Carrying At Work

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Glenn and David,
You both pose interesting discussion.

Let me frame it this way, does any employer have the right to deprive you of the God-given right of self defense? That is without offering you protection thru some security measures? If no then I see this differs a bit from stealing company supplies and/or proselytizing your religion both are "intrusive" and cause damage to the company or it's employees rather than "unobtrusively" carrying a weapon which harms no one. That may be a poor sentence but I think you know what I mean.

If I am murdered at work can my wife then sue the company for my death in that the company did not protect me? If not, then it might be argued that the company cannot keep me from carrying. If the company is responsible for my safety and takes reasonable means to protect me then that's one thing. But if they say we are not responsible for your safety but you cannot carry either then the ethics of that is tough. This sort of falls under a type of civil disobedience. I know you must suffer the consequences if caught but it might be ethical to "disobey" your boss on this one. Kind of like the Pizza Hut Deliveryman.

Wondered what you thought?

 

[P35]

at my job we have a don't ask, don't tell policy
no one ever said I couldn't carry, I for sure won't tell them that I do

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

does any employer have the right to deprive you of the God-given right of self defense?

I don't think they do but the issue is the constitutional protection and I don't think that applies here unless someone decides (SCOTUS) that gun carriers are a protected class.

As far as suing for not being allowed to carry - I don't think that has been done yet. Folks have sued for not being protected at work and for firms not taking actions against known threats. Like VT being sued for not taking stronger action against the erratic behavior of Cho or other folks who have threatened employees. But no one has pulled off a suit on not carrying.

There is a legal liability literature on this subject and most come down to the risk of being sued because an employee misusing a legally carried gun seems worse to the risk managers than the payoff of an employee or their family suing for because they couldn't carry. The payoff for an employees who kills an innocent while trying to stop a rampage or a legal carrying employee who becomes a rampager is predicted to cost more than the victim of the Cho type shooter.

Remember corporate entities only care about the survival of the corporate entity - they have absolutely no interest in YOUR survival if it impacts their bottom line.

I have sat through talks on this. You will never convince most major corporate or other large organizations to allow carry for employees in our current milieu. Some small organizations in gun culture areas might. Like that little school board in TX. Or you can get state legislatures in gun friendly states to override educational or business rules.

Remember that the 'socalled' conservative business community will raise Holy Hell to stop such. Happened in TX - tough old business right wing nut businessmen came out of the woodwork to block a law allowed guns in parking lots. 'Conservative' to them only meant low taxes, hire illegals and more money for my trophy wife.

They will blather about property rights but that's just duplicitous right wing horse**** to cover their worship at the alter of Mammon.

 

[wildturkey76209]

First if your holster is doing its job nobody should ever find out that you are carrying at work. Second, Dishonesty does not equal breaking "company policy". Third, "no carry" at work policies don't address one's commute now does it. Finally prohibiting otherwise lawful persons from legally carrying on one's property should get you sued if anything ever happened.

 

[Kreyzhorse]

It is against policy to carry at work and I obey those rules.

 

[David Armstrong]

does any employer have the right to deprive you of the God-given right of self defense?

An employer has the right to establish the rules he thinks are best for his workplace provided he does not violate teh law. If you voluntarily go to work for that employer, he is not depriving you of a right, you are voluntarily agreeing to waive that right in exchange for compensation.

If I am murdered at work can my wife then sue the company for my death in that the company did not protect me?

Sure. Whether she would have much chance of success would hinge mostly on if there was a recognized specific threat or danger the company knew of and had failed to take any action.

This sort of falls under a type of civil disobedience.

I don't buy that. Civil disobedience that nobody is aware of is really not civil disobedience, IMO.

Wondered what you thought?

I tend to agree with Glenn. I wish we had and would support legislation prohibiting a ban. But until such legislation is passed I point out that if you voluntarily enter into a relationship with an employer which is based on following rules as a condition of employment, then failing to follow those rules is dishonest. You would feel it dishonest if it were reversed, and your employer had agreed to do something (salary, retirement, etc.) and didn't follow through. Let's put it in simple terms. You have agree to follow the rules, but carried in violation of your agreement for 20 years, is it OK if your employer has been saying he was putting away money in your retirement pension for 20 years and wasn't?

