Carrying At Work

[David Armstrong]

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

Oh gosh no. I doubt anybody has all the rebuttals for everything, and I know I certainly don't.

Obviously, you consider me dishonest ....

I have no idea what you are. I can only discuss whether behaviors presented meet certain standards of conduct as I understand them.

American anti-resistance of any kind businesses never had a better ally than yourself,

Not real sure what yo uare trying to say there with the first half of the sentence. But as for the second, as I'm fond of pointing out when people say such things, you have no way of knowing that and thus for you to suggest such a claim as fact is questionable at best, and dishonest at worst.

....is armed most of the time for your own protection--except where the company doesn't approve, of course.

I could care less about if the company approves or not. I am concerned if there is a legal issue or if I am violating a personal position of honor or honesty, but approval is immaterial to me.

 

[Ohio Rusty]

I never do that !! I work for a school system and weapons in the schools is absolutely verboten !! It's not worth losing my good job over. Not to many good jobs to be had these days ... that is why I don't risk it.
Ohio Rusty ><>

 

[orionengnr]

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.

DingDingDingDing We have a winner...

 

[dabigguns357]

If it's legal and worth gettin fired over then yes by all means carry.If it's not legal or you are scared then don't carry.I carry to and from work every day,because there is no law against it nor does my company frown on it.

This is another issue where no one is right or wrong,just personal.So why when i read some posts in this thread i feel like i'm back in college..

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I believe the entire "higher law" philosophy is not only unworkable, but also impractical.

How so? You believe there is no higher law than rules made by men?

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.

Sometimes people can't just change jobs. Jobs may be hard to come by and people have to work to live. It sounds a bit cavalier to say "Well just quit!" Maybe easy for you but not for many others.

As to following the rules, I say only if they are moral and just should they be followed. The employer is not a king and does not have carte blanche to force employees to do whatever they ask. You cannot be asked to "waive" your right to self defense without some measure of protection being afforded. Giving you a job and paying you does not entitle an employer to risk your life unjustly because his Insurance Agent or Lawyer advises him to. If the employer prohibits you from carrying then he implicitly assumes a greater responsibility for your safety because he has disarmed you and therefore must take measures to protect you. If he does not THAT is dishonest and you are not for carrying against their wishes.

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.

No you are saying follow the rules no matter what and so these examples are legit. Maybe you won't answer them because you might not be able to justify your position anymore.

Honesty should also not be confused with legal and ethical, as they are different.

Ethics is about right and wrong and how a person should behave and is not different from honesty. Legality is different from ethics, but honesty is not.

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.

Actually you brought up the race issue but my point with Jim Crow laws was that they were immoral but at the time legal.

Sorry, but if you'll rephrase that I'll try to respond.

I think when you answer the questions I posed in post #56 about not telling the truth or obeying the law in some circumstances you might find that your stringent honesty requirement is subject to some gray area. I think in the cases I mentioned you yourself might not tell the truth or follow the law because there is a greater good in not doing so. I think this carrying at work issue may be one of those same situations.

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

No, that is not correct. However, if you obey the illegal order you cannot use the defense of "I was only following orders".

More importantly, I disagree with your position that one must openly disobey immoral laws and that if you don't "fall on your sword" publicly then you are somehow dishonest. That is your opinion but I find no ethical basis for that. You can simply choose not to follow the unjust laws as I suggested in the examples on my earlier post and that includes carrying at work against unjust company policy.

 

[David Armstrong]

How so? You believe there is no higher law than rules made by men?

There may be, but as I said basing actions on them is impractical, as each of us may have a different higher law.

Sometimes people can't just change jobs.

But they can be honest, they can follow the rules they agreed to follow, etc.

As to following the rules, I say only if they are moral and just should they be followed.

So, who gets to decide that? What if your employer feels the "no carry" rules are moral? Or what if your employer feels it is moral to change your rate of pay whenver he wants without telling you? What if your fellow employees feel it is unjust to force them to work in the same building as aperson who is carrying a gun?

The employer is not a king and does not have carte blanche to force employees to do whatever they ask.

Actually he pretty much does unless there is some law that is controlling.

You cannot be asked to "waive" your right to self defense without some measure of protection being afforded.

But your employer will argue that there is some measure of protection being provided, and that prohibiting carry at work is part of that protection.

No you are saying follow the rules no matter what and so these examples are legit.

Please show us anywhere I have said you should follow the rules no matter what.

Legality is different from ethics, but honesty is not.

Of course it is. Ethics are principles or standards of human conduct, honesty revolves around principles of truthfullness.

