Ha! My employer just modified company policy to disallow firearms on the premises...

[brickeyee]

In order for 'At Will' to work in the employers favor then, every time they fire someone, they should not give any reason, nor any hint that there is cause. Because if there is cause and the now-fired employee learns of it, then the terminated employee can sue them for wrongful termination.

This is as circular as it gets.

You can always be fired 'for cause.'
Larger employers have all sorts of paper trail defining what you can be terminated for.
Many smaller places do not have 'employee handbooks' and clearly defined rules.

You can try and go after an employer fir violating his own rules, but good luck. The rules are NOT a contract that they MUST abide by on their side.
Most contain more than enough 'or similar' phrases to make it nearly impossible to win a suit. They made the rules, they can break the rules.

Firing for cause can affect unemployment benefit eligibility, so employers need a well documented case. They will not be the final judge.

It is often far easier to take a hit on your unemployment insurance rates than bother making a 'for cause' termination and defending it.

I have even paid severance pay to move folks out the door.

"Sorry, your services are no longer required. We are giving you 2 weeks of severance pay to help you out."

And thinking the whole time, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

 

[Bashers]

Is it really that dangerous in the states that you have to carry a firearm to work? We're obviously living a more sheltered life here the UK. having said that though, where I work theres 24hr armed police presence (they carry G36 assault rifles I think)

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I have not ignored the middle ground

Then what middle ground are you proposing to the battered woman being stalked by her ex?

what I have stated is that when one rests their morals on subjective criteria you have laid the ground work to justify anything

That is the logical fallacy of the slippery slope. The real question is; Is it ever morally permissable to lie? The answer most all creeds and ethical frameworks go by is yes. The problem is what criteria you use. If you read a guy named Dieter Bonhoeffer (died in a Nazi Concentration Camp)he will tell you that not only should you lie to prevent evil but that YOU are morally defiecient if you don't.

Businesses have the right to choose how to create a safe environment.

Or do nothing based on their bottom line? Maybe legal but hardly moral.

Again like many here you are using a myopic view that CHP and guns at work in individuals hands is the only way to achieve the goal of safety.

Not at all. There are many things businesses can do to protect employees against crime. The problem is many don't because of the cost. So back to my original position; if the business does nothing reasonable to protect the employee and then prohibits the employee from protecting themselves by banning CCW. That is an immoral rule and could be ignored morally.

I disagree with these tactics

OK, so you would have turned the Jews over to the Nazis, wouldn't use covert operations to interdict terrorism and would do away with undercover law enforcement? Well, that is your opinion, but I think your code is problematic as you have stated it.

There are times that the stripping of human diginity and human rights is cause for deception and lying.

I think not allowing for instance, a battered women who is being stalked to protect herself by a crazy ex is stripping away the most fundamental human right and that is the right to life.

Thanks for bringing Nazis into the discussion.

Ok, we can substitute the Khmer Rouge, Stalin, Mao or whoever you wish but the principal is the same. This is why I submit you are only looking at the employer's side of the issue.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

The public isn't paying the delivery mans' paycheck. Pizza Hut is.

Doesn't mean you forfeit your safety for the paycheck. Anyway, the question Colt posed was that those who carried against company rules made the gun community look bad. I think in the Pizza Hut case, PIzza Hut looked bad.

They are not forced to work for a specific employer, and have the right to work for a safer one.

Maybe but often there is no economic alternative and even if there was most companies will prohibit carry not because they think it is "safer for the employees" but because they don't want the liability and wish to be "safe" from lawsuit. They don't care what happens to the employee because unless they foresee the event (crime in this case) they will not suffer from liability. In other words there may be no where else to go and not everybody can work for themselves.

If I feel that in doing so it is worth the risk of losing that job, then great! But it is still a choice, and there are still consequences.

Here we agree. If you violate the rules you can expect to be fired. My beef is those who judgementally condemn others who would rather live than die by immoral work rules.

Selective morality works great in government, or in anarchy

There is no morality in an anarchy only might.

