R.Ph fired for legally carrying

So I will offer instead BJS statistics for 2006, see Table 68, Personal Crimes of Violence. It is the Percent of victimizations in which victims took self-protective measures, by type of crime and victim-offender relationship. All categories showing injury and non-injury indicate the victim was injured more often than not injured.
Click to expand...

I'm not getting that from the table 68 you mentioned for 2007. It says that 59.5% of the time someone was a victim of a crime included in the table, they took some sort of protective measure. It then says that 60.2% of the time someone was a victim of a crime included in the table injuries resulted. Since those self protection methods include things such as appeasing the offender, I'm not sure we wan draw any conclusions on the efficacy of self defense from the table.

Am I reading it wrong?
 
I'm still not seeing it. Is there a specific table that gives us the results of the protective measures? Table 70 seems to say that using a weapon resulted in fewer injuries than some of the other methods. For example, looking at table 70 for robberies with injuries and without injuries, it seems to folks that attack or threaten with a weapon are far better off than those that persuade/appease or try to fight without a weapon but I could be reading the table wrong.
 
Double Naught Spy said:
And why would you trust an employee who has disregarded company policy? Given that employment depends on abiding by the rules and an employee demonstrates that s/he is unwilling to abide by the rules to which the employee agreed as a pard of the condition for employment, then they cannot be trusted.
Click to expand...

Pretty much agree with your post except this. I do not believe that someone who disobeys an unethical rule to be dishonest. I think the fact that an employee disregards these particular work rules might still be trustworthy. Employers can make rules that are legal but immoral. Therefore you may disregard them and still be honest IMO.
 
On the one hand, if I were the pharmacist, I'd have probably opted for carrying, as well.

On the other hand, the pharmacist signed an employment contract, knowing the rule was in place. He's probably out of luck with Walgreen's, and may have a hard time finding employment anywhere else as a pharmacist, unless he opens his own business.

It doesn't seem like lawsuits going after employers who post such rules, yet fail to provide security, have had much success. Maybe this should be another project for SAF.
 
It doesn't seem like lawsuits going after employers who post such rules, yet fail to provide security, have had much success. Maybe this should be another project for SAF.
Click to expand...
At first, that seems like a good idea, until one realizes that the concept tramples all over private property rights.

Private property, and the control of it, is one of the cornerstones of liberty. We may think we're well-intentioned by requiring property owners to allow firearms, but think through the implications.

If a law passes requiring me to allow people to carry in my store, you can bet there will be a law that requires me to allow people to demonstrate their political views on the premises. I will have to take anybody's check, written on any bank. There will be a law that I can't dictate what people wear or don't wear. There will be another in which I can be sued because my fluorescent lighting causes depression.

Well-intentioned as it may be, it's a dangerous and slippery slope. Furthermore, I can't see that it would ever fly in the courts.

Michigan is an "at will" state, so Walgreen's can fire the guy for any reason, short of discrimination. It stinks, but he knew the rules when he started.
 
grayrock8@yahoo.com said:
Sort of like a soldier following/not following orders he knows to be illegal?
Click to expand...

Yes. A person has no ethical duty to obey an immoral rule. Therefore one who refuses to follow said rule (even without open disagreement) is not untrustworthy or dishonest IMO. However, if caught then one must accept the consequences even if the rule was wrong. Another way of putting it is that an immoral rule is ethically invisible to an honest person.
 
Slamfire:

In my view, which likely doesn't, in the "big picture", count for much, your exposition on corporate mentality was absolutely marvelous, somethig that people should consider and think about.

Mind, there is nothing inherently wrong about making a legitimate profit from business operations, though in my mind, the question of what price glory looms large.
 
I think that if a corporation has rules that specificaly benefits an assailants crime against another person, the corporation should be held as an accessory. Its the same as an accomplice tying your hands imo.
Click to expand...

I have noticed an increase lately, in the "comparative and/or contributory negligence" legal doctrine, where compensatory cases are involved.
I wonder if there is a flip side to this tactic, that could benefit one in this gentleman's position?
 
Yes. A person has no ethical duty to obey an immoral rule. Therefore one who refuses to follow said rule (even without open disagreement) is not untrustworthy or dishonest IMO. However, if caught then one must accept the consequences even if the rule was wrong. Another way of putting it is that an immoral rule is ethically invisible to an honest person.
Click to expand...

I have trouble calling them an honest person if they are taking money for a job where they are knowlingly not abiding by the rules for which compliance is part of the reason for which they are paid.

If they are so darned ethical, then they should not accept a job in which they can't abibe by the rules.
 
Double Naught Spy said:
I have trouble calling them an honest person if they are taking money for a job where they are knowlingly not abiding by the rules for which compliance is part of the reason for which they are paid.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I have argued this with others before but I have no problem with it. The company is wrong to risk the employees life while only thinking of their bottomline so ignoring such a venial motived rule is no issue and the company (or anyone else IMO) have no right to any moral judgements as a result. If you get caught then you might get fired but you will be alive. There are times when it is ethical not to be truthful and still have good character and jobs are not always easy to find. It is immoral to have to choose between starving and obeying an immoral and dangerous rule. As I said before the rule therefore is ethically invisible.
 
Blind compliance to an employer is a more complex issue.

In the past - as in the Depression - people had to lie about their religion and were forced to register for political parties they did not support in order to have employment. I suppose they could have served the greater moral purpose by starving.

Thus, in the face of the private property - I'm king of my business types - my opinion is that an employer only has the ability to control employee behavior very directly related to the job. Unless you can show direct risk to the firm, it is not the employer's business. The so-call libertarian argument that free people can engage freely in any contract they want assumes relatively equal power relationships and ignores the ability of employers to let you choose freely to starve.

I'm also sure that most employers are paragons of honesty. :barf:
 
Well said Glenn. The moral judgements some on TFL render in this debate get me going. And you are right about Corporations, they ONLY exist to make money and could care less about their employees so I could care less about their unfair venially motivated rules.
 
Unless you can show direct risk to the firm, it is not the employer's business.
Click to expand...
The problem is that the lawyers have convinced employers that an armed employee is a direct risk. Most firms who disallow guns do so out of a belief that there are huge potential liability issues should an employee use one, even for self defense.
 
Tom Servo said:
Most firms who disallow guns do so out of a belief that there are huge potential liability issues should an employee use one, even for self defense.
Click to expand...

The problem is that it is not fair both ways. The corporation faces virtually no liability for an employee killed during a crime so it isn't balanced.

If an employer could be sued for employees killed by robbers lets say then we could balance the requirement for protections of the employee AND the corporation.

But now it is one sided. Corporation has liability if it allows employees to carry for self defense but no liability if they prohibit carry, take no other (beyond OSHA) precautions to protect employees from violent crime and the employee is killed or injured.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top