Carry at Work

[Tom Servo]

What it really boils down to IMHO is do you value your life or your job?

I'll admit that I've had to balance the two before, and I haven't always been in compliance with company policies.

However, employers are motivated by a fear of liability (which was hugely and intentionally overstated by gun-control groups in the late 1980's and early 1990's), and I don't know if we can fairly call no-guns policies "immoral."

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I'll admit that I've had to balance the two before, and I haven't always been in compliance with company policies.

That's honest and I respect that Tom. I guess I am a real cynic. Most companies could care less about their employees and I'll further speculate they really don't care if we carry. I think they just want to CYA so in case you wound or kill an innocent while defending yourself they can say "well, we told them not to carry". At the end of the day, it's just you and the company could care less. So, because they don't really care about my welfare, I could care less about their rules. I know it sounds bad but like I said, at the end of the day it's just me, and I want to be the one going home.

 

[Al Norris]

Idaho is a right-to-work State. That being said, policy or no policy, I can be terminated for any reason or no reason.

Denial of unemployment benefits is another bailiwick entirely and not within the scope of this thread.

 

[44 AMP]

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

And we have a winner!

If a company denies you the ability to protect yourself, they have a moral responsibility to provide that protection. Outside of very rare situations, they do not have a legal responsibility to protect you, and do not.

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.

Actually, I think this does apply, pretty much across the board. Short of actual physical slavery, we all have choices. Few choices, or poor choices are still choices, its a matter of what is most important to you. Some will quit a job that doesn't allow them to CC, on principle. I say bully for them! Most would keep the job and do what they felt the needed to do, and I respect them for the risk they take. But it is a risk, make no mistake.

No job is worth your life.

 

[manta49]

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 don't understand why someone would leave a job because they couldn't carry a firearm. I would think it was up to the employer if they did not want firearms on their premises. Just as some have the right to carry firearms a employer also has the right not to have people bring firearms on to their property. I could see the need for firearms at work if their job put them under threat of attack. Some people here carry firearms to work here only because the job they do could make them a target. Also it wouldn't be an issue here as there are no requirements to inform an employer if you were carrying a firearm. It would be worth remembering that the drive to work is much more likely to get you killed than the need for a firearm in work before leaving a job because you couldn't carry a firearm.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I don't understand why someone would leave a job because they couldn't carry a firearm.

Maybe I didn't make it clear enough.

The business was a retail operation in a strip center located on the periphery of a VERY seedy part of the city. The store stayed open until 11:00 p.m. -- every other business in the area was closed by 10:00 p.m. They wanted me to work the closing shift -- specifically because I am male and I am a veteran, so they would not have to have females working the closing shift. (Like being a veteran made me bullet proof or something.)

So I would have been leaving the store and traversing a poorly-lit and completely deserted parking lot at 11:30 (or so), in an area with a high rate of armed robberies ... unarmed.

That just didn't fit my life plan ... so when they rejected my request to be allowed to have the means to defend myself when leaving their store at night, I quit.

I don't understand why (or what) you don't understand.

FWIW, that store has since changed its hours to close at 10:00 p.m., like most of the other businesses in the strip, so their employees are leaving at the same time as everyone else who works there.

 

[zxcvbob]

Manta49,
Do you realize you talked full-circle on the issue, hitting both sides about equally?

 

[manta49]

So I would have been leaving the store and traversing a poorly-lit and completely deserted parking lot at 11:30 (or so), in an area with a high rate of armed robberies ... unarmed.

That just didn't fit my life plan ... so when they rejected my request to be allowed to have the means to defend myself when leaving their store at night, I quit.

I don't understand why (or what) you don't understand.

I think I said it depends on the situation and where you work and the risk. The point was I making is that i would not think it was sensible to leave a job on principle just because you were not allowed to carry a firearm. And I think that an employer has a right if he doesn't want firearms on his premises. As I said some here carry a firearm in work usually because where they work puts them at risk of being targeted more in the past than now but the risk is still there. And it would not be an issue here as your employer would not know you were carrying a firearm and there is requirement to inform them.

Neither do I, it is quite simple. You had a choice to: A. Accept the terms of employment ( At possibly great personal risk to yourself ) B. Ignore the company policies and compromise your personal integrity by carrying anyway.

