Carry at Work

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Here is the link: http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/10/20/store-clerk-fired-defending-himself-firearm

I believe this guy was on GunTalk recently.

We have debated this before but I believe that those workplaces that prohibit carry and then do little or nothing to mitigate crime have created an immoral policy that one may honestly disobey and be silent about doing so.

Further, even though the employer may fire said employee, the fact that the employee disobeyed the company policy is not morally wrong.

 

[62coltnavy]

Since when does morality have anything to do with it? We are not talking about "laws" (that at least in theory are based on notions of fairness or morality), but work place rules that, unless they result in a discrimination prohibited by law, are perfectly valid no matter how ill-advised. The employer has a rule, the employee violated it, and, without more, that's that. An employer can fire an at-will employee for a good reason or for no reason at all; he is prohibited from termination only for reasons prohibited by law.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

We have debated this before but I believe that those workplaces that prohibit carry and then do little or nothing to mitigate crime have created an immoral policy that one may honestly disobey and be silent about doing so.

Further, even though the employer may fire said employee, the fact that the employee disobeyed the company policy is not morally wrong.

I agree 100 percent with both of your statements.

So what? An employer's immoral policy is still the employer's policy, and employees violate their company's policies at risk of being penalized or terminated. And, since most companies that have such policies also require employees to sign an acknowledgement that they have read and understood the policies, IMHO it's not exactly accurate to say that one may "honestly" disobey the policy. In fact, it means the employee lied -- he/she agreed to follow the policy, and then went back on his/her word. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I quit one job for just that reason a decade ago. I could have cheated, signed the policy, and carried a pocket pistol on the job all day with nobody being the wiser. But my integrity is still worth something (at least to me).

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I guess that's it Aguila Blanca, but where we might disagree is that it is "cheating" or is an "integrity" issue. Since the policy is immoral it is not wrong to disobey it. So, I say you can disobey the rule and keep your integrity as well. I may be fired but I am not dishonest. My only point. This has been argued on here before so this news story just IMHO makes my point.

I liken this to hiding Jews in WWII. People lied to the Nazi's about it but they were not wrong to do so. Same for undercover police. They are not telling the truth but doing good by not telling the truth.

 

[OuTcAsT]

Aguila Blanca wrote:

But my integrity is still worth something (at least to me).

Agreed Sir, and that is the crux of it.

Tennessee Gentleman wrote:

I say you can disobey the rule and keep your integrity as well. I may be fired but I am not dishonest.

If there is a company policy against weapons, and you know this, and carry anyway, you are indeed dishonest and, have no integrity.

The only way your integrity remains intact is either not accept the Job or, if already employed, either follow the rules, or resign. You cannot have it both ways and keep the moral high ground.

Since the policy is immoral it is not wrong to disobey it

If it is against your own self-defined "moral code" why would you work for such an immoral employer? To do so implies you have no "self integrity"

 

[shortwave]

Integrity is a personal choice, an uncompromising and predictably consistent commitment to honour moral, ethical, spiritual and artistic values and principles.[1]
In ethics, integrity is regarded[by whom?] as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions. Integrity can stand in opposition to hypocrisy,[2] in that judging with the standards of integrity involves regarding internal consistency as a virtue, and suggests that parties holding within themselves apparently conflicting values should account for the discrepancy or alter their beliefs.

According to the definitions above, since cheating would be dishonest , untruthful and inaccurate of ones actions, IMO, cheating would show little integrity.

FWIW, I know it does at a poker table.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

The only way your integrity remains intact is either not accept the Job or, if already employed, either follow the rules, or resign. You cannot have it both ways and keep the moral high ground.

Actually, I believe you can if the rule is immoral. Since the employer has made an immoral policy aimed at protecting himself at your expense you are under no obligation to obey it or acknowledge that you are not. The laws in place in occupied France during WWII said that one should turn in all Jews and yet many disobeyed secretly. they were later lauded as heroes.

I think Mr. Cothran in this article had plenty of integrity. His company did not.

If it is against your own self-defined "moral code" why would you work for such an immoral employer? To do so implies you have no "self integrity"

Not at all. The policy is immoral and a company is not a person (in the real sense). I've had clients who do business I do not agree with (tobacco) but I still work for them.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

According to the definitions above, since cheating would be dishonest , untruthful and inaccurate of ones actions, IMO, cheating would show little integrity.

I would direct you to the writings and life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

It's not so black and white and therefore the definition you post is incomplete.

If the law changes tomorrow and you are required to turn in your guns. Will you do it? Have you lost your integrity if you do not?

 

[Al Norris]

At the store I work at, I signed a statement that I had read and understood the company policy. I did not sign that I agreed to abide by it.

The policy states quite clearly that weapons, including but not limited to guns and knives are forbidden in the workplace.

The problem arises that we are required to have at least a box-knife (of the same kind that brought down the aircraft of 9/11) on our person, in order to do our jobs. The company even provides them to new hires.

Since the company routinely ignores its own policies...

 

[Tom Servo]

I liken this to hiding Jews in WWII.

