Carry at Work

[manta49]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP
I consider an employer's no gun on premises rule to be immoral, only if they do nothing else to provide for employee safety.

The employer might see not having firearms on the premises as providing employee safety. Example employee going on shooting spree after being sacked for example or another employee being injured by a negligent discharge. Millions of Americans probably the majority go to work unarmed.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

A rough parallel might be found in the application of the legal doctrine of necessity as a defense against tort liability. Under certain circumstances, the law will recognize a privilege to do something which would violate the property rights of another. But the circumstances must be extreme, and the person invoking the claim of necessity must still pay for the damage he did.

So how did you determine that Cothran met that criteria or did you? Cothran caused no damage. The crook beat feet when he saw the gun. But Cothran lost his job.

Since Cothran had good reason to fear robbery based on the facts of the case is he then morally justified to ignore company policy and carry?

 

[Tom Servo]

So was Mr. Cothran right to do what he did or not?

He felt his actions were necessary. Many of us would agree, and I'm glad he's OK.

That said, if we're talking about lying to an employer, the word "integrity" is especially inapt.

is he then morally justified to ignore company policy and carry?

The question implies a fixed and arbitrary standard. To some folks, he might have been justified. To others, not so much.

 

[Frank Ettin]

A rough parallel might be found in the application of the legal doctrine of necessity as a defense against tort liability. Under certain circumstances, the law will recognize a privilege to do something which would violate the property rights of another. But the circumstances must be extreme, and the person invoking the claim of necessity must still pay for the damage he did.

So how did you determine that Cothran met that criteria or did you? Cothran caused no damage. The crook beat feet when he saw the gun. But Cothran lost his job.

Since Cothran had good reason to fear robbery based on the facts of the case is he then morally justified to ignore company policy and carry?

I said a "rough parallel"; that is not the same as an "exact paralllel." In Mr. Cothan's case he bears the natural consequence of violating an employment rule, i. e., loss of his job.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

So what I seem to be getting from Tom Servo and Frank Ettin is that while they don't really like lying (I don't either) and believe that one should tell the truth, there may be times that lying is permissible?

It also seems that both of you seem to not think Mr. Cothran was dishonest in ignoring a company policy and are happy with the outcome (not sure about his being fired).

So, I conclude that maybe you guys like how this turned out but don't want to be seen as endorsing wholesale lying to an employer?

Now Brian seems a bit more rigid than you both, but I think we (Frank, Tom and I) may have a serious case of agreement going on here?

 

[RX-79G]

If one of you wants to carry at work, and you get the owner to agree to allow carry at work, are the employees going to pay for any lawsuit settlement should something bad happen because of your concealed weapon?


With all the morality talk on this thread, no one has really said anything about why an employer should hang their butt out for the mental comfort of the employees.

Concealed carry accidents can and do happen. There's a thread about one right now on the semi board. Normally, if I screw up with my firearm, I am the one responsible. But when I do something stupid that I was essentially allowed to do at work, the responsibility falls into the lap of the person with the most money to lose - the business owner where the ND happened.

All it takes is one foolish person with questionable carry habits or a bad pistol or holster to financially ruin a business. Should it really be a surprise to anyone that most business owners don't want to embrace that additional risk???

What is the morality of subjecting your employer to all that unshared risk?


This just doesn't seem any different than an employer who doesn't enforce OSHA regulations just because his employees don't want to wear filter masks or hardhats. The employees' feelings don't translate into any sort of protection of the business.

I'm not saying that you should be helpless at work, but no one is talking about a business's right to mitigate their own risk.

I doubt most gas station owners view their $9 an hour employees as the type of people that are likely to always make great life decisions.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Well, this is why the great majority of businesses won't allow CCW at work. I understand that but the fact remains that unless the employer insures (to a reasonable degree) that disarmament is enforced OR takes other measures to protect the employees from harm in the way of the OP then the rule is immoral.

What the companies are saying is; You can't carry and we only have to protect you against stuff the law (not reality) requires. Since we can't predict crime you can't sue us if you are the victim of it while at work but we won't allow you to carry either. Immoral

Now as to lawsuits. I am sure that had a lawsuit been filed by the crook he would have included Mr. Cothran and all CCW holders are financially responsible for every bullet they fire. So, that is already the case.

Insurance companies already cover businesses for negligent acts committed by employees so that could extend to CCW too. But since the law doesn't require it the companies avoid the extra cost and leave us hanging.

Kind of like when Tucker made his care and had seat belts. The Big 4 said "well, it isn't required so we won't do it".

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I doubt most gas station owners view their $9 an hour employees as the type of people that are likely to always make great life decisions.

Not to get off topic but that reasoning is the same one used by antis to ban guns. We're too stupid to be allowed to have them.

 

[manta49]

Not to get off topic but that reasoning is the same one used by antis to ban guns. We're too stupid to be allowed to have them.

We all know people we wouldn't trust with a water pistol. I know people at work I wouldn't like near me with a firearm. What about employees that don't want other work colleagues armed.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...So, I conclude that maybe you guys like how this turned out but don't want to be seen as endorsing wholesale lying to an employer?...

What basically troubles me is the sweeping characterizations of an employer's "no guns for employees" policy as immoral, and an employee's choice to ignore it as moral. Those characterizations in this case are really just based on the fortuitous outcome in this case.

What if the outcome had been different. What if the employee who armed himself in violation of his employer's policy had been wildly mistaken about the need to resort to lethal force and shot someone who everyone agreed did not present a lethal threat? Would the employer's policy still be immoral? Would the employee's choice to violate that policy still be moral?