I understand that for me there would have to be a real risk that I would be attacked not just it could happen.

Some of us were "raised" to believe that our own personal integrity (being honest, and able to look yourself in the mirror ) Is more important than possible financial gain.

I am not sure what that has to do with what we are talking about. I doint see how choosing to or not to carry a firearm effects someone's personal integrity. I am sure that plenty choose not to carry a firearm at work I doint think that means they lack personal integrity do you. ?

 

[OuTcAsT]

Aguila Blanca Wrote;

That just didn't fit my life plan ... so when they rejected my request to be allowed to have the means to defend myself when leaving their store at night, I quit.

And, rightly so. We all face choices in this life, some trivial, others monumental.

I don't understand why (or what) you don't understand.

Neither do I, it is quite simple. You had a choice to: A. Accept the terms of employment ( At possibly great personal risk to yourself ) B. Ignore the company policies and compromise your personal integrity by carrying anyway.
Or,
C. Resign, and go home to plan a new strategy ( and maintain your integrity )

I believe your decision was the correct one and , shows good character, IMO

manta49 wrote;

The point was I making is that i would not think it was sensible to leave a job on principle just because you were not allowed to carry a firearm.

Some of us were "raised" to believe that our own personal integrity (being honest, and able to look yourself in the mirror ) Is more important than possible financial gain.

 

[zxcvbob]

Neither do I, it is quite simple. You had a choice to: A. Accept the terms of employment ( At possibly great personal risk to yourself ) B. Ignore the company policies and compromise your personal integrity by carrying anyway.

How is B a compromise of your personal integrity if you acknowledge that "these are the rules" and you accept the consequences of breaking them? A lack of integrity might be to break the rules and then expect special treatment if you get caught...

Or to *follow* a rule that you think is immoral -- the ethical issue then becomes whether it's okay to just ignore the rule or whether you must take a stand. These are all personal questions.

Keep in mind that big companies have no ethics -- and in many cases, the people running the companies have no ethics either. They will try to use your integrity against you if you let them.

 

[44 AMP]

seems to be different things getting mixed together here....

Nobody say "I need a gun at work, because my job be that dangerous"
(or did I miss that?)

Some want to carry, for the unexpected.
Some feel a need to carry, because they expect risk.
Risk going home after work (late night, bad neighborhood, etc.)

Boss say no gun on premises. Don't feel good leaving it in the car (plus risk between work and car).

Solution set:
no gun (boss happy you at risk)
gun left in car (boss not know, him happy, you still at risk, plus risk of gun being stolen. Not good)
You carry (boss not know, him happy. Boss know, you fired)
You find other work (boss not care much, if any, you better off, hopefully)

I think the integrity issue is not about disobeying an immoral (in your view) order, but about whether or not you lie about disobeying it. And I think that also includes lying to yourself.

There are situations where lying is necessary for safety and survival. I don't find it unethical to do so, if you are in one of these situations, provided you don't lie to yourself about what you are doing, and why.

 

[Koda94]

gotta say I have to admire any man that chooses integrity with hardship over profitability, don't see that much in America. Salute.

 

[spacemanspiff]

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

So many ways one could argue against this particular statement. Where to begin?
How about, it all depends on what the individuals conscience interprets as 'moral'.

Secondary argument, breaking a policy is not like breaking a law. Losing a job over a decision to not abide by a policy does not equate to facing criminal charges for violating a law.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Interesting debate as it lays out different views of moral action.

Following orders even if you think they are immoral is viewed by some as higher morality than ignoring such. It is your duty to obey such.

Others would disagree.

One can play the counterfactual game with ease to show that blanket statements are really not that useful.

You have a job - in tough times to give it up would starve your family.
Your job is in a dangerous location (A stop and rob) but it has an antigun policy.
If you get shot, your family starves.

What is moral then? Easy to say show your integrity and starve. Or perhaps the firm that denied you protection is immoral? Their goal was simply liability control.

 

[Koda94]

What is the liability behind these workplace policies, can a company really be sued for NOT having a gun free policy?

 

[spacemanspiff]

Liability....
Banning weapons in the workplace is a 'feel-good measure'. A companys insurance policy may not cover injuries or fatalities to an employee caused from violence stemming from a coworkers actions. That doesn't mean the business is not liable, it just means insurance might not cover the losses.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

There's been law articles back and forth about whether employee carry puts the company at risk.