Let's not go there.

Immoral policy or not, we are not generally forced or coerced into working for a particular company. We have choices. The last time I checked, nobody is herding gun owners into camps, dehumanizing us, or killing us.

A more fruitful line of discussion would be, "how do we convince employers to accept employee carry?"

 

[Koda94]

A more fruitful line of discussion would be, "how do we convince employers to accept employee carry?"

I think if you asked your employer to honor your CHL you would get denied, and in some cases flagged. IMO I think convincing employers would be more a pro gun cultural thing but here are a couple thoughts....

>One thing I suspect with the majority of business owners that create "gun free" zones is they are unaware of the difference between anyone carrying a weapon and lawful concealed carry.
>Is there any kind of program that could be created to qualify employee's to carry that would be widely accepted by companies outside of the states CHL requirement?

FWIW: how many 'other' company policy rules does anyone violate, like gratuitous web surfing for personal use? Or how about that nice Benchmade folder clipped in your pocket? IMO there are state and federal laws that should be followed that might be debated immoral to disobey, but not private "rules" that are blindly dangerous like gun free zones.

 

[ripnbst]

At the store I work at, I signed a statement that I had read and understood the company policy. I did not sign that I agreed to abide by it.

The policy states quite clearly that weapons, including but not limited to guns and knives are forbidden in the workplace.

The problem arises that we are required to have at least a box-knife (of the same kind that brought down the aircraft of 9/11) on our person, in order to do our jobs. The company even provides them to new hires.

Since the company routinely ignores its own policies...

You sir, should it come to it, have two solid legs to stand on in court IMO.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

we are not generally forced or coerced into working for a particular company. We have choices.

Not sure that applies across the board. Some folks have very few choices if any and most all companies deny the right to carry legally.

A more fruitful line of discussion would be, "how do we convince employers to accept employee carry?

Yeah, I don't see that happening. Why? Because they have no incentive to do so and liability if they do allow it. Plus, you can't sue them generally if they disarm you and you are killed or injured at work unless they could have reasonably foreseen the threat.

What it really boils down to IMHO is do you value your life or your job? Integrity or honesty is not a part of the decision to carry when the company has an immoral policy.

And what makes it immoral?

If you demand disarmament you must insure it. Otherwise, the rule is immoral. Just my thought.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

What it really boils down to IMHO is do you value your life or your job? Integrity or honesty is not a part of the decision to carry when the company has an immoral policy.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

I value my life and I value my integrity. In my case, I started a job on a Monday morning. At a briefing for new hires (there were three or four of us that day) they handed out copies of the company's personnel manual, told us to take it home and read it, and to sign the acknowledgement page and hand it in the next day. naturally, there was a no firearms on company premises clause. Since they wanted me to work the closing shift, which would have meant leaving the premises at 11:00 p.m. and walking through a deserted parking lot in a seedy part of town to get to my car, I was unhappy.

I spoke to the branch manager, who agreed to ask corporate if I could bring in a handgun and keep it in my locker during my shift. The answer came back on Wednesday: No. On Thursday I handed in my resignation, stating why, and Friday was my last day.

I needed that job. But I also need to be able to look myself in the eyes in the mirror and respect the person I see. If an employer wants to establish policies that I consider immoral, that's their karma. For me to lie by agreeing (in writing) to abide by their policies, and then NOT do so ... that's my karma.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Sorry to hear that, but again your call. I think you could and should have carried, been silent and been fine. Of course had you not carried, been robbed and murdered the company might have paid a small something to your family and you would be gone. The job you can replace, your life you cannot.

These companies will never allow us to carry. Too much risk for them and no upside either.

Somebody said once: You have no obligation to tell the truth to someone who has no right to know.

 

[zxcvbob]

At the store I work at, I signed a statement that I had read and understood the company policy. I did not sign that I agreed to abide by it.

There's the money quote, in case anybody missed it.

 

[Koda94]

At the store I work at, I signed a statement that I had read and understood the company policy. I did not sign that I agreed to abide by it.

There's the money quote, in case anybody missed it.

the real question is if policy holds the law, some states if its posted its criminal trespass.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

It's unlikely a company would have an employee arrested for criminal trespass if they found him/her carrying in violation of corporate policy, but it's possible. Much more likely is that they'll simply fire the individual. Al's slant on the document he signed won't matter. Regardless of whether or not he agreed to follow the policy, I'm sure the policy said that the consequence of not following it could be termination.

 

[zxcvbob]

It would be criminal trespass to carry a gun where I work because all the doors are properly posted with the proper sized black letters, and all that. (so I carry a knife instead -- the knife is more useful day-to-day anyway) The company policy book does not carry weight of law (your state might be different.)

The company policy book also says no guns in the parking lot, but state law specifically allows it; that policy is not enforceable.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

The company policy book also says no guns in the parking lot, but state law specifically allows it; that policy is not enforceable.

If you have an at will employment state. Count on them firing you if they find a gun in your car in the parking lot.

Of course, the only way they SHOULD find out you have a gun is if what happened in the OP happens to you.