Actually you brought up the race issue

No you did by trying to relate civil rights to this, but as it doesn't matter I'll take the credit if you want.

I think in the cases I mentioned you yourself might not tell the truth or follow the law because there is a greater good in not doing so.

OK, I follow you now. And I don't disagree, sometimes you might not be honest because it serves the greater good to be dishonest. I don't think that changes the fact that one is being dishonest, however.

No, that is not correct.

Must have change UCMJ from back in the 70s.

More importantly, I disagree with your position that one must openly disobey immoral laws ....

Sorry, but that is a postion I have not taken. My position is simple: If you voluntarily agree to behave in a certain manner for purposes of getting something of value, then hiding the fact that you are violating that agreement and taking the full value as agreed on is dishonest.

You can simply choose not to follow the unjust laws as I suggested in the examples on my earlier post and that includes carrying at work against unjust company policy.

Company policy is not law, and yes, you can choose not to follow the policy but if you have agreed to do so it is dishonest. That the policy is unjust is an opinion that many would disagree with and is fairly irrelevent, IMO.

As Glenn has pointed out, this keeps trying to drift towards the issue of morality, which is quite philosophical as well as individual. Honesty should not be based on what you think, but on what you do.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

There may be, but as I said basing actions on them is impractical, as each of us may have a different higher law.

I think that is called a conscience. I have no problem with those who choose to follow theirs.

OK, I follow you now. And I don't disagree, sometimes you might not be honest because it serves the greater good to be dishonest. I don't think that changes the fact that one is being dishonest, however.

So being dishonest isn't always bad? I agree with that, especially when you are disobeying an unjust rule.

Must have change UCMJ from back in the 70s.

I was in then, it has never been different. You have inferred on two occasions in post #46 and again in post #60 that if you don't openly disobey the unjust law it is wrong and I disagree.

Please show us anywhere I have said you should follow the rules no matter what.

You haven't said otherwise until your last post and that seems to be the theme of your argument from the beginning. The rules are the rules and if you break them you are dishonest. You reject disobeying unjust laws unless the aggrieved party does it openly. I disagree as well.

Honesty should not be based on what you think, but on what you do.

It must be based on both.

However, Glenn is right this is drifting. My final bottom line and the final word from me is thus:

Every person has an inalienable right to self defense.

Any employer who denies employees the right to carry must provide equal protection to these employees or the rule is unjust.

If the employer does not provide the protection and prohibits carry then the employee is justified in disobeying the rule, secretly if need be but may be fired if caught. Purely a conscience call I feel.

 

[David Armstrong]

I think that is called a conscience. I have no problem with those who choose to follow theirs.

Nor do i. My problem is with those who use consciuence, higher law, or whatever as rationalization for dishonesty or other questionable actions.

So being dishonest isn't always bad?

Again, tha is a philosophical issue. Dishoest is always dishonest, but there are times when being honest can create more harm than the good it creates.

I was in then, it has never been different.

I was in at that time also, and I will disagree, as my memory (admittedly 30 years ago) seems to keep telling me otherwise. If someone can provide definite proof one way or the other I'm certainly open to it.

You haven't said otherwise until your last post and that seems to be the theme of your argument from the beginning.

HUH?? I've said nothing like that. I have been consistent in the position that if one agrees to voluntarily follow rules in exchange for a job or other reward then failing to follow those rules and still accepting the reward is dishonest. Don't think I have ever suggested anything much beyond that.

The rules are the rules and if you break them you are dishonest.

That is certainly a major part of what I have been saying.

You reject disobeying unjust laws unless the aggrieved party does it openly.

Again, that is not something I have said.

It must be based on both.

No, that is demonstrably false. I can think that I would really like to steal that watch, but if I don't do it I am acting honestly even though my thoughts were in favor of dishonesty.

Every person has an inalienable right to self defense.

Agreed, but that has nothing to do with following rules you have agreed to follow.

Any employer who denies employees the right to carry must provide equal protection to these employees or the rule is unjust.

Nonsense. If you volunteer to engage in an activity knowing the dangers, no protection is being denied. Of equal importance, what if a majority of employees feel that forcing them to work in an environment where others carry guns is unjust, and the company must provide them protection from you? Whose rights are being denied?

If the employer does not provide the protection and prohibits carry then the employee is justified in disobeying the rule, secretly if need be but may be fired if caught

So you recognize the employees actions are dishonest, as they must be hidden. And the dishonesty is multiplied if the employee then continues to accept his agreed upon reward, as the employee is not living up to his end of the agreement and he recognizes that what he is doing is in violation of the agreement he made.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Well, I guess we agree to disagree. I think your reasoning is faulty and believe I have made all the points I wish to make about it. I will let those who read this thread make up their own minds. Good debate though. Thanks!

