa John by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      Understand that every company is going to be getting out of the healthcare business in 2014.

      If you don't offer health care, there is a fine that is 10% or less of the cost of offering health care to one employee. Maximum fine is like $5000 no matter how many employees you have.

      If you do offer health care coverage the fine is 100% or more of the cost of health coverage for each employee that decides to go with the health care exchange plan instead.

      These two incentives together make it absurd for a company to offer health care coverage once this goes into effect. The employees will not lose as the health care exchange policy will be heavily subsidized by the government.

      What this does mean is that we will be seeing single-payer health care (without ever voting for it in any manner) by 2016. What Papa Johns does or does not do is immaterial. No company will have health insurance past 2014 - as soon as the renewal comes up in 2014 is it done.

      Cutting back? Obviously. Everyone will be cutting back as the economy as a whole is growing at a rate less than inflation. Everything is getting smaller, not larger.

    61. Re:Papa John by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now he's at +5, so your complaint is void.

      But good show, Republicans NEVER CENSOR, NEVER TRY TO MAKE ANYBODY SHUT UP....except when they do.

      See for example, your attempt to shame liberals into the false worship of letting a damn fool speak without criticism. Conservatives and right-wingers can't handle being criticized, can they?

      Strawman. The poster did not say that Republicans don't do that only that Democrats do. Also, the post is nowhere near a +5

    62. Re:Papa John by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      The difference between the US healthcare system and most of the rest of the world is the insane way money is spent. In the US around 90% of all health care spending is on the last year of life - basically keeping nearly-dead people alive for a few months longer. The US cannot have health care spending like that and have the government pay for it - there simply isn't enough money in the country to do it.

      What will drive single payer is the government running out of money when all companies discontinue offering health coverage in 2014. The fine and penalty system is structured to force this, and the result of plenty of meetings has been everyone in the HR area saying they are dropping coverage when the fines go into effect. See, there is a huge fine if you offer a plan that even one employee doesn't like and goes outside to the health care exchanges. This is designed to make sure that companies offer only expensive plans but what it does instead is put too much risk on offering any plan at all.

      With everyone going to the health care exchanges for subsidized coverage the government will be picking up the tab (or most of it) the bill will be over $2 trillion. In a mad scramble to save as much money as possible, the government will push it all onto a single-payer plan and eliminate the health insurance companies, brokers, reinsurers and all the people in the health care industry that are today involved with coding and billing. Expect the unemployment roles to expand by a few million people. But the government will then be in a position to dictate the reimbursement for everything in health care and be able to reign in the costs.

      It also means that if you smoke, your habit will become part of a public record and it is indeed everyone's business that you are spending every taxpayer's money on your habits. If you do drugs, same thing - it is now a matter of public policy. You are spending my money, so it is my business.

    63. Re:Papa John by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      Follow the money.

      If Mr. Schnatter is swimming in money (multiple swimming pools, 22 car garage, private golf course), where do you think he gets that money?

      By squeezing the franchise owners.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    64. Re:Papa John by jkauzlar · · Score: 1

      it's only forcible when you don't want to do it

    65. Re:Papa John by operagost · · Score: 1

      John Schnatter didn't "threaten" to lay off people as retaliation for Obama's policies. He was simply stating fact: Romney pledged to repeal Obamacare and doing so would be necessary to keep various regulations that would greatly increase the cost of employer-provided health care from coming into effect. Even if he hadn't properly crunched the numbers, it's what he believed and it's a reasonable response from someone who is responsible for keeping a business afloat.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    66. Re:Papa John by operagost · · Score: 0

      Can you explain to me, as a libertarian, how Obamacare is not going to greatly increase costs for employers? What political parties you dislike is irrelevant to the truth.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    67. Re:Papa John by shentino · · Score: 1

      Because Obama told congress it wasn't a tax, but then told the supreme court it WAS a tax.

      Obama flat out lied.

      How do you expect the average Joe Sixpack voter to stay informed if the politicians are always lying?

      Generally speaking I am SICK of people blaming uneducated voters for being sheeple. They are victims, and the elite are actively deceiving them precisely because they do not WANT educated voters waking up to the crap they're pulling.

      And as the ohio election hack proves, they are also willing to cheat to win.

      Throw in the violent suppression of the 99 percenter protest and you also prove that the elite are willing to use force to preserve their power.

      We are ALREADY fucked. We have lost.

    68. Re:Papa John by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      Nice cherry picking. Have any evidence that health care is what caused Greece and Spain their trouble? Because the consensus is that the old Greek government cooked the books and that's why they're in deep shit now.

      Let's look at some other countries with universal health care. Are you telling me that ALL of these countries are failing...?

      Norway, New Zealand, Japan, Germany, Belgium, United Kingdom, Kuwait, Sweden, Bahrain, Brunei, Canada, Netherlands, Austria, United Arab Emirates, Finland, Slovenia, Denmark, Luxembourg, France, Australia, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Cyprus, South Korea, Iceland, Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland, Israel

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    69. Re:Papa John by operagost · · Score: 1

      That is incorrect. The Chick-fil-a CEO made it clear that he is against legalizing gay marriage. That is being against a policy.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    70. Re:Papa John by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Fix the problem within the healthcare system"

      The solution is actually very simple - I call it "everybody pays the same".

      I underwent heart surgery to fix a bad valve. A birth defect. When everything was said and done, the aggregate of billing was a bit North of $483K. Almost half a million dollars billed! And what was the final settled cost? Less than $74K.

      If I had not had insurance, I would have had to cough up almost half a million dollars, but the insurance company has very valuable dollars, so they only had to part with about $69K (The difference was paid by me - about $5K). Why do they get an 85% discount, and why can't I? What the fuck difference does it matter WHO pays the $74K? If $74K was enough from them, it should have been enough from me, but it doesn't work that way. THAT is what is wrong with healthcare in America.

    71. Re:Papa John by jkauzlar · · Score: 1

      It's worth noting that a good percentage, if not a majority, of Papa John's workforce is under 25 and so eligible (by Obamacare) to remain on their parent's healthcare.

    72. Re:Papa John by shentino · · Score: 1

      How the hell is it the voter's fault when the candidates are always lying?

      Obama told congress obamacare wasn't a tax then turned around and told the supremes that it was.

      For my part I voted against obama and I also voted against every single incumbent.

      When nobody of the opposite party existed, I voted for donald duck, chuck norris, bugs bunny, and so on.

      My vote ain't gonna mean shit, and it never will, but at least I speak as loud as I'm able.

      So don't you DARE fucking blame the voters when everyone who has a brain can figure out that they're already disenfranchised.

      We citizens do not have the right to vote. In case you haven't noticed, we have an electoral college system, which at this point is completely under the control of state governments. And the system is that a state's electors are duty bound to vote how the state tells them to.

    73. Re:Papa John by operagost · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If those people were free to work for a "more ethical pizzeria", why couldn't they just go work for a pizzeria with better benefits, instead of us imposing a huge bureaucracy to waste money pretending to create free health care benefits?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    74. Re:Papa John by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Translation: It didn't work before, so now we'll do it twice as hard.

      This is usually my approach to anal sex as well!

      Take a painkiller first, maybe the other guy won't hurt you so much next time, or at least you won't feel it.

    75. Re:Papa John by shentino · · Score: 1

      I'd be fine with people being treated as resources if people also get to sell their labor to the highest bidder and not worry about a conspiracy to shaft them.

      Competition is a splendid remedy for almost anything and I support it.

    76. Re:Papa John by shentino · · Score: 1

      Let a pizza delivery driver's wages be determined by supply and demand like every other expense.

      Just keep the cartels from price fixing and everything should work itself out.

      Anyone left starving at the end? That's when the government should step in with a social safety net.

    77. Re:Papa John by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      So you think voluntary charity is enough to support all of the poor, homeless, and starving?

      I wish that were true, but people are just too damn selfish.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    78. Re:Papa John by operagost · · Score: 1

      It was not an attempt to get Republicans on board (the 1990s anti-HillaryCare bill notwithstanding) based on the fact that they didn't need a single Republican to vote for it. It was passed purely with the Democratic supermajorities in both houses.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    79. Re:Papa John by jackbird · · Score: 1

      So what was that year of revisions, compromises, and goalpost-moving?

    80. Re:Papa John by jackbird · · Score: 1

      Don't forget Iraq. It's in the brand-new US-installed Neocon-approved Iraqi constitution!

    81. Re:Papa John by jackbird · · Score: 1

      Except in the most general way, your rant has absolutely nothing to do with the GP.

    82. Re:Papa John by readin · · Score: 1

      So basically he, as a businessman, realized that with Obamacare he would be forced to lay off workers and raise prices.
      He apparently didn't want to have to do these things so he warned people in hopes of preventing that it from happening.
      It happened anyway so he followed through on what he said was the logical result of the re-election.

      Sounds to me like he was just being a good American doing his best to run a business despite interference from the government. If he just wanted to be mean and layoff people while raising pizza prices he could have done that regardless of who was elected. If laying off people and raising pizza prices would result in higher profit margins anyway (without or without Obamacare), he could have done that regardless of who was elected.
      He only chose to do these things because Obama was re-elected. Since the guy wants to make money it is logical to assume that it is the threat of Obamacare that created the conditions where it makes more sense to lay off people and raise prices.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    83. Re:Papa John by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, hell yes. Exactly baby.
      Its payback from the 'give me my free shit even if it bankrupts the country' crowd of people over here in America.

    84. Re:Papa John by PraiseBob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or maybe he will be force to lower his franchising fees, since clearly the parent corporation is making a ton of money.
      They have options:
      A) Everything stays the same, go out of business (so the CEO claims)
      B) Cut back employee hours to save money, and stay in business
      C) Cut back franchise fees to a billionaire who has a private golf course and moat, and stay in business
      D) Raise prices by the 11 cents per pizza and pass along the cost to the customer

      They've chosen options B and D. Raising the prices by 50 cents to cover health care costs, while simultaneously cutting worker hours so they don't have to give them health care either way, and hiring more "part-timers". Essentially the plan is to screw over both the customers and the employees, rather than cutting his own obscenely large paycheck.

      People on here don't understand basic economics
      I think people on here don't like assholes.

    85. Re:Papa John by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you, thank you, thank you for posting this! :) :) :)

      This firmly cements my resolve to make sure never to buy from Papa John's again. Although, why anyone would in this town, I have no idea. As there is plenty of small local pizza shops that make far better pizza than what I remember the stuff Papa John's makes from when I went there as a child. Support your small local businesses. But that's besides the point...

      Health care is a human rights issue. Everyone deserves to have health care regardless of income level, race, or any other social or cultural barrier. When going to the hospital for a life saving procedure, or even just having regular doctor appointments and/or treatments bankrupts and ruins peoples lives financially, there is something very wrong with the system. John Schnatter in his soulless disregard for the health and well being of his employees can't understand this because he likely makes far more money than is needed to live comfortably and would never be put in this position. Until he understands what it's like to live from paycheck to paycheck working two or three jobs to try and make ends meet... This is what you get from him. The Schnatter's of the world are not the kind of people that have the best interests of their fellow human beings in mind, and thusly not the ones you want setting policy and law in our government.

    86. Re:Papa John by readin · · Score: 1

      The negative score is telling about how much liberals like to suppress opposition. You basically said the exact thing as the +4 post you responded to (except to state a positive action,) and your post got modded as flamebait.

