Cost of doing business?
Cost/risk of being employed?
That's why we have commercial insurance.
Not even close there...make sure to read the linked article.
http://www.insurancecoverageblog.com/archives/industry-developments-when-is-rogue-employee-conduct-covered-course-and-scope-of-employment-decisions.html
Not if it's on the lives of the employee by denying them SD to save you some $. Then it is wrong.
This is a statement filled with ambiguity. First, in most cases it is acceptable to substitute 'security' or 'protection' with SD. If you have decided that SD is the ONLY acceptable security, then stop reading here as we will never agree and anything else is a waste. If security is the point, then I agree that the employer must provide an acceptable level of security or putting $ above such may be considered immoral. That said...there is an interpretive level at play there too... commonly accepted security? Industry/area standard security?
There are some that would believe AK's and anti-aircraft batteries are a minimum.
I'm not sure that it furthers a productive cause to arbitrarily play an 'immoral' card when some one stands in the way of 'what I want to do'. It becomes not unlike an overplayed 'race' card.