PS No soldier is required to openly disobey an illegal order. He is only required not to follow it. He may not be able to openly challenge it due to commo failures and such but he must not obey it nevertheless. He cannot be punished for failing to obey an illegal order even if he is silent. You can look it up in UCMJ or the Standards of Conduct if you wish since you brought it up but that is the deal.

 

[Sparks2112]

Really interesting conversation guys, thanks for all the great responses. Now, my 2 cents.

I agree, I'm being horribly dishonest by carrying at work while agreeing to obey the rules of employment. That having been said, I'd say my duty to my family to come home at the end of the night outweighs all other duties to honesty, etc...

At the end of the day, that's really all that needs to be said. I HAVE to come home, so I WILL come home, whatever way that entails.

Also it has nothing to do with "If the job is that dangerous, quit." I carry to take my trash to the curb on the off chance that something odd will happen, and this is an amazing neighborhood. So why would it be any different anywhere else?

 

[David Armstrong]

My final bottom line and the final word from me is thus:

Now see, that is another example of dishonesty. Might be done for the best of reasons, but when you declare that is your final word, then come back and do a whole post after that, you have been dishonest with what you have said.

No soldier is required to openly disobey an illegal order. He is only required not to follow it.

I believe that is referred to as openly disobeying. Not doing something you are told to do is disobeying that command. The fact that you are not hiding it or being deceptive about it means it is done openly. Again, it's been 30 years since I was doing UCMJ classes, and things can change or my memory can be faulty, but barring some evidence I'll stick with it as I remember.

Good debate though. Thanks!

Same to you, and thnks from my side. It's nice when vigorous dispute stays above the personal insult level.

 

[threegun]

Violating company policy while at work is dishonest. Stealing, smoking, dress code, hygiene, behavior, etc are not protected by the constitution however. Carrying a gun is. No entity shall make rules or laws that violate the constitution. Getting folks to agree to having their constitutional rights violated in exchange for employment doesn't make the constitutional violation less a violation. Just as a company cannot ask me to break the law as part of the job........that rule to break the law would be wrong and thus not dishonest of me for violating it.

Also carrying doesn't effect job performance. Openly exercising free speech would likely hamper job performance or violate the rights of others who don't agree.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Violating company policy while at work is dishonest. Stealing, smoking, dress code, hygiene, behavior, etc are not protected by the constitution however. Carrying a gun is. No entity shall make rules or laws that violate the constitution. Getting folks to agree to having their constitutional rights violated in exchange for employment doesn't make the constitutional violation less a violation.

There is some truth to that but I'm not sure it applies to guns or SD weapons in general. The difference, IMO, is implicit and explicit laws. The right to self defense, to carry at all times as desired, is IMPLIED in 2A. The explicit meaning has not been defined by the courts to include mutually agreed employment. Those other items, race, religion etc., HAVE been EXPLICITLY defined by the courts as protected from discrimination and you cannot, even voluntarily, relinquish those rights. Until a court (will have to be SCOTUS eventually) defines the right to SD as inviolable, you (and I) are obliged to follow the terms of employment to which we have agreed. If the terms are changed and we continue to go to work we are implicitly agreeing to the new terms, unless we have lodged a complaint and are allowed to work until the issue is resolved.

The morality of an employer making such a rule is actually a completely different discussion from the legality of such a rule.

 

[Musketeer]

Not long ago we got a "new" policy manual with loads of stupid stuff in it along with a Non-Disclosure statement. Specifically highlighted was that you could be dismissed at any time for any reason.

I can be fired for having the means to defend myself. I can be fired because the CEO makes a bad decision resulting in a loss of profitability and he needs to show a cost savings. I can be the best or worst employee at the company and be fired for any reason at any time.

I understand that and I accept that and make my decisions based on my value system. I know if I hear shots at the CEO end of the hall I have no intention of intervening, they have a policy to protect them after all.

FYI: The Constitution has nothing to do with a contract between private parties. You have no more right under the COTUS to call your boss a retarded pot bellied ape and remain employed than the landscaper mowing your lawn has the right to do the same to you and remain employed. Neither you nor your employer can have the offending party ARRESTED though for such actions. THAT is free speech and that is protected by the Constitution.

As Forest Gump says "and that's all I have to say about that."