      The fact that someone actually used one of their few mod points to hide your post is key to their insecurity.

      It cuts both ways. Slashdot tends to have a liberal slant, ergo there'll be liberals with mod points who think downmodding is the way to deal with opposing views. Head over to forums/sites with a conservative bent and you'll see the same.

      I didn't realize Slashdot was supposed to be liberal. I thought it was supposed to be for nerds - focused more on subjects like science, math, science fiction and stuff like that. National Review Online is something we expect to have a conservative slant. New York Times and Slate are sites we expect to have liberal slants. I come to Slashdot hoping to see both sides discussed in an fair way by people with enough skills in logical thinking to recognize logical fallacies. So long as everyone is being civil the logical fallacies either don't happen in the first place, or when they do happen someone points them out.

      Downmodding should be reserved for things like spam, posts dominated by foul language, off-topic posts, and posts that are so clearly fallacious and offensive that its clear the writer wasn't even trying to contribute something useful.

      Slashdot used to be that way. For a while I noticed that conservative posts were getting downmodded a lot. In the last month it feels like it has gotten better. The post that was modded down should not have been. It wasn't something to be modded up as it wasn't very insightful or interesting or informative. But it certainly didn't deserve a downmod.

      The instructions for moderating say you should focus on upmodding more than downmodding. That's important to remember.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    87. Re:Papa John by BradleyUffner · · Score: 2

      I just did the math. At 8.5k cost per year the cost would only go up by $1 per pizza as long as 23 pizzas are delivered per day; that doesn't sound at all unreasonable to me. The more pizzas per day the lower that cost increase would be. Even in your worse case it would raise the price of a pizza by $3.

    88. Re:Papa John by operagost · · Score: 1

      You only pay taxes on your actual income. Your employer may be able to withhold extra (I'm not sure; I fill out my w-4 myself and thought that was required) but at tax time, you're going to put in your actual income. At least that over-withholding will come back. In addition, if you DON'T collect enough tips to earn at least minimum wage, by federal law your employer MUST cover the difference. There's no reason waitresses have to overpay taxes.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    89. Re:Papa John by King_TJ · · Score: 2

      Honestly, this doesn't really change my opinion of them a bit. All these people placing them on a "do not buy" list ... what do you hope to accomplish with that? Just by pure statistics alone, very close to HALF the entire voting U.S. population claims to side with Schnatter's support for Romney. That's far more than enough potential customers for him to remain very successful, EVEN if you could somehow convince ALL who disagree to never buy a Papa John's pizza again. So right away -- no hope of a successful boycott.

      But more to my original point -- I'm not so sure he's wrong to fight the idea of providing healthcare benefits for all of his employees? Pizza delivery and baking isn't really something you do expecting excellent compensation, benefits and career advancement. The only reason we've collectively reached this situation where so many people clamor for paid healthcare is the spiraling cost. Everyone's afraid of what their "self pay" bill would look like.

      Think of the spiraling cost of college tuition.... Seems pretty proportionate to the amount of student loans people became able to tap into to pay for it. If there were no loans, do you think colleges and universities would charge the same rates they charge now?

      It's the same principle with healthcare today. If they can basically make health insurance a mandatory thing it's "unthinkable" to try to buy medical care without, they can charge insanely high rates and keep getting away with it.

    90. Re:Papa John by BradleyUffner · · Score: 2

      If he just wanted to be mean and layoff people while raising pizza prices he could have done that regardless of who was elected. If laying off people and raising pizza prices would result in higher profit margins anyway (without or without Obamacare), he could have done that regardless of who was elected.

      Except now he gets to raise prices and blame it on Obama instead of taking the heat for being greedy. Which do you think is better PR?

    91. Re:Papa John by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If those people were free to work for a "more ethical pizzeria", why couldn't they just go work for a pizzeria with better benefits, instead of us imposing a huge bureaucracy to waste money pretending to create free health care benefits?

      Because most other businesses won't offer those benefits because it puts them at a competative disadvantage. The end consumer can't really see the hidden costs of uninsured workers when they order their pizza, so all else being equal they favor the cheaper pizza (ie: the one that doesn't pay health benefits).

    92. Re:Papa John by Your.Master · · Score: 2

      Papa John himself estimated 10-14 cents a pizza. Forbes estimates just 5 cents. Taking Papa John's worst-case estimate and your best case-estimate, the highest price Papa John's pizza could be today is seven cents.

      Yeah, I'm willing to go from 7 cents to 14 cents a pizza. That's a friggin' steal either way.

    93. Re:Papa John by readin · · Score: 1

      If he just wanted to be mean and layoff people while raising pizza prices he could have done that regardless of who was elected. If laying off people and raising pizza prices would result in higher profit margins anyway (without or without Obamacare), he could have done that regardless of who was elected.

      Except now he gets to raise prices and blame it on Obama instead of taking the heat for being greedy. Which do you think is better PR?

      Better PR would be not announcing that he's laying off people and raising prices - just do it quietly like most other corporations will.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    94. Re:Papa John by Khyber · · Score: 1

      " Where I live, it's quicker for me to make a pizza from scratch than to order one."

      From scratch, you'll be waiting an hour at least for the dough to properly rise.

      What wretched place do you live where it takes you more than a couple of hours to get pizza delivered?

      Disclaimer: I used to work in pizza places (LC, Dominos.) I know what it takes to make a pizza.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    95. Re:Papa John by Khyber · · Score: 1

      You must not know how franchising works.

      Even a lowly McD's franchise, or GNC franchise, makes LOADS of cash.

      I've managed several franchises. Never a problem with cash or paydays or reserve emergency money for new equipment, assuming the management and staff are competent.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    96. Re:Papa John by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      The more ethical pizzeria already has enough employees to meet its current demand, but if people switch from Papa Johns to them, then they will need more employees (possibly even a new branch) to meet the increased demand.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    97. Re:Papa John by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You apparently know very little about the ACA. For starters your comments about the fines is quite misinformed. Might want to check out this:
      http://healthreform.kff.org/the-basics/employer-penalty-flowchart.aspx

      In summary, the fines are there to cover cases where
      1) the employer doesn't want to offer coverage to everyone, but does for a few key individuals.
      2) the employer offers a plan that is more of a token plan and really doesn't cover a majority of a typical person's expenses.
      3) the employer charges the employees a large amount (relative to their income) for the plan.

      There's no provisions in there about "a huge fine if you offer a plan that even one employee doesn't like".

    98. Re:Papa John by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      A policy of discrimination against a group of people.

      vs.

      A policy of how to manage health care for many different types of people without much regard on what group they belong to.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    99. Re:Papa John by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      Because Obama told congress it wasn't a tax, but then told the supreme court it WAS a tax.

      Obama flat out lied.

      How do you expect the average Joe Sixpack voter to stay informed if the politicians are always lying?

      Generally speaking I am SICK of people blaming uneducated voters for being sheeple. They are victims, and the elite are actively deceiving them precisely because they do not WANT educated voters waking up to the crap they're pulling.

      If people are too stupid to figure out that when "the government" pays for something, that money comes from taxes, then I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for them.

      We have a chance to throw out the liars every couple years. The results of not doing so are our own fault.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    100. Re:Papa John by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      Hard to say exactly what Romney might or might not have done. But we clearly have an uncertain tax future with Obama declaring he wants to finance the government from "rich people" and not cut anything vs. the House which will certainly not originate anything that calls for tax increases on high income people without some big cuts somewhere.

      Not sure where it started but we have been living with the situation where a Republican president vows not to raise taxes and a Democratic House votes in a lot of new spending. It certainly was the case with Reagan and I believe both Bush presidents as well. Now we have a Democratic president wanting to not cut spending and a Republican House that will not raise taxes. Might bring some balance to things after all.

      I suspect Romney might have a very difficult time getting anything through the Senate that he might have wanted to do. Spending cuts would have been possible through the House but probably nothing else just out of partisian spite. I think the stock market might have done better in 2013, but I suspect the coming crash there would have happened anyway - too many people are predicting a huge fall there.

    101. Re:Papa John by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't use foodstamps to buy hot food.

    102. Re:Papa John by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they didn't need a single Republican to vote for it. It was passed purely with the Democratic supermajorities in both houses.

      Which supermajority was that? Was that the supermajority they they had from July 7, 2009 (when Al Franken was FINALLY seated) until August 25, 2009 (when Kennedy died)? Or was it the super majority they had from September 25, 2009 (when Kennedy's temporary successor was seated) until February 4, 2010 (when Kennedy's permanent successor was seated)? So they had a supermajority for about 6 months. And that "supermajority" actually required 2 independents.

      Aside from that, the supermajority would have required 100% consensus from all democrats + independents. You tend not to see that among democrats the way you do among republicans, where the motto is "fall in line or you'll be sorry". Senator Snow was the one Republican that didn't fall in line (making the ACA possible), and she paid for it.

    103. Re:Papa John by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      So what was that year of revisions, compromises, and goalpost-moving?

      To get all the democrats to sign on.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    104. Re:Papa John by jjsimp · · Score: 1

      I know I am in the minorty on this, but they are working at a Papa John's. Unless they are a manager it is not a career, and even the manager of a Papa John's is a debatable career path. Frankly, fast food restaurants back in the day were mostly for the teenage and college age kids, and as part time work for someone with another job or a retiree. For some reason,nowadays, people think if you mow lawns or deliver the paper you should get middle class wages. Should paper delivery used to be for the just for the pre-work age. I remember delivering papers when I was 14, now some guy drives around delivering papers. I know there are few jobs out there, and people have take these low paying jobs to make ends meet These are the same people that want to bring our military home, and how many less jobs will there be when we bring the military home and cut the amount of military.

    105. Re:Papa John by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post shows a competely ignorance to the reasons why healthcare in the US is the highest per capita in the world, and yet we receive some of the worst healthcare in the world. Before the Real Estate Crash, economists were preparing for the Healthcare Crash. The ACA did NOTHING to fix the fundamental problem, but rather exacerbated it. We need tort reform and patent reform first and foremost to fix our healthcare system. Once a hospital can give a person healthcare at a reasonable rate and NOT expect to be sued by an unreasonable person because the hospital didn't go to unreasonable lengths to treat an untreatable condition, THEN we can consider how to afford an affordable system.

    106. Re:Papa John by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you explain to me, as a libertarian, how Obamacare is not going to greatly increase costs for employers?

      It's not really relevant that it raises costs for employers. That's because it likewise reduces costs for employees, so they'll have more money to spend, and employer's revenues will increase. In the end it might seem like a wash, but it levels the field for everyone, instead of some employees getting health care and some getting screwed with none.

    107. Re:Papa John by jjsimp · · Score: 1

      Agree with everything, but your protesters. I am sorry, but those protesters were interfeering with business and the health of the city. The tear gas kids in school, cry me a river, they were blocking the sidewalk from people either going to work or trying to better themselves. The NYC protesters, they were also getting in the way of people trying to work. Not to mention trashing the public parks and making the police force take resources away from solving actual crime.

    108. Re:Papa John by BradleyUffner · · Score: 1

      If he just wanted to be mean and layoff people while raising pizza prices he could have done that regardless of who was elected. If laying off people and raising pizza prices would result in higher profit margins anyway (without or without Obamacare), he could have done that regardless of who was elected.