...Now as to lawsuits. I am sure that had a lawsuit been filed by the crook he would have included Mr. Cothran and all CCW holders are financially responsible for every bullet they fire. So, that is already the case....

Except Mr. Corthan is no doubt judgment proof.

...Insurance companies already cover businesses for negligent acts committed by employees so that could extend to CCW too...

And businesses pay some pretty fancy premiums for that insurance.

I doubt most gas station owners view their $9 an hour employees as the type of people that are likely to always make great life decisions.

Not to get off topic but that reasoning is the same one used by antis to ban guns. We're too stupid to be allowed to have them.

That might be one thing when discussing the scope of government's power to regulated a constitutionally protected right and another when discussing a private entity assuming financial responsibility for the conduct of an employee.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

What basically troubles me is the sweeping characterizations of an employer's "no guns for employees" policy as immoral, and an employee's choice to ignore it as moral.

Well that is not my position but I was negligent in not articulating it better. As I replied earlier to AMP 44 I worked a job where we were guarded and I would not have thought of carrying there. Sorry I did not lay that out. The instances I am speaking of involve low income folk in jobs with no real choice of changing out and are working in a dangerous area where the company does little or nothing to mitigate the risk. The OP is the example I meant not in every case.

And businesses pay some pretty fancy premiums for that insurance.

Not really fancy. Normal. I used to sell the stuff and it is a cost of doing business. Actually, one is rather foolish to operate a business without it.

 

[RX-79G]

TG,
Your post is an example of the sort of gun culture PC that clouds people's thinking.

Just because a gun grabber observes that some people shouldn't be trusted with firearms doesn't make the observation false. It is true. It just doesn't matter if it is true because a right supersedes even a practical truth.

Just reading this board for a few weeks would convince me that the average gun enthusiast is fairly unlikely to be a practical minded, well trained and smart weapon user. Since an employer isn't providing gun training, how does he satisfy his moral obligation to provide a safe environment when many CCW people are so obviously idiots???

Owners have a larger moral responsibility to everyone that comes onto their property. It is PC nonsense that they should just trust that any boob they hire can be expected to handle a weapon responsibly and competently. And I'm just talking about NDs, not shoot outs.

It's no different than having untrained people running the forklift. What sort of idiot owner is going to allow that?

 

[Frank Ettin]

And businesses pay some pretty fancy premiums for that insurance.

Not really fancy. Normal. I used to sell the stuff and it is a cost of doing business. Actually, one is rather foolish to operate a business without it.

It depends on the business and risk exposure (like the possibility of employees having guns).

I've had clients who buy the insurance. In some industries, the premiums are substantial. And sometimes to even get manageable premiums a business would need to accept a very high self-insured retention or very large deductible.

So even with insurance, a business can have a substantial financial liability exposure.

 

[Tom Servo]

Now Brian seems a bit more rigid than you both, but I think we (Frank, Tom and I) may have a serious case of agreement going on here?

This is the internet. Perish the very thought.

It also seems that both of you seem to not think Mr. Cothran was dishonest in ignoring a company policy and are happy with the outcome (not sure about his being fired).

Actually, my feelings on his situation are ambivalent. He did what he felt he had to.

While I won't condone dishonesty, I'd be a hypocrite if I condemned it. I've been in Mr. Cothran's position, and I've made a similar decision. There was no moral aspect to it, merely a pragmatic one.

Had I been caught and fired, so be it. I made my choice. However, that did involve subtle dishonesty, and I'd certainly have had no right to ride the drama llama around proclaiming my integrity.

Likewise, I don't like bans on employee carry, but I can certainly understand the unfortunate circumstances that lead to such bans.

 

[born2climb]

So if a man pulls a knife on you in a dark alley and demands ALL your money...is it lying if you only give him what's in your wallet...and don't bother to tell him about the $500 in your left boot? Or, does honesty and integrity compel you to mention to him that if he follows you home, there's another grand in the nightstand drawer?

I don't allow employees to carry cell phones around all day, as it hinders their performance. I have no issue with a pistol tucked in a pocket, however, as it is not a hindrance and is not a danger either.

 

[manta49]

I don't allow employees to carry cell phones around all day, as it hinders their performance. I have no issue with a pistol tucked in a pocket, however, as it is not a hindrance and is not a danger either.

You are not going to accidentally shoot someone with a cell phone. Carrying a firearm in your pocket is a good way to have a negligent discharge. Other employees won't have a problem with colleagues having a cell phone they might with them having a firearm.

 

[born2climb]

Being the employer gives ME the authority to make that call. I don't see anyone snatching their pistol out every few minutes to fool with it. A cell phone, on the other hand...is a work killer.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I do disagree with you that "we always have choices" because a "choice" like not carry and be robbed or quit and starve" is not a real choice.

Of course it's a choice. It is a choice between two possible actions. The fact that you find both options unattractive does not mean there is no "real" choice.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Just reading this board for a few weeks would convince me that the average gun enthusiast is fairly unlikely to be a practical minded, well trained and smart weapon user.

Well, this is off topic so I will not debate the point with you. I will just say that the right to self defense and RTKBA is not contingent on "being able to make good life choices". I can see you haven't been on here long so that may explain a lot.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Of course it's a choice. It is a choice between two possible actions. The fact that you find both options unattractive does not mean there is no "real" choice.

Yeah but like the choice of eat or starve it's not a real one. At least as far as the issue I am addressing.