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Specifically highlighted was that you could be dismissed at any time for any reason.

In an at-will employment state you can be fired for any reason or no reason.

FYI: The Constitution has nothing to do with a contract between private parties. You have no more right under the COTUS to call your boss a retarded pot bellied ape and remain employed than the landscaper mowing your lawn has the right to do the same to you and remain employed.

I agree but I don't know if the courts do. My ignorance. I don't think anyone here disputes if you violate a company policy and are caught you may be fired. The Pizza Hut delivery man comes to mind.

I understand that and I accept that and make my decisions based on my value system.

I agree there also. No duty to obey an unjust rule but may suffer the consequences of disobeying.

The morality of an employer making such a rule is actually a completely different discussion from the legality of such a rule.

True but it has a bearing on whether I might carry at work or not which seems to be what the OP posits.

As an aside, I recognize that many out in the world (on this forum I don't know) might not be in the economic shape to just quit their jobs because of this carry at work issue. I find it disgusting and wrong that the option could well be for them; don't carry at work and get killed or injured; or quit and starve. May be legal but it is not right.

 

[David Armstrong]

Quote:
Violating company policy while at work is dishonest. Stealing, smoking, dress code, hygiene, behavior, etc are not protected by the constitution however. Carrying a gun is. No entity shall make rules or laws that violate the constitution. Getting folks to agree to having their constitutional rights violated in exchange for employment doesn't make the constitutional violation less a violation.

There is some truth to that but I'm not sure it applies to guns or SD weapons in general. The difference, IMO, is implicit and explicit laws. The right to self defense, to carry at all times as desired, is IMPLIED in 2A.

More than just implicit and explicit laws, there is the basic constitutional concept that it is a restriction on GOVERNMENT, not private citizens. Carrying a gun at work is no more protected than is free speech, search and seizure, due process, and so on while at work.

FYI: The Constitution has nothing to do with a contract between private parties. You have no more right under the COTUS to call your boss a retarded pot bellied ape and remain employed than the landscaper mowing your lawn has the right to do the same to you and remain employed.

Exactly.

 

[longcoldwinter]

Let me sum up the view most employers take with reguard to employee safety.

1)You work to make me money, your safety does not matter unless one of the following applies.
a) a government agency with the power to acess fines makes me take steps to provide for your safety.
b) working conditions are so obviously hazardous I can't find anyone to work.
c) you have a union which forces me to take action to provide for your safety
d) I keep getting sued which costs me money.
e) it costs me too much money to replace you

2)If you die by third party action I dont care, if you die, I am only out the cost it took to train you. If you defend yourself, I could be sued which will cost me many times the money I have invested in you.

Employer-Employee relationships are all about money very little honor or moral fiber involved IMHO

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Exactly, the point about the Constitution is not understood by some in this debate. That's why specific legislation is needed to control conditions on the workplace scene.

I support such legislation for the workplace and for businesses open to the public except for demonstrated technical risks.

Now, folks will argue that it is their private property but if you hire others and do business with the public, that doesn't fly for me.

 

[Musketeer]

Exactly, the point about the Constitution is not understood by some in this debate. That's why specific legislation is needed to control conditions on the workplace scene.

Well Glenn, I applaud your understanding the COTUS. I wish more did.

The idea though that the gov't should pass more laws controlling what I allow in my property is abhorrent though. Mind you that I think that laws banning racial, sexual and religious discrimination in the private workplace are also wrong. By no means do I support such practices, I just do not think the Gov't has any business tell a private citizen who they can or have to engage in a private contract with. Once that starts the line begins to form over who gets the special treatment.

Blacks, fine.
Jews, alright.
Gays, we'll go for this one.
Satanists, huh?
Transgender individuals demanding their own bathrooms at work, your kidding?
Balding pot bellied men looking to be Hooters "girls", see the problem?

The only way NOT to slide to the bottom of that slippery slope is to realize gov't shouldn't be standing on it to begin with.

Like I said, I respect your understanding of the COTUS, and I even see the very real reasons you feel gov't involvement in private matters might be justified. I just cannot accept the cost of letting "Dracula into your house" that happens when you start letting the gov't regulate who you can do business with.

 

[Musketeer]

Now, folks will argue that it is their private property but if you hire others and do business with the public, that doesn't fly for me.

The thing is I do not intend to do business with "the public." I choose to do business with the private citizens I so choose to deal with. I have yet to see a credit card or check which states "Public" for the name.

If you want to tie this to the expenditure of gov't funds you can, but when everything is private the gov't should be OUT.