      Except now he gets to raise prices and blame it on Obama instead of taking the heat for being greedy. Which do you think is better PR?

      Better PR would be not announcing that he's laying off people and raising prices - just do it quietly like most other corporations will.

      This has the side benefit if scoring political points.

    109. Re:Papa John by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chuck Norris for president. He would definetly kick some ass in the white house.

    110. Re:Papa John by hey! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, he isn't the the Chic-fil-A guy at all. The Chic-fil-A guy has a problem with gay marriage because of his Christian religion, but *also* because of his Christian religion gives his employees and excellent benefits package. That includes health, dental, vision, disability and life insurance. He also offers a 401(k) retirement plan with a 5% company match, a defined benefits plan, and tuition reimbursement. In other words he's a stand-up guy who happens to be wrong about gay marriage, but I for one support his right to have and express his opinion.

      The Papa John's guy wont' offer health care to his full time workers because it'd cost him fourteen cents a pie. He does marketing promotions that cost more than covering his employees would but he doesn't want to do it because he's a scum-sucking bottom-feeder.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    111. Re:Papa John by jjsimp · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I know when I see my older relatives. A $15 dollar pizza delivery, hands the driver a twenty. Do you have change? driver hands the person five singles. Here's your tip, and hands him one dollar. I feel for the guy, and the next time that relative wants to order pizzza in my presence, I usually will pay and tip the driver the proper fifty cent tip (j/k).

    112. Re:Papa John by cusco · · Score: 2

      The actual cost of providing health care is actually going to be around eleven cents per pizza, so it's a net win of thirty nine cents for the sleazebag.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    113. Re:Papa John by DerekLyons · · Score: 0

      You are operating under a false premise.

      Which is an interesting thing to say, since you then turn around and basically agree with me. Except for the part where you create, out of thin air, a cost that Papa John's wasn't paying - at that point, you went off into cloud cuckoo land.
       

      Expect a wave of insurance companies going under over the next decade, if they aren't bailed out to the tune of billions or trillions (which the government doesn't have).

      This is exact opposite of what will happen. Since many policies will be subsidized, heavily, cost inflation will continue

      If cost inflation continues - then somebody has to pay. The money isn't coming out of thin air, and the subsidy isn't going to grow indefinitely, exactly as Medicare and Medicaid haven't. The insurance companies love it because in the short term it's a recipe for tremendous growth, by as per usual they (and you) aren't thinking about the longer term - when the shell game ends.
       

      Those of who are reality-based

      And for those of who understand the economy

      I wouldn't use the word "us" in either sentence if I were you, because you neither understand the economy, nor are reality based.

    114. Re:Papa John by cusco · · Score: 1

      Nerd, being more intelligent than the average Joe Sixpack, tend to be liberal. You're right about the mod posts being misused. If you metamoderate you have the opportunity to do something about that.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    115. Re:Papa John by shentino · · Score: 1

      Throwing out the liars doesn't work when the system is rigged to keep the honest politiicians from being a choice in the first place.

    116. Re:Papa John by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The candidates lie because it works. Voters are to blame for allowing themselves to be caught up in fabricated drama. You yourself are evidence of this. On the one hand, you say:

      My vote ain't gonna mean shit, and it never will [...] So don't you DARE fucking blame the voters when everyone who has a brain can figure out that they're already disenfranchised.

      But that's right after you proudly proclaim the opposite:

      For my part I voted against obama and I also voted against every single incumbent. When nobody of the opposite party existed, I voted for donald duck, chuck norris, bugs bunny, and so on.

      I have taken the liberty of bolding the key word, there. You are not making your voice heard. You are continuing to support parties that have repeatedly let you down. The Republicans and Democrats are far from opposites and you do have alternatives at nearly every level.

      Oh, and the electoral college is a necessary evil if you want to continue to exist as a ridiculous federation of states.

    117. Re:Papa John by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the...?

      You can't use facts and reason in a political argument! What are you doing!?

    118. Re:Papa John by cusco · · Score: 1

      Do you honestly believe that a difference of eleven cents per pizza (not even the fifty cents guesstimate that he pulled out of his ass) will change their market share? You can buy a pizza a day for a month and still not have to sacrifice purchasing a gallon of gas at the new price.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    119. Re:Papa John by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      Sure it works. It's just that it only works if voters aren't stupid. Continuing to vote for the liars (because somebody told them that they have no other choice) is stupidity.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    120. Re:Papa John by readin · · Score: 1

      True, intelligence does tend toward hubris. But Slashdot used to be more evenhanded.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    121. Re:Papa John by readin · · Score: 1

      Nerd, being more intelligent than the average Joe Sixpack, tend to be liberal.

      Speaking of nerd hubris: http://xkcd.com/793/

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    122. Re:Papa John by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why can't everyone have the same healthcare plan as the elected politicians and all the unelected public servants? Problem solved and much less expensive than the current and previous systems.

    123. Re:Papa John by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      And his claim was that it would cost an extra $8M a year to cover additional health care expenses - for a ~$3B a year company.

      So, sure, $8M is $8M, it is an expense. But it would have been going towards keeping his workers healthy, whereas a settlement over SMS spam could be a MUCH larger expense mostly going to a bunch of lawyers.

      Daily Show (as usual) had the best commentary on it... (skip to around 3:50 for the Papa John's bit)...

      http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-november-13-2012/post-democalyptic-world---whine-country

    124. Re:Papa John by cusco · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point; wait staff is charged taxes on the assumption that they make 10 percent of the restaurant's receipts in tips, no matter what they report. That came about when Ronnie Raygun was in office, and I remember it very vividly because my nightly take in tips was only about 8 percent but the owners had to charge taxes as though I had made 10. If you report more than ten percent that full amount is taxed, as it should be, but if you report less the PTB have arbitrarily decided you must be lying.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    125. Re:Papa John by cusco · · Score: 1

      should have said, "they make a minimum of 10 percent of the restaurant's receipts"

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    126. Re:Papa John by scot4875 · · Score: 2

      Presumably, they hired these people because they needed them to do a job. That need doesn't just go away because it became more expensive to employ them. If they fire people, they have to make up for it somehow. Hopefully that will be partially by making some of the jobs actual honest-to-goodness full-time jobs that people can support themselves off of. Part of it might come from reduced customer service in the form of longer waits or other intangibles. If the customer service gets bad enough, they'll start to lose business.

      What actions like this tells me is that these CEOs are willing to slit their own throats because they aren't willing to pay their employees a living wage.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    127. Re:Papa John by scot4875 · · Score: 0

      No, instead we spend our money at places that don't treat their employees like shit. You seem to think that the only alternative to buying Papa Johns is to not buy pizza at all.

      Yeah, it's going to suck for people stuck working at Papa Johns until they're able to get out, but unfortunately it's the only way to combat this predatory behavior.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    128. Re:Papa John by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was no way for me to own a house, pay for a car, pay for health insurance, and pay for my food with those jobs and with the skill/work involved for those jobs

      So at what magical line does someone's job make them worthy of being able to pay for a car, health insurance, or a house? How did you decide on this cutoff point?

      I would not except to be paid enough for all that.

      That sounds like a personal problem to me. Do you have self esteem issues? Just because you don't value your own time and labor doesn't mean that you (or anyone else in a low paying job) is a worthless human being that doesn't deserve a decent life.

    129. Re:Papa John by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      Kelsey Grammer, is that you?

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    130. Re:Papa John by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      Estimates are something like $0.15 per pizza. I'd have no problem paying that. If you think that a dime and a nickel per pizza isn't worth keeping people's access to health care available, then you and I have very different priorities.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    131. Re:Papa John by Magius_AR · · Score: 1

      In the opposition to this bill, there was almost no discussion of the merits of the policy, or the problems. It was almost entirely lies. No basis in fact, or reality. This is the "death panels" stuff. This is the group saying things like "this is a government takeover of the US healthcare system", when in fact, it is quite literally, the furthest possible option from it. The response to these types of distortions is, and I think rightly should be, to call them lies, and to question the motives of people who are making it up.

      That's only true if you focus your attention on the sensationalized loudest and stupidest. Like the Democrats claiming "Bush is trying to destroy your Social Security!" when he pitched a privatization option. The Republicans had lots of good ideas in committee. They just didn't mesh with the Democrat's plans -- and since those jackasses assumed they had a "mandate from the people", they stubbornly refused to accept any Republican input unless it was in line with their ideology. Obama is continuing to do it right now by insisting on a 250k+ income tax hike when he could easily get a similar effect by compromising with the Republicans on tax reform, loopholes, and deduction limits. Trust me, discussion happens and Republicans aren't idiots. And regarding "motives", you think the Democrats don't have aspirations of political office in mind when they make their political choices? Hint: you don't win votes by telling people you're going to take away their shiny toys.

      And to bring it back this conversation, like in the auto-industry, Papa John's is basically now admitting that in the past, they were pricing their Pizza's 10 to 14 cents too low to cover their true operating costs, that they were receiving this as an ongoing, unseen, not often discussed tax on those of us in the health care system that are appropriately paying for funding the care delivered to their workers.

      Except you're viewing the issue from the wrong angle. The companies offering the fantastic benefits packages are pricing their product too high. It's not a company's job or responsibility to provide benefits or healthcare -- it's a perk to their employees and an expense on the books. There was a time a long long time ago when healthcare wasn't even TIED to employment (the way it should be). If people want to provide healthcare for all, do it through government, not by forcing insane margins onto companies. Because when it comes down to it, there may very well be a business without the kind of profit "buffer" Papa John's has that can't survive a hike in margins. And that company will go out of business. Companies should be sleak and streamlined. They shouldn't be in the business of social expenditure.

    132. Re:Papa John by Magius_AR · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Medicare and Medicaid have done a far better job containing costs than the private insurance market, which have almost uniformly failed to contain costs. Medicare and Medicaid simply have price controls.

      The hell they have -- the total cost of Medicare is skyrocketing! And the only reason they're "price controlling" at all is because they pretty tell the hospitals "fuck what it actually costs, this is what I'm going to pay you". And then stuff like this happens: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-05/doctor-shortage-looms-as-teaching-hospitals-fight-for-funding.html

      You don't control costs by arbitrarily setting prices. You control costs by inducing competition (something the government has eliminated from the healthcare market in spectacular fashion).

      he ACA sets about to change that, and over time, it has an ok chance of succeeding - by gradually controlling prices via the IPAB, by paying for services that are only proven to be effective, and by limiting payments for procedures that are not medically sound,

      The free market does those things automatically if consumers are given transparency and choice.

    133. Re:Papa John by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are operating under a false premise.

      I've read some ignorant stuff, but hey believe whatever you want. I live in Canada and guess what? We went through the same thing, it's not a false premise it's reality.

    134. Re:Papa John by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, now do 100 per hour.

    135. Re:Papa John by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      So at what magical line does someone's job make them worthy of being able to pay for a car, health insurance, or a house? How did you decide on this cutoff point?

      I was never surprised by my paycheck. I knew what I would get paid when I was hired. When I needed more money, I got a better paying job.

      That sounds like a personal problem to me. Do you have self esteem issues? Just because you don't value your own time and labor doesn't mean that you (or anyone else in a low paying job) is a worthless human being that doesn't deserve a decent life.