 

[David Armstrong]

Second, Dishonesty does not equal breaking "company policy".

So if the company breaks policy regarding pay and benefits and does not pay you what they agreed to pay you after yo have already done the work, they are not being dishonest?

 

[MauiDoc]

I have a gun on me whenever it's legal to do so.....

....which is essentially never, in this state. At the range 1 or 2x a month is it. Would if I could, and am becoming more active in the political end of things to try and get the laws here straightened out a bit.

MauiDoc

 

[MauiDoc]

Carrying against policy at work

Hey, Sparks, my retired skinny ol' dad worked the overnight shift at an off-ramp gas station on I-80 between Sacramento and Reno, and he carried against policy. One night a guy busts in with a bandana over his face pointing a gun at my dad, and demanding money. Dad jumped behind the Coke machine, cross-drew his .45 from under his jacket (shoulder hoslter), pointed it at the guy and shouted, 'Get on outta here!' BG turned and ran.

Dad called cops, sherrif's deputy came out, recognized my dad's unusual last name, asked him if he knew me (we went to 4th thru 12th grades together), when he found out that was my dad, wrote his report to state the BG ran off when confronted. No mention of my dad's gun.

Found out later the guy held up another station a ways up the road, then pulled off in the desert and shot himself dead. Sad for him, but better him than my dad. Or you.

Weigh the benefits against the hazards, and make your own decision.

My 11.3 cents (inflation)

 

[Nnobby45]

I tend to agree with Glenn. I wish we had and would support legislation prohibiting a ban. But until such legislation is passed I point out that if you voluntarily enter into a relationship with an employer which is based on following rules as a condition of employment, then failing to follow those rules is dishonest.

I'm aware of number of people who violate the company's policy with re: to carrying on the job who are FAR MORE HONEST than the company which prohibits carry in the interest of their own MONETARY liability, while the "dishonest" employee referred to by David, carries in defense of his own life so that he/she might go home to his family at the end of the shift.

If you have much time invested in a company and stand to lose your job and pension, then you have a call to make.

If you work in a high risk, low wage job, you owe it to yourself to find another job, or carry the means to protect yourself.

An employer has the right to establish the rules he thinks are best for his workplace provided he does not violate teh law. If you voluntarily go to work for that employer, he is not depriving you of a right, you are voluntarily agreeing to waive that right in exchange for compensation.

That's BUNK, David. I agreed to no such policy when I hired on. The company changed the rules after I had 25 years service. Guess I should have quit and found another job and lost my retirement. Right?

My violation of the rules amounted to having a weapon in my car on company property (no choice).
I didn't carry on the job, but was able to arm myself after work and carry on with my life, which I valued enough to protect in defiance of the companys' personal liability concerns.

LASTLY: Personally, I have no quarell with those, like Mr. Armstrong, who consider the company's policy more important than their life and wish to comply. Or even those who only comply out of fear.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

An employer has the right to establish the rules he thinks are best for his workplace provided he does not violate the law.

OK, is my right to self defense a "higher" law than that of the employer's work policy. Particularly if the employer does not take steps (metal detectors, armed security guards etc) to protect me.

The reference to civil disobedience was really meant to highlight that idea. That is: I have a God-given (so no one can take it away from me) right to self defense, therefore the employer may not ethically take it away from me without providing substitutionary protection from harm? I am not arguing that the law and the employer might sanction you for carrying but maybe it isn't dishonest as you say to disregard those policies and carry anyway, realizing of course you will be fired if discovered.

Remember Jim Crow laws were at one time legal but immoral to many and many disobeyed, not all openly either. Is the employer giving an immoral order?

As to civil disobedience, I think only Thoreau said it has to be public dissent Tolstoy might give me more slack on that.

 

[David Armstrong]

That's BUNK, David. I agreed to no such policy when I hired on. The company changed the rules after I had 25 years service. Guess I should have quit and found another job and lost my retirement. Right?

Did you continue to take the company money and retirement benefits, with the understanding that you were following the new rules?

....like Mr. Armstrong, who consider the company's policy more important than their life and wish to comply.

