Carry at Work

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lets not lose sight of the moral responsibility of the company. If they want to strip the right for their employee to take responsibility of their own peraonal safety then dont they have a moral obligation to provide that safety not just at work but to and from?

We can debate our individual moral and integrity but where is the companies?
 
Companies and institutions have responsibility for the survival and success of the corporate or institutional structure over that of the individuals who work for it.

What else is new?

It is very easy to say Quit. That's why these internet moral debates can be silly.

Let me give you real corporate circumstances that I know of personally.

It is the Depression - jobs are scarce.

A company will not hire you because of your religion. Thus, you fake membership in a church to get the job. Your other choice - starve.

Your company demands that you join a particular political party to keep your job. Your choice in the Depression - starve.

Thus, be a moral tough guy and watch those dependent on you go down the economic drain because of a company policy which is seen by many as controlling or immoral.

Note the policy was just social tyranny and had no effect on company success.

Thus, I repeat that this 'moral' preaching is a particular stage of moral beliefs in a more complex set of decisions.

You can go sell Apples on the corner and proclaim that on the Internet if we ever get to that extreme circumstance.
 
Company Policy

Electronics technician in his lab lamented to me that HSE had come by and confiscated his X-acto knife. It was "theirs" to confiscate, supplied and owned by the Company. New policy was that X-acto knives are banned company-wide.

Turns out someone at another plant had sustained a puncture wound in a finger from a sharp X-acto knife, failed to clean the puncture wound adequately, it got infected, almost lost the finger. X-acto knives banned at all plants, in production and in labs.

This guy needs to use an X-acto knife in his work. He went and bought one, brought it to work, uses it as needed, and hides it in his desk when he is not using it.

Company knew this would be the outcome - but if he ever cuts himself, they are covered because "we banned those knives company-wide in 2012."

So is he immoral or unethical for violating company policy? Just to do his job?
 
My brother-in-law works at a plant that has the panty-waist "no gun" policy. I told him there is mo way I'd take my gun out of the truck just to drive to work. I'd quit first...but I'd prolly just keep it in there and not mention it. Your vehicle is an extension of your home, and they have NO RIGHT telling employees what they can or cannot have in their vehicle.
 
Your vehicle is an extension of your home, and they have NO RIGHT telling employees what they can or cannot have in their vehicle.
Click to expand...

Sounds like the hard way to learn more about criminal trespass laws, but to each their own.
 
Slight detour:
Company knew this would be the outcome - but if he ever cuts himself, they are covered because "we banned those knives company-wide in 2012."
Click to expand...
Depends on state law but there's a good chance it would still be covered by worker's compensation. For example, someone injured during "horseplay" may not be covered but if the company tolerates horseplay, then an injured employee is probably covered. YMMV.
 
born2climb said:
...Your vehicle is an extension of your home, and they have NO RIGHT telling employees what they can or cannot have in their vehicle.
Click to expand...
Do you have any proper, legal authority? The Utah Supreme Court ruled otherwise. See Hansen v. America Online, Inc., 2004 UT 62, 96 P.3d 950 (Utah, 2004) upholding AOL's firing of three employees for violating the company's "no gun" policy by having guns in their cars on company property. (The Utah legislature later changed the law.)
 
Do you have any proper, legal authority?
Click to expand...
More to the point, do we have precedence for the phrase "extension of the home?"

I'd quit first...but I'd prolly just keep it in there and not mention it.
Click to expand...
Again, if you have that luxury in this job market, many people would envy you. Everyone else must play a balancing act. It may be more virtuous of me to stand my ground and get fired. Of course, that may put me in a position of being unable to provide for my family and collecting public assistance.

Explaining to the folks in the unemployment office that I simply won't accept work with a company that doesn't respect my right to keep and bear arms at all times could also be a bit of a challenge.
 
Their house, THEIR rules - don't like them? Go elsewhere. If you cannot be trusted as an employee to follow company policy, then I would have zero use for you as an employee.

If I cannot trust you to follow the rules without me searching you or your vehicle then why should I employ you?

Character is doing the right thing, even when no one is watching

That said, with a few exceptions, it is illegal in Florida for an employer to prevent a gun locked in a car, but carrying INSIDE the building is easily prohibited
 
I can only say that this country would never have been founded if everyone were so concerned with "following the rules"...

In reply to several points...
"If I cannot trust you to follow the rules without me searching you or your vehicle then why should I employ you?"...Why do you need me to be unarmed? What is it hurting for honest men to have firearms in their vehicles? The bad guys certainly aren't overly concerned with following these rules.

"Character is doing the right thing, even when no one is watching"...The "right" thing is often VERY different from different perspectives.

Then again, maybe the 2nd is not as precious as we thought it was. Maybe it can be interpreted away like just so much ink on paper...
 
born2climb said:
I can only say that this country would never have been founded if everyone were so concerned with "following the rules"...
Click to expand...
On the other hand, the decision to declare independence from England was made collectively by elected representatives of the colonial assemblies after considerable effort to otherwise resolve the areas of friction. It was also made publicly and communicated to George III (the Declaration of Independence).

That's a little different from some guy saying to himself, "I'm not going to abide by the employer's no gun policy and hope I don't get caught."
 
Yeah, I guess it is a "little" different. Seems to me, the king wanted the arms at Concord....and seems to me, a group of men didn't agree with him...
 
born2climb said:
Yeah, I guess it is a "little" different. Seems to me, the king wanted the arms at Concord....and seems to me, a group of men didn't agree with him...
Click to expand...
Yeah, but that was only a very small piece of a much larger and more complex puzzle. So let's have no more inapplicable analogies.
 
I'm more of the mindset that its not so much about obeying all your employers rules as it is about being willing to accept the consequences when you don't. I worked in the booth at an all night self serve gas station. I got robbed. I bought and secretly carried against company policy. If ever robbed again, my goal was to survive to stand in the unemployement line.

Employers are in a very sticky spot when it comes to allowing employees to carry during their work hours in that they can be held responsible for what you do with it, while they can also be held responsible for denying you protection. In many cases, they have a "no gun policy" simply because they are required by insurance or other liability reasons, and need it for legal cover for what you may do, while at the same time not caring if its violated as long as they have plausible deniability of knowing that it was being violated. In other words, I get robbed and am involved in a controversial shooting, they can wash their hands of responsibility by saying they did not know, did not sanction it, and I was violating company policy, even though they are patting me on the back on the way out the door, and glad that I was armed.
 
Glenn E. Meyer Wrote;
You can go sell Apples on the corner and proclaim that on the Internet if we ever get to that extreme circumstance.
Click to expand...

And your comparison is Apples vs. Oranges. As you pointed out, those were extreme circumstances. Drastic times call for drastic measures. Most of us who are basically honest may have to compromise our own moral judgements when faced with starvation, however this is rarely the case (at least as of this moment)

Just as companies have a plethora of choices given the number of people unemployed, there is also a "stop and rob" every 100 feet in most urban areas, their turnover is usually quite high and, the skillset required is somewhat low so, for most of us, there are options.

Thus, I repeat that this 'moral' preaching is a particular stage of moral beliefs in a more complex set of decisions.
Click to expand...

Call it what you will, I don't necessarily disagree with your analysis, I do take umbrage with your description but, I digress. I will stick with my own notion of the "moral high ground" unless more dire circumstances warrant that I must compromise my view. ETA; It has served me well for 50+ years.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top