      My time was valued. These jobs are not designed to pay for these things. They are designed for people working afterschool or for people living at home that just want spending money or to help out at home.

      It sounds like you were a privileged child that never had to work a minimum wage job before and have no idea why people work these jobs. I can't think of any other reason you would think that a job aimed at a teenager should pay enough for a house, car, etc.

    136. Re:Papa John by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Lets see, all the ones in Europe ... yea pretty much, failing or damn close too it. What rock have you been living under?

      We're not selling oil, we're buying it, so we're essentially paying for the ones in the middle east ... of course ... you picked countries with very different definitions of 'universal' than what most people in this conversation actually have.

      Have you experienced Israeli health care? You can keep it, I'd rather pay out the ass for American health care and get seen before I die.

      You seriously have no clue what you're talking about.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    137. Re:Papa John by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Skewed perspective much?

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    138. Re:Papa John by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      So you've just confirmed that you have absolutely no idea how these businesses are run and operate which pretty much means you've just show you aren't qualified to be part of the conversation. Did it in your first 3 lines even.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    139. Re:Papa John by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      The first employee I hired was working as a waiter before I hired him. It took me an extra year to get to the point where I could hire him at $65k/year so that he was actually making enough in his mind to go from working 3 nights a week as a waiter to working 5 days a week.

      Midnight shift at Denny's tends to get you a lot of people coming in after partying, intoxicated. While some kids will shaft you, most adults who have been there won't.

      You really misunderstand the world of a service industry employee.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    140. Re:Papa John by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      And you're missing the point, it doesn't matter what the restaurant takes, it matters WHAT YOU FILE TO THE IRS. When you file your taxes you tell them what you ACTUALLY MADE, not what they the restaurant claims. If it is incorrect, you ADJUST IT AS NEEDED.

      But in reality ... if you actually make less than 15%, you're so shitty you'll be fired anyway.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    141. Re:Papa John by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And as a former delivery driver...repeat non-tippers beware...I wouldn't eat that pizza...

    142. Re:Papa John by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I really don't think that all jobs created are made with the intention of being full time jobs with livable wage.

      I think a dirty little "secret" is that no jobs target giving someone a living wage. Your employer will only give you salary or benefits if he's forced to, either by labor shortage or minimum wage laws. The rich fight tooth and nail to keep every penny, and they don't care how many people must go homeless or hungry for them to gain even more lucre. Personally, I think it's disgusting.

    143. Re:Papa John by Maritz · · Score: 1

      I imagine in the states this opinion would have you labelled a commie.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    144. Re:Papa John by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      err FEDERAL LAW requires
      1 an absolute minimum wage for tipped employees
      2 if tips are not enough to make the difference between the absolute minimum and the federal minimum then the employer must make up the difference
      3 various bits on the extent of tip "pooling" (this prevents your top employees from funding the wages of the bottom ones)

      any employer that is not keeping good track of tips is
      1 an idiot
      2 violating federal law

      1. Which is less than most state minimums
      2. You believe these guys are honest?? Really? Shop n Save, a large grocery chain, tried to collect from me for a check my ex-wife bounced, after bankruptcy; two felonies. A warning from me about the law stopped the bullshit. A box of checks was stolen in a burglary, and Casey's General, a large convenience store chain, tried to collect on a check they knew was forged, also illegal -- it's fraud. You can believe the restaurants are cheating their wait staff with bullying; jobs are hard to find these days.
      3. That's up to the owner, and gets him partly around #2.

      any employer that is not keeping good track of tips is
      1 an idiot
      2 violating federal law

      Yes, they are. See #2 above. As to being idiots, not if they can get away with it.

    145. Re:Papa John by cusco · · Score: 1

      Nope. If you're of average or below intelligence you don't get to do this stuff for a living. Ergo, nerds are more intelligent than the average.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    146. Re:Papa John by Magius_AR · · Score: 1

      Additionally, the Administration and Democrats allowed several working groups to work behind closed doors for *months* to try to come up with plans. And in the end, the Republicans on those groups could not deliver a single vote, no matter what the proposal was.

      Not true. Olympia Snowe voted yea on the initial committee: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/HealthCare/senate-finance-committee-approves-health-care-bill/story?id=8817603
      She also seemed genuinely interested in working in a bipartisan fashion to reform healthcare (to the chagrin of Republican leadership). But after jam packing it with 1000 pages of nonpartisan goodies, they couldn't even hold her support: http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/1209/Sen_Olympia_Snowe_to_POTUS_Give_us_more_time_on_Health_Care.html

      they stubbornly refused to accept any Republican input unless it was in line with their ideology

      This simply untrue.

      Then why does it look that way? Snowe alienated her base from the start -- she had no particular love for political grandstanding or walking the political line. Yet Obama (and the Dems) refused to work even with her. They were more focused on cramming as much stuff into the bill as possible and getting it passed as quickly as possible to score political points (funnily enough, the exact same way the stimulus bill went down: http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/13/news/economy/house_final_stimulus/index.htm).

      The truth is that they wasted an entire Congress that they could have been improving the bill,

      I totally agree an entire Congress was wasted, but that Congress was wasted on some asinine belief by Democrats that they had some kind of "mandate" from the people to ignore Republican input at all costs. Hell, even Obama himself multiple times said "they tried it their way, and their way didn't work"/"we're driving the car now, they can sit in the back and come along for the ride". These are not the kind of remarks from a person looking for bipartisan solutions...

      Let's just be clear for a minute. The tax hike is happening on January 1st, unless new legislation is passed. So your characterization is wrong. What Pres. Obama wants is to pass new legislation keeping the existing tax code for those up to 250k, and then for those over, letting the rates revert to Clinton-era levels

      By definition, " letting the rates revert to Clinton-era levels" is a tax hike. Only dogmatic stubborness would keep you from agreeing with that. Or is a tax hike really a "tax refund adjustment"? Please don't try to turn this into a terminology spat. When all the dust is settled (all old legislation expired, all new legislation passed), are their taxes going up? Ifso, it's a hike.

      In the last 7 days, the leadership has for the first time started to float ballons that "revenue is on the table" - meaning more revenue via changes to the tax code.

      This was pitched in earlier negotiations as well, in the first "grand bargain" in fact: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/magazine/obama-vs-boehner-who-killed-the-debt-deal.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
      . "Or, to put it another way, Boehner was proposing to increase the governmentâ(TM)s haul by the same amount you would get if you reversed Bushâ(TM)s tax cuts for the most affluent Americans, but he was proposing to do it by lowering rates and elim

    147. Re:Papa John by Magius_AR · · Score: 1

      In fact, I don't think you can point to a functioning market driven health-care delivery system any where the in world that you would wish on the US to emulate.

      Has it been tried? Off the top of my head, I don't know of any systems that allow consumer choice/mobility that are government-hands-off. As counterpoint, can you give me a nonfunctional healthcare market where consumer freedom exists? (i.e. the US isn't a free market).

      The features of most of market-based health care is that, free from distortions, you have a huge population who receive no or little care, or substandard care, a few people who receive amazing care, and a whole bunch of people going bankrupt trying to afford decent care.

      I don't think that's true. Take the existing system for instance. Since government has effectively mandated that no one can receive any kind of healthcare (not even a simple preventative visit) without insurance, you have no one willing to offer a competitive (non "negotiated") rate unless you have insurance. In a system free from distortions, you'd have doctors saying "an hour of my time is worth $X", the same we do with electrical contractors, or plumbers, or any other trade. You could shop around and find a better deal, or you could go with someone you trust, or you could go with someone with an exceptionally high markup that just happens to be best in their trade. Instead of these relatively set prices, you have some kind of ridiculous circle jerk of consumer, doctors, insurance companies, and government, where no one actually knows the price until some jackass in an office somewhere throws darts at a price dartboard. You have to keep in mind that MOST healthcare we receive is not "last minute, emergency, life-saving" -- it's typically known ahead of time and planned. Therefore, in MOST cases, we should be able to shop around (with insurance covering the truly unpredictable life events).

      The bill has many small but promising steps to control costs, namely, standardization of plans to allow comparison on an apples to apples basis

      But that's exactly why it doesn't control costs. It lumps "healthcare" into "health insurance". The only option it gives consumers is choice of insurance plans, if that. And if someone doesn't offer you exactly the package tailored to your needs, tough luck, because that's all that is available. And it also continues to leave us at the mercy of the insurance companies's whims.

    148. Re:Papa John by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Midnight shift at Denny's tends to get you a lot of people coming in after partying, intoxicated. While some kids will shaft you, most adults who have been there won't.

      Yes, my daughter worked at a Denny's on the midnight shift. There were no to few customers until 3:00 when the bars closed, then the smoking section was packed. Fortunately for her they had good management and sufficient staff, so she made up for the first three tipless hours. But when the city instituted a smoking ban, the traffic stopped, along with her tips. She quit and got a job at Gamestop.

      You really misunderstand the world of a service industry employee.

      I doubt it, I was a bus boy in college, my ex wife waited tables for years when we were first married, and my daughter worked at Denny's for two years.

      It took me an extra year to get to the point where I could hire him at $65k/year

      Where in the hell can a waiter earn $65k?? That's well above median in Illinois. All wait staff I've known were fairly impoverished.

    149. Re:Papa John by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm interested in this discussion, can you perhaps debate with appropriate points and keep to topic rather than attacking someone who brought up valid points for discussion? 2 out of your 3 response is merely ad hominem, is it perhaps because you can't backup your claims now that you're being called to task?

    150. Re:Papa John by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Ya damn them for worrying about the bottom line of their company. Contrary to your desire, they are not in the business to be philanthropists. If costs go up due to government regulations it will have ramifications in business. Pretty simple math here.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  10. Spam tastes great by mrpacmanjel · · Score: 2

    If they offered a spam topping on their pizza then I'll be interested.

    Little rectangular squares of ambrosia..mmmmm.....pizza....

    I used to get texts from Pizza Hut until I asked them to stop. However if Papa John ignored their own "stop" requests they shouldn't be surprised if they get fined (mind you $500 per text is a bit excessive).

    1. Re:Spam tastes great by 6031769 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Rectangular squares? I suppose you need to differentiate them from all those elliptical squares we see nowadays.

      --
      Burns: We're building a casino!
      McAllister: Arrr. Give me 5 minutes.
    2. Re:Spam tastes great by dkleinsc · · Score: 3, Funny

      So you're saying you want spam, spam, spam, spam, tomato sauce, spam, spam, cheese, spam, spam, and crust?

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    3. Re:Spam tastes great by azalin · · Score: 1, Insightful

      They should be very careful about rounded edges though.

    4. Re:Spam tastes great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rectangular squares? I suppose you need to differentiate them from all those elliptical squares we see nowadays.

      Next thing you know, they'll be handing out round squares.

    5. Re:Spam tastes great by pjabardo · · Score: 1

      So, Apple is Spam now?

    6. Re:Spam tastes great by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      However if Papa John ignored their own "stop" requests they shouldn't be surprised if they get fined (mind you $500 per text is a bit excessive).

      Why is $500 excessive for an act of harassment? I think you should also get a restraining order against them in the bargain, and if they send you one more text, the CEO gets jailed for 30 days.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Spam tastes great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However if Papa John ignored their own "stop" requests they shouldn't be surprised if they get fined (mind you $500 per text is a bit excessive).