Please, let's not make things up and try to present them as factual. that is another example of being dishonest. While possible, I can think of no company policy that is more important than my life right off the top of my head. However, I go back to a couple of points. If you fear for your life so much that you're afraid to come to work without a gun, I suggest you find new employment. And, no matter how you try make it smell nice, it boils down to "I think it is OK for me to be dishonest just for money, but I don't think it should work that way for the company." Sorry, my personal code does not allow me to lie or cheat just to make a buck. I've seen way too many folks use that justification under way too many circumstances. I'm not down on those whose moral fiber points a different direction, but I am down on those who attempt to use hypocrisy to justify dishonesty.

 

[David Armstrong]

OK, is my right to self defense a "higher" law than that of the employer's work policy.

From a practical standpoint, no, it is not. That is why the law allows them to do what they do. But also from a practical standpoint, the employer is not removing that right if you voluntarily agree to waive it in exchange for salary, benefits, etc.

That is: I have a God-given (so no one can take it away from me) right to self defense, therefore the employer may not ethically take it away from me without providing substitutionary protection from harm?

Again, the employer is not taking it away, the employer is offering an incentive---you agree to follow my rules and I will give you employment.

...but maybe it isn't dishonest as you say to disregard those policies and carry anyway, realizing of course you will be fired if discovered.

Of course it is dishonest, otherwise there wouldn't be all this talk about hiding the behavior from the employer. If one truly believes, they should have the fortitude to tell the employer they disagree with the policy and they will not follow it, thus giving the employer the ability to decide if they wish to continue the contractual work/salary relationship.

Remember Jim Crow laws were at one time legal but immoral to many and many disobeyed, not all openly either.

I think it somewhat questionable to compare an unalterable genetic issue with a voluntary choice issue.

Tolstoy might give me more slack on that.

Ummm, are you sure you'd rather have your actions associated with Tolstoy than with Thoreau?

 

[longcoldwinter]

My employer does not expressly forbid carring conceled weapons, I am sure thats just because its never been brought up. I would not be comfortable carrying unless I asked first and I sure they would not grant me "permission" to carry.

From a practical stand point, my job entails going into too many prohibited places on a daily basis for carrying to be practical. I figure with all the adminstrative handling associated with taking the gun on and off in the confines of my car I would be more likely to have a accidental discharge then I would needing my gun for self defense.

 

[Gamisou]

Walgreens Gun Policy???????????

Anybody know what the Walgreens policy is?

I just got hired as a manager trainee, and haven't received any work policy forms yet.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

From a practical standpoint, no, it is not.

I think you mean from a legal standpoint. But, is it ethical and yes if the employer doesn't provide protection and tells you that you can't carry they are, from a practical standpoint, taking it away.

Of course it is dishonest, otherwise there wouldn't be all this talk about hiding the behavior from the employer.

Really? So a person in the employ of his government in the spy business, say infiltrating a terrorist cell, passes himself off as someone he is not is dishonest? Was Shindler dishonest when he told the Nazi's he needed x number of workers in order to save their lives when, from a practical standpoint he did not really need them? Was the underground railroad dishonest? They broke the law. Don't ever confuse legal and ethical they are very different. The clowns that wrote those sub-prime loans probably broke no laws in doing so, however, I think most would call them unethical.

I think it somewhat questionable to compare an unalterable genetic issue with a voluntary choice issue.

Race or Religion is not the issue. Is the rule immoral and if so are you dishonest for disobeying it? I think you frame the issue wrong. We aren't lying to make money we are lying to protect our own lives which we have a God-given right to do. I think you are applying a very stringent rule for ethics here that might not pass muster even in your own experience not related to this issue.

Ummm, are you sure you'd rather have your actions associated with Tolstoy than with Thoreau?

Hey! Whats wrong with Tolstoy? Just another suicidal Russian writer.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

We are drifting into various theories of morality.

Some theorists regard the highest level as following the ethical principles of your own conscience. So, if you think it is moral, you would disobey a law.

Some postulate that the highest level is to follow the laws even if you disagree with them.

Some argue that you should operate at self-interest levels.

However, if you disagree and disobey - is that the highest level if you don't simultaneously, try to change the policy? Without that, the morality argument devolves to the self-interest argument with high moral values just used as a rationalization.