 

[fisherman66]

Is it really that dangerous in the states that you have to carry a firearm to work? We're obviously living a more sheltered life here the UK. having said that though, where I work theres 24hr armed police presence (they carry G36 assault rifles I think)

I think you'll find we are a passionate bunch on 2a (being a gun board and all). Perceived danger and actual danger need not be present in order to desire a proactive response to a threat. I'd imagine I'm 10 times more likely to be in a vehicle accident than a situation where I'd feel the need to have a handgun. I keep motor insurance and where possible "life" insurance.

 

[hogdogs]

I keep motor insurance

If it weren't a crime, I wouldn't have the car insurance.
Brent

 

[skeezix]

There is no morality in an anarchy only might.

Morality isn't dependent on government (or lack of), only on the person who chooses to wield it

often there is no economic alternative

Not sure I understand this one - even if I had to work at McDonalds to survive, it is still a choice, and there is always an alternative. It just comes down to the individual and what is more important to them.

Originally Posted by Colt1911forever
Businesses have the right to choose how to create a safe environment.

Or do nothing based on their bottom line? Maybe legal but hardly moral.

My beef is those who judgementally condemn others who would rather live than die by immoral work rules.

They don't care what happens to the employee because unless they foresee the event (crime in this case) they will not suffer from liability. In other words there may be no where else to go and not everybody can work for themselves.

These are related so I'll just reply to all at once. It is indeed up to the employer to secure a facility, or not to. And it is ALWAYS the bottom line - there are only 2 factors that determine whether or not a company survives, those are profit and loss. If a company saves money with a less secure facility, it may also lose money because they cannot get worthwhile employees to work for them, or get robbed or any other combination of reasons. But this is up to the company, as they set the rules for employment with them, and it requires an agreement of the employee to follow them.

Anyway I think we all know what the other thinks and where we all stand, and I doubt we'll change each others minds lol! Then again, if we could change each others mind on a whim away from our convictions, then we wouldn't have much of a conviction in beliefs

It would certainly be ideal for companies to stick to a business plan rather than meddle in things that really do not matter, but I doubt that will ever happen. The real problem is the perception and beliefs surrounding not only firearms, but what "rights" really are and what freedom and liberty are truly about. Only when those misconceptions are dealt with at the core with this society will anything really change for the better. We've had decades of brainwashing hoop-la telling everyone that firearms kill people, or that there is no such thing as a conspiracy, and that the new world order doesn't exist and to ignore the man behind the curtain. Such is life

 

[Colt1911forever]

As a friend of mine quotes in his signature.....

If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers. T. Pynchon

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

A friend of mine says that the ultimate responsibility for your own personal safety is YOU. I agree, and believe that the other stuff is good for a beer and a smoke.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Not sure I understand this one - even if I had to work at McDonalds to survive, it is still a choice, and there is always an alternative.

If you worked at McDonalds they will prohibit you from carrying (like virtually ALL big corporations) and if the Mickey D's you work at happens to be in a high crime area, too bad for you. The alternative of which you speak may be unemployment and there we have the immoral choice again. Safety or economic survival. For some us there are more options than for others.

 

[Colt1911forever]

If you worked at McDonalds they will prohibit you from carrying (like virtually ALL big corporations) and if the Mickey D's you work at happens to be in a high crime area, too bad for you. The alternative of which you speak may be unemployment and there we have the immoral choice again. Safety or economic survival. For some us there are more options than for others.

This is the United states of america..... you can move.

 

[gc70]

This is the United states of america..... you can move.

There is always an alternative in a theoretical discussion - and often not in reality.

 

[skeezix]

In reality there is always an alternative too, even if it seems grossly out of proportion to the benefit or the results you get from following that alternative.

And yes, McDonalds I am sure would not let me carry, but an alternative is still an alternative. Just depends on what is most important. We have the right to starve to death just as much as the right to defend ourselves.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

There is always an alternative in a theoretical discussion - and often not in reality.