      The whole idea of an excessive fine is to have some bite in it. If you get hit with a legal fine of that amount, you probably won't be doing that illegal activity again. Cost not worth the risk.

      You see, lots of people stopped having home land lines, some in part to convenience of their cell and some in part to not needing a land line, and some to try to avoid telemarketing. Since it's illegal for a corporation to send spam to cell phone users, advertisers lost out on big revenue. So they ignored the law, and it wasn't until big fines were imposed that they began to get the message, stop bothering the customers.

    8. Re:Spam tastes great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying you want spam, spam, spam, spam, tomato sauce, spam, spam, cheese, spam, spam, and crust?

      Tomato sauce is off!

    9. Re:Spam tastes great by mcgrew · · Score: 0

      If I had mod points you'd get one.

    10. Re:Spam tastes great by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      $500 a text seems a bit excessive until you realize that any one of them could have caused a car accident. Imagine dying, or worse, watching a family member dying, because someone else on the road was delivered a distracting advertisement. That one dollar off a pizza was really worth someone's life.

    11. Re:Spam tastes great by Yer+Mom · · Score: 1

      Make that a spam-stuffed crust and you have a deal.

      --
      Never mind Spamassassin. When's Spammerassassin coming out?
    12. Re:Spam tastes great by dnahelicase · · Score: 1

      However if Papa John ignored their own "stop" requests they shouldn't be surprised if they get fined (mind you $500 per text is a bit excessive)

      I don't know, it seems about right. $500 for an "illegal" 190kb text, and $750,000 for an "illegal" 3mb song...

    13. Re:Spam tastes great by Tarlus · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      If you get killed because you're reading text messages while driving, that's your own dumb fault.

      --
      /* No Comment */
    14. Re:Spam tastes great by Tarlus · · Score: 1

      Er, I guess I should read more closely. If you get killed because other people are texting, then... well, that is the scary reality, isn't it?

      --
      /* No Comment */
    15. Re:Spam tastes great by shentino · · Score: 1

      It's excessive as compensation. However as a punitive measure it has good bite to it.

    16. Re:Spam tastes great by phorm · · Score: 1

      Did you sign up in some way before you had to send a STOP request?
      Imagine if everyone you did business with or even just all the random stores in town started texting you constantly with offers, saying it's "opt-out" until you send a stop.

      I bought some $5 anti-slip pads from the local shoe store and they wanted my phone #. I asked why, and they said it's for "customer service, but you don't need to give it."
      Customer service my ass. I wonder how many suckers just hand over their personal info and then are surprised when they end up with spam calls and texts like this.

    17. Re:Spam tastes great by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      $500 a text seems a bit excessive until you realize that any one of them could have caused a car accident.

      Please, please, pretty please tell me you're trolling, since a text message is just a string of bytes (what, 140 of them or less?) and it cannot do any such thing.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    18. Re:Spam tastes great by jjsimp · · Score: 1

      move to hawaii and I am sure they will have you covered.

    19. Re:Spam tastes great by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Read the second half of the post please.

    20. Re:Spam tastes great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bad for business to fine them that much. they need to be sent a message, but just remember that's 250 million sucked out of the struggling u.s economy and flushed down the drain of a blackhole that is our dearly inefficient u.s. government.

    21. Re:Spam tastes great by cusco · · Score: 1

      I always give the number (321) 123-4567. Works at Safeway, Radio Shack and any number of other places, there are probably a couple hundred people around the country using that number now. Can't help but think that it messes with their data mining. It's eternally amusing to me how many cashiers actually think that's my phone number.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    22. Re:Spam tastes great by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Read the second half of the post please.

      I read it, but all it proves is that you understand sarcasm. That's why I asked.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    23. Re:Spam tastes great by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      just remember that's 250 million sucked out of the struggling u.s economy and flushed down the drain of a blackhole that is our dearly inefficient u.s. government.

      I'm sorry they don't learn when you fine them a small amount. Therefore, they should be fined a large amount. It's unfortunate that it will be squandered, but that is a separate problem.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    24. Re:Spam tastes great by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Forgive my forthrightness here, but: that's stupid. I very carefully tried to reread your post as sarcastic, and it still makes no sense.

  11. Culling the herd by Turminder+Xuss · · Score: 0

    They seem like a slow moving wounded wildebeest sort of business exhibiting obvious prey like behavior to class action jackals. I mean an actual meatspace storefront .... Please.

    --
    You seem to regard science as some kind of dodge... or hustle.
    1. Re:Culling the herd by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1

      actual meatspace storefront .... Please.

      actually using the word "meatspace" and you're *not* a character in a bad 90's era cyberpunk novel? ...Please.

    2. Re:Culling the herd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, with a name like "Turminder Xuss", I think he actually IS a character in a bad 90's cyberpunk novel. (Though, "bad 90's cyberpunk novel" is redundant.)

  12. Re:Who doesn't want Pizza? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Whole-milk? Real mozzarella is made from buffalo milk.

  13. Wake-up call, That's a big dolllar right there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We could go for the anti-"Consumers do not want spam on their cell phones" dollar. That’s a good market, very smart.

    Look at our research. We see that many people feel they do not want spam on their cell phones.

    Now guys how shall we target them....mmm

  14. Re:Who doesn't want Pizza? by bfandreas · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not to be nitpicky but proper Mozzarella is made from (European) buffalo milk. Not that cheap cow stuff.
    Not every lactation of any bovine will do for proper Mozzarella.

    But anything is better than that horrid cheese analogue they stir together from second rate fat, rotting skunks and paint.

    --
    20 minutes into the future
  15. Sounds like a Marketing-led clusterfuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What I imagine happened is this: A marketing firm contacts Papa John's marketing about spamming sms, convinces them its a great idea.

    Marketing arm of Papa Johns goes ahead on its own, resulting in this case.

    At no point was any technical, legal or compliance arm of Papa Johns consulted, where they would have found people who know about this stuff due to existing business relationships with above-board SMS platform providers who would have informed them of the legal requirements for operating a sms service (opt-ins, requirement for STOP handling, etc).

    Anonymous because the stuff in bold is true.

    This won't go to trial, it will be settled beforehand. The case is that unwinnable for Papa Johns.

  16. consumers do want spam on their PC's? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Consumers do not want spam"

    FTFY

    1. Re:consumers do want spam on their PC's? by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      But unfortunately spam on PC does not pay $500 per message. Or else I could give up my day job, and make a good living off that strange Arabic spam I get from google...

  17. On their cell phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "This should be a wake-up call to advertisers. Consumers do not want spam on their cell phones."'

    Let the truth set you free. CONSUMERS do not want spam ANYWHERE.

  18. WAH !! YOU NO LIKA MY PIZZA PIE !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You a craxy, nuh !! I be a Papa John !! I be a da footballa pizza man !! You no wanna my pie, you a no can hava my pie, nuh !! Ana my a reaka nama isa Luigi, ana Ia spita ina youza pie alladatime, nuh !! A nowa Ima gonna shita ina youza pie, nuh !!

  19. Well this sure sucks by AvderTheTerrible · · Score: 1

    Man, it really sucks that Papa Johns would do crap like that, with the texting and threats of layoffs and reduced hours. What a cheapskate that guy is. Too bad they make the best pizza out of the three big chains. Now I might have to consider not eating it on ideological grounds.

    Jerks.

    1. Re:Well this sure sucks by Andrio · · Score: 1

      Buy from a local, non-big-brand store. The pizza will almost certainly be better.

      --
      The Internet King? I wonder if he could provide faster nudity.
  20. An Ad Agency by betona · · Score: 0

    I knew it before reading: yet another ad agency. So many marketing firms worldwide have waded deep into the technology pool without any understanding at the leadership level, much less the tactical level about the very basics of IT operations and management that have been honed for decades. From quality to security to legality (in this case), it's go-go-go-launch-and-move-on with people with marketing backgrounds making the calls, pressuring their underling tech people to deliver at all costs.

  21. Well... by Ronin+Developer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Couldn't happen to a "nicer" guy. He was so angry about the $0.14 per pizza he would have to spend to give his employees healthcare coverage that he will now be paying out the equivalent on healthcare costs for an entire state and with nothing to show for it.

    Oops.

    Stupid is as stupid does.

    1. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This post makes me grin from ear to ear! Thank you. :D

      If I had points to give you as an anonymous poster I totally would. Here's some imaginary ones: +8 Vengeful :)

  22. Devoid of facts by kenh · · Score: 1

    "The sum total of Plaintiff's allegations appear to be that she received one or more unspecified text messages about pizza or related products on her cellular phone."

    Seems to me the company that Papa John's (or it's franchisees) hired to run the campaign is responsible for deciding who gets the messages... Unless, of course, there is a document from Papa John's or it's franchisees directing the third-party to either ignore requests to remove numbers from the campaign OR instructed the vendor to send text messages to anyone without regard for their desire to receive such messages.

    I find it hard to believe that either Papa John 's or it's franchisees would be dumb enough to write such instruction to the third-party running the campaign.

    --
    Ken
  23. You just activated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  24. That would buy a lot of health care by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 4, Interesting

    he pizza maker could have to pay damages of $500 per text message, or US$250 million, one of the largest damage awards under the 1991 law...

    That would have bought some health care for their employees.

    According to Forbes magazine, it would cost Papa Johns 5 cents per pizza to provide health care to their employees.

    http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2012/11/14/Forbes-Papa-Johns-ACA-cost-5-cents/UPI-54101352940627/

    It never was about the nickle and it never was. Most species of apes, specifically the males, assert their sexual dominance by keeping more of the good stuff - whatever that might be- for themselves than they can possibly use. This is so they can broadcast the fact of their dominance to females .

    I think it's safe to say that the owner of Papa Johns is a physically unprepossessing specimen, basically he looks like some guy on your neighborhood watch.

    http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/08/papa-johns-obamacare-will-raise-pizza-prices-131331.html

    Without a mindset that causes him to spend his life seeking, acquiring hording and displaying his wealth, he'd never get laid, or at least, he would not get as laid as he feels he should be.

    In making a show of denying those under him healthcare, and especially by talking about how little it would cost him to provide those benefits as per the article above his primordial mind is attempting to broadcast the fact of his sexual dominance / desirability to available females. That's what's going on here.

    When shit as demented as "No nickle for healthcare !!!! " becomes that public and is even paraded around by the perps themselves, you have to go to waaaaay back in evolutionary time to find the part of their brain that's being activated.

    It's amusing that the conservatives who deny evolution is real seem also to be the people whose motivations are most clearly amenable to forces governing basic evolutionary processes.

    1. Re:That would buy a lot of health care by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm sure there is an element of this, but it's not just about the nickel ; it's about the dollars he'd have to spend on wages for employees that were no longer terrified of losing their jobs.

      People who aren't worried about their healthcare costs are less scared of losing their job. The American healthcare system is a nightmare because a single accident can bankrupt you, wipe you out, make you choose between keeping a finger and sending your kids to college.

      People like this ass perceive their employees as convenient victims, not partners in their pizza enterprise. Making them happier and more content is not on their agenda, because happy contented people are less likely to want to work for minimum wage and clock out when the restaurant is empty.