Now, who is to say that self-interest isn't the most important motivation - that's another argument.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

We are drifting into various theories of morality.

Glenn, you are right. However, David used the word "dishonest" and passed some judgement and I wanted to challenge that as an absolute.

I do believe in the rule of law so please don't misunderstand but I do NOT believe it is the higher way to obey laws that violate your conscience. In fact, based on my military background obeying an unlawful order is the same as doing the crime and you cannot claim a defense that you only did as told.

I guess the bottomline is that each person must decide whether to quit, carry secretly or not carry based on what their conscience says. David may think to carry in a prohibited place is dishonest but I am not so sure.

 

[Nnobby45]

You have all the rebuttles for eveything, don't you David.

The thread was started by a man who works at a gas station, at close to minimum wage, I suspect, and can't defend his life because his employers' insurance company won't cover his employer, I suspect, unless all employees are unarmed and incapable of injuring an armed robber.


As I've already stated, my company changed it's policy on the advise of it's lawyers after I'd worked there 25 yrs. Prior to that, weapons weren't covered by company policy. I wasn't allowed to have a pocket knife, even though I drove a truck that contained hammers, screwdrivers, heavy metal rods, cable sheath knives, etc., etc.

Obviously, you consider me dishonest for not following the rules of a major utilities company that considers it's liability more important than the lives of it's employees. So be it. And, as stated, I never carried a fire arm on the job, but only so that I may be armed to and from work.

American anti-resistance of any kind businesses never had a better ally than yourself, who I suspect, is armed most of the time for your own protection--except where the company doesn't approve, of course.

 

[David Armstrong]

I think you mean from a legal standpoint.

No, I mean from a practical standpoint, as I believe the entire "higher law" philosophy is not only unworkable, but also impractical. But since you bring it up, yes, it is that way from a legal standpoint also.

But, is it ethical and yes if the employer doesn't provide protection and tells you that you can't carry they are, from a practical standpoint, taking it away.

Yes, it is ethical and no, they are not taking it away, both for the same reason. They are giving you the option to participate. Nobody is forcing you to take employment with them. If you wish to exercise the option that is your choice, but the option includes following the rules.

Really?

Yes, really. That you have to resort to items that are so far removed from what is being discussed pretty much indicates that you can't justify your position except under the most unusual of circumstances.

Don't ever confuse legal and ethical they are very different.

Don't think I've talked about legal and ethical in this context. I've talked about honesty. Honesty should also not be confused with legal and ethical, as they are different.

Race or Religion is not the issue.

Agreed. Voluntary behavior is the issue, so one should not even try to equate that with race or other factors. Don't know why you brought it up.

Is the rule immoral and if so are you dishonest for disobeying it?

I might agree the rule is immoral, but that has nothing to do with the issue and is a completely different issue to discuss. You still voluntarily agree to follow the rules. If you have agreed to follow the rules in exchange for something, then you accept the "something" knowing that you have willfully violated the rules, yes, that is dishonest. It is that way with everything else in the rules, I don't know why a gun rule is any different. If you agree to work 8 hours for $80, but then only work 5 hours but still take the $80 by hiding the fact you did not work the full 8 hours, that is dishonest.

We aren't lying to make money we are lying to protect our own lives which we have a God-given right to do.

If that is your concern then you should give back your paycheck, right? Or you can also chose to work someplace else, or not work at all. That way you wouldn't need to lie. But if you take the money based on the belief that you have met your end of the agreement and you have not done so, it is dishonest and it is for the purpose of getting money. The fact taht most of your co-workers are getting the same money while following the rules makes it even more problematic.

I think you are applying a very stringent rule for ethics here that might not pass muster even in your own experience not related to this issue.

Not sure what you mean by "even in your own experience not related to this issue." Sorry, but if you'll rephrase that I'll try to respond. But from an ethics standpoint, yes, it is a fairly stringent rule. Either your word is your bond and is to be trusted or it is not. Violating your word strictly for money is dishonest, even though it might be understandable. My $.02.

In fact, based on my military background obeying an unlawful order is the same as doing the crime and you cannot claim a defense that you only did as told.

IIRC, to claim that defense you have to openly decline the order and say why you will not follow it, correct?