Dead on GC! I call it the "Let 'em Eat Cake" alternative. Very cavalier but not possible for many. We had a thread once about moving out of high crime areas. Generated a lot of heat from those who have and those who have not so much. Actually it kind of makes me mad sometimes to hear it. Very very easy for others to say for sure.

We have the right to starve to death

Now THAT makes a whole lot of sense! But at least we will starve with honor right? Geez!:barf:

 

[6x6pinz]

If you look at it from another perspective let say 4X's

You are a property owner with a well manicured lawn. I have a 4X that I have a license to operate and the 4X is even registered. I decide to cut up your lawn, my license makes it so that you can not kick me off or hit me up for trespassing, doubt that will hold up in court.

Property rights definitely take precedence over your right to cc.

I am a ccw permit holder and carry well over 80% of the time but still respect others rights.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

6x6pinz,
Bad analogy. My not being able to drive my 4X on your grass will not cause me to be killed or injured by a criminal. I respect property rights too but my right to life trumps an immoral work rule.

 

[YodaMage]

Has anyone put themselves in the shoes of the "immoral" employer? The employer who holds liability for what does and may occur on their property or actions taken by their employees?

Am I willing to risk my business because an employee makes a bad decision and an accident occurs? Am I willing to bear the costs to defend my business in a court of law?

If I am an employer, I am going to minimize risk to my establishment...and if security is an issue I am going to contract to a 3rd party insured security provider. I want degrees of separation between myself and any culpability.

I don't think it is immoral...it sounds more like business savvy and risk aversion. Welcome to a litigious society.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Has anyone put themselves in the shoes of the "immoral" employer?

The employer may or may not be immoral, the work rule certainly would be under the conditions mentioned before.

The employer who holds liability for what does and may occur on their property or actions taken by their employees?

Cost of doing business?

Am I willing to risk my business because an employee makes a bad decision and an accident occurs? Am I willing to bear the costs to defend my business in a court of law?

That's why we have commercial insurance.

I am going to minimize risk to my establishment...and if security is an issue I am going to contract to a 3rd party insured security provider.

Reasonable protection of employees? Then they might not need to CCW. Agree.

I don't think it is immoral...it sounds more like business savvy and risk aversion.

Not if it's on the lives of the employee by denying them SD to save you some $. Then it is wrong.

 

[Shane Tuttle]

This is not true. Most states are not "at will" employment states. I live in VA where we are. Unless you are working under a union contract or a personal employment contract which outlines the process of termination I as the employer can walking in a fire you without giving cause. I can simply say you are fired and the state and the courts will back me on it.

Now in MD that might not be the case.

It may not be true in VA, but the OP is in AZ. Also, other states are, in fact, "at will", including the state I work which is Illinios. So, not only I stand by my statement, you further proved it by admission of Maryland...

So, a county sheriff that deems a person competent to carry concealed anywhere the state allows gets trumped by the opinion of an employer? Unless the employer can prove the employee was negligent i.e. brandishing, and others are allowed to carry at work, the employee would stand a very good chance to win in court.

Hostile work environment=Harrassment

Once again Turtle you are wrong. The CCW permit allows you carry in public. The property owner is the one who allows or denies carry on private property.
Your statements are exactly what I am talking about. You seem to think that your right to carry should allow you to trample the property rights of others.
Put the shoe on the other foot. Will you allow anyone and everyone who has a permit to carry a gun in your home? I doubt it.

Before you dig yourself into a deeper hole, I suggest backing up and reread my post. Alleykat already tried to make the point it isn't about property rights. Now, we can go on and on like this thread did in quick fashion about what a business can do on their own property. However, I think it would be a waste of time. An employer cannot give favorable treatment of one employee and allow CCW and not another employee without just cause.

 

[zxcvbob]

I respect property rights too but my right to life trumps an immoral work rule.

When you choose to break a rule (or law) for a higher good you also choose to accept the consequences. That's one of the tenets of civil disobedience.