    2. Re:That would buy a lot of health care by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Offtopic? I guess I need to metamod today, because whoever modded this should NOT ever get mod points. It was not only on topic but a bit interesting. However, I can't quite agree; thinking evolution is bunk is a sign of ignorance, not conservatism.

    3. Re:That would buy a lot of health care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, he's just pissed that he's been undercharging for pizza for the last couple of decades buy about 15c a pizza. If he'd known that he may have kepy using real cheeze on the pizza, or more likely got a better plane.

       

    4. Re:That would buy a lot of health care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This.

      Give the average wage earner more negotiation power and wealth gets distributed more equally.

      Give the average wage earner less negotiation power and wealth concentrates in those who have more negotiation power.

      Neither is good or bad in of itself, but when society tips so far in one direction that disfunction becomes apparent adjustments can be useful.

    5. Re:That would buy a lot of health care by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 2

      I find your post insightful- yes having a society that functions as the maw of an alligator waiting to eat you EXCEPT for the pittance your employer affords you is exactly the model they are trying to preserve. It's a slave owner's mentality, and they barely make any bones about it. Nice going

      I think that we're actually offering two complimentary explanations. I'm reflecting on the ultimate motivation of why corporations like Papa Johns are run the way they're run INSTEAD OF some other, completely affordable way which yields more egalitarian results for society at large.

      Why do they WANT to be slave holders? It's implicit in your post that a lot of us (humans) WANT to be slave owners, and LIKE not just being on top, but lowering the bottom too. Slave-seeking land-based pirate ships- which is what a lot of corporations amount to really- are the context in which we live and frame explanations, but why are alternatives not as appealing to ambitious people; why is there not something else in the world?

      Answer- because people are genetically predisposed to seek status in a social/sexual hierarchy and that's because our genes , like all genes, evolved in a resource-constrained environment in which competition for survival-giving resources were a zero sum game we played against our own kind.

      It's like tits. Why are some men crazy for big tits? ( NSFW link not provided ) The bigger the better ! The reason is that big tits are a secondary sexual characteristic which broadcasts the reproductive fitness their bearer and men are pre-wired to interpret that signal and - here's the important part- nature saw no reason to put an upper limit on the link between the size of the tits and the size of excitation.. the bigger the tits, the bigger the signal ! tits are good, big tits are gooder !

      The same thing with wealth and power acquisition. A lot of wealth is good, a super jumbo fortune you-and-your-six-successive-wives-and-eight-mistresses-can-never-spend is better and dramatically increasing the relative wealth spread between you and all your competition for those women:

      http://dailymalemodels.com/

      is best !

      We don't live in THAT kind of resource -constrained world anymore. Our behavior in this way is classifiable under anachronism-->very highly destructive. Science will bestow on our grandchildren the opportunity to control the knows-not-when-to-stop compulsiveness off these and a lot of other impulses.

      Future utopias traditionally portray people as more egalitarian, more intelligent, more engaged, interested and interesting, more productive, happier... more evolved. They tend to gloss over the alleged environmental mechanism through which that evolution would induced. Meanwhile, back in reality, news comes that in fact, we may be sliding the other way.

      http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/11/13/191217/study-claims-human-intelligence-peaked-two-to-six-millennia-ago

      Whatever the case, we know this for sure- 10,000 years of civilization, religious exhortation and radical socio-cultural-political rearrangements has netted us

      this :

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Donald_Trump_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg

      this :

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:David_Petraeus_and_Paula_Broadwell.jpg

      and this

      http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1884001280/nm0000216

      We live in a world of Papa Johns writ large, of pointless, noxious aggressive impulses with free reign and practically unlimited scope. The aggregation of all this is better known as the "culture of assholism." It's not a social con

    6. Re:That would buy a lot of health care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's hiring 16 year olds and not 35 year olds who are married with 4-5 children to support.

      High turnover rates become a NIGHTMARE when working with insurance companies. Particularly because you end up still buying insurance for people who quit 2 years ago, since, despite receiving several hundred calls, letters, faxes, and an engraved placard, the asshole on the other end of the phone "still has no record of you telling them that so-and-so ever left your company."

    7. Re:That would buy a lot of health care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Predominantly teenagers and twentysomethings work for papa johns; these people are not interested in health care, and rarely have the foresight to consider potential health costs of accidents.

    8. Re:That would buy a lot of health care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's amusing that the conservatives who deny evolution is real seem also to be the people whose motivations are most clearly amenable to forces governing basic evolutionary processes.

      Your statement is Petitio Principii or, Begging the Question http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question. You cannot both claim that a principle is in question and that is is already fact. Your premise that conservatives are somehow amusing because of the implied hypocrisy is, in fact, falsely based on your false premise, as you committed one of the most basic fallacies of debate and logic.

      It's amusing that non-conservatives who deny principle logic and debate rules also seem to be those who are most clearly in need of reminders governing basic arguementory processes.

    9. Re:That would buy a lot of health care by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

      Except my comment was not making an argument FOR evolution; I take evolution as the fact that it is, and launch my sarcasm and mockery at those who deny it from there.

      It's amusing that conservatives who can't understand the basic principles of logic and how to apply them still seem acutely aware that they represent something "good" and "validating" which leads them to eagerly -and falsely- claim that logic supports their arguments.

      It seems that in the early 21st century we've at least won the battle insofar as no-one,not even anti-rational Christians and conservatives will willing and publicly bear the yoke of being considered "illogical".

      Score one for our side.

  25. Re:Who doesn't want Pizza? by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 5, Funny

    I fail to see what Papa John's has to do with pizza.

  26. Papa John's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is in sync with their political views which I don't like either. http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/08/papa-johns-obamacare-will-raise-pizza-prices-131331.html Faux News will now tell us this is conspiracy by the Obama administration.

  27. Screw papa john's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any pizza place that narcs pot smokers deserves only our contempt.

    1. Re:Screw papa john's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [citation needed]

      holy crap, is that true?!! talk about cutting of your nose to spite your face. this guy is no businessman.

  28. Hiring a hitman by raymorris · · Score: 1

    It could be argued that unless they specified in the contract that it was to be opt-in, or double opt-in, they are responsible, especially given evidence that they knew it was "probably illegal". "I told the hit hitman to 'get rid of him', I didn't specifically say 'kill him'" doesn't fly.

  29. Wonder if this will - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'force' him to raise the price of his garbage pizzas? I mean just this year he was kvetching that 'Obamacare' would make him raise the price by a dollar per pie. This guy is STUPID. Anyone in business who does not understand the law does NOT permitt you to spam cel phones. And more, only a rude bastard would dare to spam the cel phones - one who does NOT deserve your business nor mine.

  30. Maybe there is a lesson here... by erp_consultant · · Score: 1

    I hope that other companies are paying attention to this. To me, unwanted texts are particularly annoying. I'm already used to finding dead tree junk mail in my mailbox and junk email but there is something about junk texts that just seems... sleazy. News flash Papa...if I want to order a pie I know where to find you. No need to spam me with junk texts. Maybe the problem is that in order to receive text messages I have to pay for them, unlike email and tree mail.

    If they get hit with the $250M fine we all know what will happen...low paid pizza workers will get laid off. Law firm gets rich(er). Consumer ends up getting the award in the form of a coupon for the next Papa John's pizza. The only positive outcome will be if other companies see this and decide not to follow that path.

  31. Re:Who doesn't want Pizza? by helix2301 · · Score: 1

    I personally can not stand there food.

  32. Re:Papa John / not a moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lets see, someone who actually is running a business is making decisions based on the cost of doing business, so the answer is to call him a moron. Try running a business yourself, it should be fairly easy with Papa Johns making so many bad decisions.

  33. Nice followup by HangingChad · · Score: 1

    Nice followup to the Obamacare PR fiasco, dipshits. Alienate half your customers by being a dick about providing health care coverage for your employees and then top that by spamming everyone's cell phones with unwanted texts.

    One more is a hat trick. You're this close to the stupid trifecta, might as well go for the gold.

    Maybe announce you don't want to pay for birth control and alienate your female customers. Or rape comments are all the rage these days, though it would be hard to come up with any new material on that topic.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:Nice followup by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      alienate half your customers

      Apparently you didn't see the elections. Its a safe bet that most republicans (50% of the country, almost EXACTLY) don't really dig on the health care act, and plenty of democrats are known to not like it all that much either which is why having a super majority in congress still did not get it passed without being torn to shreds.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  34. The FCC is soliciting comments on this topic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, the FCC has a currently open comment period on how to address automated system for sending spam texts to cell phones. See http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022037251

    With this Public Notice, we seek comment on the petition for an expedited clarification and
    declaratory ruling filed by Revolution Messaging, LLC.1 Revolution Messaging asks the Commission to
    clarify that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)2 and the Commission’s related rules3 apply
    to users of Internet-to-phone text messaging technology and similar technologies involving the storage
    and automatic dialing of wireless telephone numbers.4 Revolution Messaging states that such a ruling
    would make clear that Internet-to-phone text messaging technology is a type of “automatic telephone
    dialing system” under the Commission’s rules and is therefore subject to the prohibitions in the TCPA
    and the Commission’s related rules.

    Anyone can file comments urging the FCC to make clear that such systems should be considered a type of “automatic telephone dialing system” under the Commission’s rules.

    Read the full petition here: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022037252

    File comments on the FCC ECFS system, the docket number to use is "02-278". http://http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/

    And although the deadline is close, the FCC is generally fairly liberal in allowing and considering late-filed comments.

    1. Re:The FCC is soliciting comments on this topic. by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 2

      It's just an attempt at denying culpability at what obvious is a scam to profit from the extremely perverse practice of charging for received text messages you have in the US ... if you're going to file comment do include the fact that Verizon is profiting from spam and that is a big reason why they set up the service in the first place.

    2. Re:The FCC is soliciting comments on this topic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I disagree. I have filed comments on a number of things the FCC solicited public comments on. More so than many other government agencies, the FCC actually reads them and considers them. I'm nobody special, but they cited comments I made in their actual final rulings in two instances. Comments files on these things clearly do have an impact --- or at least have in the past.

    3. Re:The FCC is soliciting comments on this topic. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I think that is because there already is a large sentiment for what they are looking at before they decide to open a comment or purpose a rule change. In this case, more so then probably most other government commenting periods, they are looking to confirm their reasons.

      I know the FCC does listen to complaints too. Several years ago, I had a problem with a telemarketer that I told to take me off their list. The operator said, they had a right to call me because I signed up for something they sponsored making it a preexisting business relationship and consensual by law. I told them I was revoking that and they needed to take me off the list and any other lists they had me associated with and not to call me back. They said they didn't have to follow the do not call list, I replied with you have to follow my communications. Then the operator replied with a no I don't and it turned into an argument with me saying I would never purchase anything they advertised so it was a waste of their resources. I got several calls back and pretty much held the same or similar conversation with them. I went to the FCC website filled out a report form, included the times and dates, what I said. I got one more call from them in which I hung up then they all stopped. It took about a week after filing the complaint with the FCC for the problem to simply vanish on my end.

  35. Re:Who doesn't want Pizza? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I personally can not stand there food.

    His name's not "food" and I don't see the relevance of which areas you can or cannot stand in.

  36. If you don't want spam text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    then why given them your phone number? I don't mean when you order delivery. I would hope they don't phish those numbers. These people probably signed up for some text alert thing. Now they are getting alerts. duh.