I don't think it has been tested with a real incident yet.

Probably because so many places don't have a procarry policy.

We have discussed that most legal scholarship think a company is not responsible for banning carry and then you get hurt. You claim you could have commando'ed the situation and saved the day. That hasn't been tested either. While Spats and Frank can comment - IIRC - the rationale is the fault accrues to the evil actor as causal agent. The tie is too indirect for the company to be blamed. There are precedents for this analysis in nongun cases.

But not my area.

 

[Tom Servo]

What is the liability behind these workplace policies, can a company really be sued for NOT having a gun free policy?

As Glenn pointed out, we simply have no precedent for that. I doubt a court would find an employer liable.

Now, that said, let's consider an example on the other side of the spectrum. An employer allows or encourages employee carry on the job. Imagine Bob running the cash register on third shift.

One night, there's an incident. Some guy drives off without paying for his gas or runs off with a case of beer. Bob shoots the guy. The guy sues.

Now the employer could suffer serious liability. There would be claims of negligence. Bob wasn't trained or vetted by an accredited security agency or state body. Bob didn't take a psych eval. Yet the employer let this loose cannon carry a firearm on the job, with (it could be argued by some lawyers) an implicit mandate to keep the peace or protect assets.

There could also be claims that the employer put Bob in harm's way because he didn't want to pay for real security.

So, yeah, there are real pressures for employers not to allow carry that have nothing to do with them wanting to trample our god-given rights.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

There is another aspect to the (perceived) morality.immorality of acknowledging a company's anti-gun policy and then willfully violating it while continuing to work there. In many discussions on many "gun" forums, discussions often devolve into, "If you're so pro-gun, what are you doing to advance the cause?"

I respectfully submit that this is a consideration that applies here.

Megacorp has a strict anti-gun policy. Al Norris reads the policy, signs a document acknowledging that he has read it (but not that he agrees to follow it), and starts working for Megacorp. Megacorp is happy, because Al Norris acknowledged their policy. Now, no matter what happens, they win. If there are no incidents, they have no liability for or to anyone, so they don't really care if Al Norris is ignoring the policy on a daily basis.

Al Norris is happy, as long as there are no incidents, because he has a job and an income, and he has his weapon. However, if there should be an incident, Al Norris will probably lose his job, lose his income, and his employment record may show future prospective employers that he was terminated for willful violation of a known company policy. Win for Al Norris if nothing bad happens, LOSE for Al Norris if something bad happens.

Let's examine the apparent win-win side. The company has its signed piece of paper, and Al Norris has his gun. Everybody's happy. BUT ... how does this further to fight against such immoral policies? Answer -- it doesn't. The company doesn't even know that Al Norris secretly objects to their policy, because he ain't talkin', he be packin'. Nothing is gained.

On the other hand, if all prospective employees who object to such policies were to vote with their feet, companies might begin to wake up to the recognition that they are giving up qualified employees over a basically useless, feel-good, CYA policy that ultimately accomplishes nothing in terms of promoting workplace safety.

In my specific case, the company had invested time by the branch manager to advertise the position, time for the manager AND assistant manager to interview and hire me, and staff and management time to train me. The company PAID me for a full week of training time, in which I performed virtually no actual work. And then I quit. Did they reverse their policy because l'il ole me quit over the gun issue? Nope. But it wasn't too long afterwards that they cut the hours back to close at 10:00 p.m., like the rest of the businesses in the area. So perhaps I had some, small positive effect. If numbers of people were to begin "pushing back" when asked to sign such policies, perhaps there would be some changes.

If we don't push back ... we'll never know.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

A person might say that the breach of integrity in such a situation is less serious than the consequences of not violating your integrity but I think the attempt to argue that it's NOT a breach of integrity must stem from some level of subconscious guilt/awareness acknowledging that it IS a breach of integrity and an attempt to assuage that guilt.

It is by definition a breach of integrity. It really can't be argued. Integrity is oneness, consistency. It is inconsistent to say that you will follow a rule and then not follow it. Justification is different than "not".

Some breaches of integrity are understandable, even *required* by a "higher" moral choice. The Jews in WWII as an example, there are many others too.

Justification is a separate argument. Saying its not a violation of integrity is silly, IMO.