  37. Thousands per week? by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

    Like to each person on their list?

    They must of contracted out this advertising and paid per spam message, because no one would think that that would drum up business.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  38. Fox news twist by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    So you saying this lawsuit is a Liberal Agenda to get revenge on John Schnatter exercising the freedom of speech. By exercising loopholes in laws passed by the Liberal Elite, that are attended to clamp down on good and honest business, to help pave the way to a socialist communist America?

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  39. I don't want the shit that is papa's pizza or the by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    I don't want the shit that is papa's pizza or the other big 3.

    I live in area with lot's of good small chain places.

  40. Re:Who doesn't want Pizza? by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Funny

    I personally can not stand there food.

    Why are you calling the GP "food"? And why can't you stand there?

  41. pizza drivers have to pay for gas / all car repair by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    pizza drivers have to pay for gas / all car repairs out of there own pocket and they get a very low per run rate + sub-mini pay on the road.

    Also that topper cuts MPG also papa makes his works pay for uniforms with markup as well.

  42. Re:Who doesn't want Pizza? by SirTicksAlot · · Score: 1

    I personally can not stand their food.

    FTFY

  43. Re:Who doesn't want Pizza? by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Papa John's pizza places I see all use conveyor belts to cook the pizzas. More like cooking by space heater then oven. Ever notice how the better pizza places have a pizza oven or wood or coal oven? They have a real oven not a conveyor belt.

  44. Trivial grievance by HellYeahAutomaton · · Score: 1

    IANAL, but I suspect this will get thrown out of court.

    This sounds like a frivolous lawsuit, and quite possibly one of the worst examples of people using the government to solve their problems. Shunning, shaming, and publicizing this message problem is the proper solution -- hit them in their sales in the marketplace.

  45. Re:Who doesn't want Pizza? by interkin3tic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Oh come on. I know it's hip to hate on chain restaurants, but suggesting Papa John's isn't pizza and getting +4 informative? That's ridiculous.

    Papa Johns is one of the better nationwide chains of pizza. Pizza hut, dominos even after they did the makeover, little ceasars, they're not as tasty. And I say that grudgingly as someone who thinks the CEO is an asshole.

    Slashdot: news for nerds and also pizza elitists.

  46. I am not a Lawyer... by Nationless · · Score: 1

    So who gets the money? Every single customer who got the spam? The three people who actually sued them? Why should they get "my share" of the money when all the damages weren't done to them?

    1. Re:I am not a Lawyer... by zarathud · · Score: 2

      So who gets the money?

      The lawyers of course. This is America after all.

  47. Re:Who doesn't want Pizza? by geminidomino · · Score: 5, Funny

    Papa Johns is one of the better nationwide chains of pizza

    That's like saying "Having electrodes pasted onto your nuts is one of the more tolerable forms of torture."

  48. Re:Who doesn't want Pizza? by moderatorrater · · Score: 1

    Hell, every pizzeria around here uses the real thing, whole-milk mozzarella.

    Unfortunately, not everyone can live in a city with decent pizza. For the rest of us, Papa Johns is better than the other national chains.

  49. Carriers force customers to subsidise SPAM! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I call Verizon to complain about spam and ask for the charges to be dropped because I have to pay for them, they tell me to sign up for a text plan! They debit the charges, but tell me they won't be able to do it next time.

    Same with spam phone calls.

    I keep calling. It is the only think I can think of to motivate them to make changes. Make it more expensive to manage the problem than to fix it.

    1. Re:Carriers force customers to subsidise SPAM! by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Why are you getting texts if you don't have a text plan? Clearly they're trying to illegally force you into paying for something you never signed up for.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  50. SHITHEADS by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Why is it that advertisers think it's acceptable to be rude when asking people to buy their product?!!!
    People like that should be locked in an iron coffin with spikes on the inside.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  51. And yet for 14 cents by assertation · · Score: 1

    Interesting that Papa Johns was willing to go to this expense and risk these fines when Papa John himself fought Obamacare claiming it would force him to raise each pizza by 14 cents and endanger his entire business.

  52. fix the goddamned problem, go single payer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FUCK YOU you fucking fuck.

    The Republicans had from 1992 - 2008 to do something about the enormous goddamned drag the out-of-control healthcare system has on the economy. That's sixteen years . They did SHIT .

    1. Re:fix the goddamned problem, go single payer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't realize Bill Clinton was a Republican. He didn't do anything either.

    2. Re:fix the goddamned problem, go single payer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that a president can only pass a law that it presented to him by congress, right? Despite the high profile publicity, a president can't really DO a whole lot in this regard. He can only sign or veto the bills that congress presents him with.

      With that in mind, replubicans controlled both the house and senate for 10 of the 12 years from 1995 to 2007. I don't recall them presenting any health care bills to Clinton or Bush during those years. The other 2 of 12 years it was split (the House was Republican, Senate was Democrat), so no party was solely to blame there. But in 2008, Democrats got control of all of congress, and golly gee, we actually got some form of heath care out of it (not anywhere near perfect, but a vast improvement over the way things were).

      Prior to 1995, the dems actually did have a couple years where they did control all of congress and the presidency. I can't really attest to why nothing was done back then because I was pretty fresh out of high school and not very politically minded.

    3. Re:fix the goddamned problem, go single payer. by cusco · · Score: 1

      Clinton was probably the best Republican president of the last half century. We haven't had an actual Democrat in that office since Carter.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  53. Anyone see the connection? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Papa John, like many business threatened layoffs/etc due to the rising costs of healthcare under our Natl Healthcare system.

    Now, they are attacked by some sleazebag blood sucking parasite of a lawyer..

    This is what happens when you go against Obama or his minions..

    And the Obamatrons go: BAAAAAAHHHHHHH

  54. Re:Who doesn't want Pizza? by Wolfraider · · Score: 1

    Depends on the area. Papa Johns in Memphis tastes great. The ones in southern Mo tastes like a horrible cheap pizza. The rest tastes much better around here.

  55. Re:Papa John / not a moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Lets see, someone who actually is running a business is making decisions based on the cost of doing business, so the answer is to call him a moron. Try running a business yourself, it should be fairly easy with Papa Johns making so many bad decisions."

    In lots of civilized countries, that are not the 'greatest on earth' pizza delivery guys get full coverage and pension plans, drive with the company's car, don't pay for gas or anything, keep and have to report their tips to the local IRS and get at least the minimum wage everybody else gets.

    That way they don't have to deliver drugs and alcohol to minors on the side, also a benefit for the community and the company.

    And still the pizza's great and cheap and the owner's house gigantic and his car too.

  56. Re:Who doesn't want Pizza? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I worked for the company for a few years, and while their pizza may not be my favorite, PJ's is definitely above and beyond any other chain restaurant with the quality fresh ingredients they use. They work much like a real restaurant, and not a "pizza factory" like other pizza chains.

  57. Re:Who doesn't want Pizza? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pizza Quality varies heavily by your local franchises. Or, well, that's what I've noticed.

    Around where I live, tops is Jet's Pizza and Pizza Hut. Last apartment, was Domino's. Go way back in Texas, and there, Papa John's was king.

  58. opt-out == return receipt by zarathud · · Score: 1

    The problem with opt-out is that you confirm that a real person is reading the spam. You might not get messages from that exact source again, but you may well get on even more spam lists.

  59. Re:Who doesn't want Pizza? by Golddess · · Score: 1

    Why are you calling the GP "food"?

    Maybe helix2301 is a cannibal?

    --
    "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
  60. Re:food stamps by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 1

    If my poor as heck friends are correct, food stamps only work for un-cooked food, so they only get Papa Murphy's pizza.

  61. I understand basic economics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    While it's certainly true that pizza joints are not a "get rich quick" path to success, there is nothing wrong with people who don't like a corporate chain's policies taking their business elsewhere. Later when Papa John's failed marketing and publicity has cost them marketshare, they will have to lower their franchise price, or people will buy other franchises. This is how the free market works, and it's a good thing.

    Secondly, it's not a targeted expense that solely affects Papa Johns. Many of their competitors are going to have these same expenses, and the pizzas will get more expensive and the consumers will have to choose: A $12 pie at Stingo's Italiano Pizza, or $12.50 at Papa John's where "we treat employees right." Again we need to trust the free market, that the better employees will switch to the non-cheating pizza places with benefits, and as better employees they'll provide better service.

    I'll pay the extra 50 cents for my take-out pizza so that everyone involved gets good healthcare.

  62. Re:pizza drivers have to pay for gas / all car rep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Driving Pizza is probably the worst paying job out there.

    In addition to paying for gas, and car repairs, also most insurance policies don't cover commercial use of your car, i.e. delivering pizza, so that's extra if you want to be legal.

  63. Re:Who doesn't want Pizza? by Megane · · Score: 2

    Can we all agree that it's better than Cici's?

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  64. papa's can't afford 14 cents per pizza for insuran by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Papa can't even afford 14 Cents additional per pizza for employee health insurance.

  65. Pizza texts are like sex texts by TheSkepticalOptimist · · Score: 1

    Even when they are bad they are still good.

    --
    I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
  66. Re:Who doesn't want Pizza? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Um.. if you live in a city of more than a few thousand people you almost certainly have a decent pizza place. And.. frankly.. most people live in such urban areas. Its what makes them crowded.

    You might not know where the decent pizza is, however, because you hit up Papa Johns.

  67. The re - election of President Obama by doginthewoods · · Score: 1

    has driven the right wingers even crazier. Expect more of this reality free hysteria from them.

    --
    Republican leadership = Idiocracy
  68. Re:Who doesn't want Pizza? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rubbish. Most mozzarella is made from cow milk. Even in Italy, the buffalo stuff is labeled such - di Bufala.

  69. Re:Who doesn't want Pizza? by tqk · · Score: 1

    How dare they turn down delicious tasty pizza!

    When baking it, one doesn't turn pizza.

    Captain Obvious, to the rescue! Yay!!!111

    --
    "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
  70. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  71. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  72. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  73. "Obamacare" cost less than free pizzas by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 2, Informative

    About that criticism of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (otherwise known as Baucuscare, after Senator Max Baucus of Montana, the man who *actually* wrote the law (or rather, it was Sen. Baucus' aides and lobbyists, but at least Baucuscare is less of a misnomer, since laws are not written by the executive branch))

    Mr. John Schnatter, CEO of Papa Johns, estimates that the PPACA will cost his company $5 to $8 million annually.

    In September, Papa Johns ran a campaign where they gave out two million free pizzas. The cost of these pizzas would be $24 to $32 million, estimated.

    In other words, free pizza advertising gimmicks cost about four times as much as providing health care to your employees.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/calebmelby/2012/11/12/breaking-down-centi-millionaire-papa-john-schnatters-obamacare-math/

    --
    :(){ :|:& };:
    1. Re:"Obamacare" cost less than free pizzas by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      The pizzas were "free" as part of an NFL promotion. The idea being that people would buy multiple pizzas at a time on game day, and their 'free' pizza. Given this is the second year running such a promotion, it obviously increases sales more than enough to offset the loss. So unless you're suggesting an Obamacare day promotion to get people to buy pizza to offset Obamacare's cost, your post is useless. This is especially true as revenue is not cost.

    2. Re:"Obamacare" cost less than free pizzas by SomeoneGotMyNick · · Score: 2

      In September, Papa Johns ran a campaign where they gave out two million free pizzas. The cost of these pizzas would be $24 to $32 million, estimated.

      The "cost" of each free pizza is the cost of ingredients and other fixed costs expended to make each pizza. You can't factor in profits you normally would get by selling the pizza. Unless you're suggesting it costs $12 - $16 to make pizzas which sell for $12 - $16

      Even with that in mind, if it costs $6 - $8 to make a pizza, the promotion will still cost more than the PPACA costs, just not quite so much more.

    3. Re:"Obamacare" cost less than free pizzas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot to factor in the cost of hiring Peyton Manning, an advertising agency and purchasing a ton of airtime...It wouldn't surprise me if that added up to $3 per pizza.

  74. Re:Papa John / not a moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In lots of civilized countries, that are not the 'greatest on earth' pizza delivery guys...

    Really? Which countries, and which companies are you talking about that deliver pizza?

  75. Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Peyton should have stuck with 1 million free pizzas.

  76. Same here in the UK by ArrayIndexOutOfBound · · Score: 1

    After pj's opened nearby, my kid wanted to try their pizza. I included my mobile in the online order because we were on our way home - in case delivery arrives before we do. I was completely unprepared for the torrent of messages that has ensued. It took me weeks and many calls to get messages to stop. I only bought their pizza 2 or 3 times since, always in shop, always refusing to provide any details no metter how adamant they were (they want it all btw) and only paying cash.

  77. Re:Who doesn't want Pizza? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You personally cannot stand where food?

  78. Re:Who doesn't want Pizza? by RandomFactor · · Score: 2

    And makes a kick-ass browser.

    --
    --- Mercutio was right.
  79. Re:Who doesn't want Pizza? by tqk · · Score: 2

    Unfortunately, not everyone can live in a city with decent pizza.

    Stupidest post, EVAR!

    Hint: I can make pizza. Perhaps you can too? Lina's Italian place on Centre St. N. sells frozen pizza shells. Paint with pizza sauce, add mozzarella, black olives, sliced mushrooms, and pepperoni slices (or pepper rings for vegetarians), ... et viola[sic]! Twelve minutes in the oven and Bob's your uncle.

    This's Slashdot. We're expected to be capable of doing stuff. Ya know? FFS.

    --
    "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
  80. Re:Who doesn't want Pizza? by houghi · · Score: 1

    Papa Johns is one of the better nationwide chains of pizza.

    That does not mean they are good. It means the rest is worse. No need to defend them.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  81. Re:Who doesn't want Pizza? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I personally can not stand their food.

    FTFY

    Maybe he meant "I personally can not stand there, food", thinking GP's name was "food". Not sure why why he can't stand there, or even where "there" is.

  82. Re:Who doesn't want Pizza? by jjsimp · · Score: 1

    I remember the Cici's from VA Beach or Norfolk that was washing the dishes in the alley with a garden hose. They would set the plates on the ground and just fire away with the hose, next to the ever pleasant dumpster. I can't seem to find the action video anymore.

  83. My pizza by CosaNostra+Pizza+Inc · · Score: 2

    I promiss my company sends no unwanted pizza related texts.

  84. Re:Who doesn't want Pizza? by theArtificial · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Apparently cooking is like alchemy to most people. While I'm not the world's greatest chef I do know how to prepare my own meals and making pizzas is extremely fun to do especially when you get down to making the crust. It's great to get the family involved with, too. Most breads are pretty simple to make, the most difficult part is having a decent oven. Pizza stones help out with this. Ultimately it comes down to effort and not everyone is motivated after work. BTW I like the et viola, very cool!

    --
    Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
  85. I hope he loses by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

    The owner of Papa John is a Romney supporting douche bag on top of a maker of shit pizzas. I hope they hit him with the highest possible penalty.

    1. Re:I hope he loses by Yosho · · Score: 1

      I dislike Romney just as much as everybody else on Slashdot, but why should the company get hit with the highest possible penalties because the owner supports a politician you don't like? Isn't that basically the opposite of free speech?

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
    2. Re:I hope he loses by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      Actually to be fair, I blew my wad a bit too early and forgot it was just a franchise owner of numerous Papa John's stores that was the Romney douche.

      But, there is nothing inherently wrong with supporting Romney. But the people that supported him purely because they're selfish and don't want to give their workers a fair deal then I'm not going to think much of them.

  86. Re:Who doesn't want Pizza? by adolf · · Score: 1

    Papa Johns is one of the better nationwide chains of pizza

    That's like saying "Having electrodes pasted onto your nuts is one of the more tolerable forms of torture."

    Some people might even enjoy it.

  87. Re:Who doesn't want Pizza? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dominos new handmade pizza is better than anything Papa John's makes. Still nowhere near as good as Round Table (West Coast) or The Garret in Campbel, CA. I never had a problem with texts from Papa Johns though, despite being a club member (just got another free pizza today), but I do hate that they stopped offering the double-cut slice option. This whole lawsuit sounds bogus.

  88. opt out is a full time job by manaway · · Score: 1

    In the US, there are more than 500 000 new businesses started every year (sole proprieters, limited partnerships, and such). Want to opt out of all the new businesses? Prepare to wind your way through 1300+ opt out forms and procedures every day of the year for the rest of your life. Then there are the 2/3rds of a million corporations that have been around longer than a year. In your free time you can opt out of those; at 1000/day it should only take 2 years with a few weekends off.

    Requiring people to opt out is demonstrably insane.

  89. Re:food stamps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the downside is...?

  90. Re:Who doesn't want Pizza? by tqk · · Score: 1

    Apparently cooking is like alchemy to most people.

    Tycho Brahe was an alchemist, as was Isaac Newton. Chemists owe those people a lot.

    I was blessed with a couple of parents who could cook and were capable of passing it on to their kids; well, one of their kids (my sister could burn Jello, but she's improved a lot since then). It was good training for an IT guy too. Recipes are just like other systems. Ingredients, timing, process, tools, presentation, yada yada. I can make a different breakfast every day of the month without repeating any of them, and I can thrill my ca. ninety year old Mom with half an hour's effort in a kitchen. It's great to not need a microwave except for leftovers. Pizza Pops?!? Screw that. Roast your girl a chicken, and she'll be crawling all over you before you're finished dinner. Now that's power! :-)

    --
    "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
  91. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  92. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  93. Re:Who doesn't want Pizza? by geekoid · · Score: 2

    "ver notice how the better pizza places have a pizza oven or wood or coal oven?"
    nope. They taste like smoke, or they have corn meal on then to take away the texture. Most of the time they crust isn't cook evenly, they take forever to cook. IT's just emotional attachment to a perceived 'good old days' fallacy

    Conveyor belt oven is the best way to get pure pizza flavor, even cooking, and consistent pizza.

    I have had all kind of pizza cook many different ways. My father ran a pizza place, I have worked in Pizza places, I have judged pizza.
    I love pizza. I have literally been know to eat nothing but pizza for months. I understand baking and cooking.

    So yes, I do know what I am talking about.

    Sadly, I have reduce my pizza intake substantially in order to get to a healthy weight.

    It should be noted there is a difference between good / Bad and Like / don't like.

    People can like poorly prepared food, people may not like well prepared food. So you like oven cooked pizza? fine, enjoy. It isn't the best way to cook a pizza.

    oh. Nothing is magic.A pizza with bad dough, bad topping and/or bad sauce will be a bad pizza, I don't care if you cook it with lasers.

    I used to work in a Pizza place(about 3 decades ago) that had a conveyor. I invited my pizza snob friend from a mom and pop pizzeria over to cook one of their pizza in the over after hours.

    Heh, shut them up quick. After considering it they decided not to get a convey. They where concerned about their image.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  94. Re:Who doesn't want Pizza? by geekoid · · Score: 1

    No.
    It's made from Water Buffalo, not Buffalo. And traditional even that was only in part of Italy.
    I'm not sure how you can call one 'proper' when they came about pretty much at the same time.

    Now, water buffalo Mozzarella is part of the weird EU protect country items thing for Italy.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  95. Re:Who doesn't want Pizza? by geekoid · · Score: 1

    I like how you say 12 minutes, the ignoring the other hour it takes to get everything and make it.

    and frozen pizza shells? please. when I make pizza, I MAKE the fucking pizza, eh?

    We are capable of doing stuff. NEWSFLASH not everyone is capable of doing the same stuff.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  96. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  97. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  98. Re:Who doesn't want Pizza? by tqk · · Score: 1

    I like how you say 12 minutes, the ignoring the other hour it takes to get everything and make it.

    and frozen pizza shells? please. when I make pizza, I MAKE the fucking pizza, eh?

    Cool.

    We are capable of doing stuff.

    Okay, maybe that was a bit cruel.

    NEWSFLASH not everyone is capable of doing the same stuff.

    Duh. It's a fair cop. But come on, geeks ought to be able to make their own pizza, FFS!!!111

    Sorry. Actually, I've been dreading the prospect of a real Italian showing up in here. NorthAm pizza !== "pizza" as invented by Italians. Me: pepperoni (or pepper rings), mushrooms, & black olives!

    --
    "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
  99. Mod parent "Poe's Law" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My favorite part was the denigration of low income workers as "blowing" their money on food. What unconstrained excess and wanton decadence!

    /golf clap

  100. Ah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you're a waffle man!

  101. Re:Who doesn't want Pizza? by BitZtream · · Score: 2

    Or perhaps you've just worked at some shitty pizza places? I've done my fair share of baking too. Gas is a easier to deal with, but if you're notcing corn meal or smoke, someone is doing it very wrong.

    I call bullshit on your entire post. If anything, you sound like the snob.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  102. Let them pay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now if only that would apply to all phone numbers like landlines. That opt out stuff sure does not work! There should be some feature on your phone service that you would get 50 cents per unwanted calls from companies. That would stop them fast - 500,00 X .50 cents

  103. Obligatory by DiEx-15 · · Score: 1
  104. That's what you get with broken anti-spam laws by Vrtigo1 · · Score: 1

    Sure we have CAN-SPAM and all the various state level spam laws that spell out the rules advertisers have to abide by, but the huge problem with these laws is that a private individual cannot initiate an action against someone, only the government can sue someone using these laws. Of course the government can't devote resources to chase down all the little spammers (my local car dealership is the worst, I've e-mailed, called and finally stopped by in person in hopes of getting them to take me off their e-mail list) but I still get e-mail from them and there isn't anything I can do about it.

    I talked to two different lawyers and was willing to spend my own money to sue them and get them to respect people's wishes to not receive their junk advertising, but both of them told me there was nothing I could do about it. So, yeah, thanks government. If you made these laws actionable by anyone the world would have a lot less spam in it.

  105. we all know that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    obamacare caused this problem

  106. petty cash voucher template by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Companies should honor requests for people to be able to opt out of their text messaging programs. I used to work in a call center supporting a major cellular carrier and their devices. The most common problem people called about was text messages they did not want and needed help in stopping. All we could do was educate the customer on how to opt out of the text messaging spam.

    This was one year ago. I left and never looked back.

    template
    printable voucher
    Below is a template for petty cash voucher. You can substitute your company name, address, contacts, and logo on the upper portion of the form.

  107. 250Mil by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Will pretty much end the company.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----