What would you do?

[Creature]

Honesty works both ways so the employer is wrong from the outset and I have no obligation to follow an unjust rule.

If it is a condition of your employment that you must agree to follow the employer's rules and have signed your name to such conditions, then yes, you are obliged.

Dont want to follow the conditions of employment (rules) at your work place?...then quit.

Want stay employed?...then follow the employer's conditions (rules) for employment.

 

[Ricklin]

You are not Employed!!

OP: You are an independent contractor. The "rules" are vastly different for IC's vs. employees.

Everyone here has been focusing on your employment and your employer. I have been doing IC work for many years, the company you are contracting with must abide by the rules, as you must as well. Fact is there are darn few rules when it comes to how you elect to perform the work. In fact the more "rules" imposed, the less likely that you are an independent contractor.

Please take a look here WWW.IRS.Gov you will find a list of several questions that determine whether or not you are an independent contractor.

I find it questionable that they can have such a rule regarding CC. Sure if the building is posted no weapons that is different. I assume you are driving your own vehicle, if so I would carry anyway.

Again check the link I sent and make up your own mind. Myself if I were to carry mass quantities of narcotics around at night you can bet I will be packing.

A general rule is that the EO, as the payer, has the right to control or direct only the result of the work done by an independent contractor, and not the means and methods of accomplishing the result.

I cut and pasted the above from the IRS website. If the company wishes to direct the means and method, you are not an IC. I would discreetly carry and if found out would simply tell the company I am contracting with the above, and if they wished to terminate my contract they will be hearing from the IRS. Trust me they don't want to go back and pay all the SS money fines etc etc etc.

Or in other words, they are full of it and can not make the rule that they expect you to follow. Please note I am not an attorney, I have been an IC for many years.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Where do we draw the line on following "unjust rules"?

There are lots of criteria but rather than go on about them I will just say that the right to live is at the top. Paying for a license or taxes (unless you have no representations) are not the same as saving your life and I think that is self evident. I think ole' Thomas Jefferson put that one in perspective best in the DOI.

Secondarily, if "my option" is not present then it would be pretty silly to risk your irreplaceable job so that you can carry.

Not if the work rule endangered your life, that is the priority. I acknowledge that if caught you might be fired. People hid Jews in WWII, and lied about it. Were they dishonest? Not in my book. Forcing a person to choose between their life and their livelihood is wrong.

Edit: I'm also not trying to change your mind, or anyone else's. Like you said before "We'll disagree."...Many good people have solid, well thought-out, honest opinions that are in complete disagreement with other good people.

And you are a true gentleman for saying so. I respect that especially since unnamed others who post here are not so much. Also, I am not a fan of lying and liars but; and maybe this is a function of advanced age, as I get older things that were so brightly clear to me as a young man aren't so much anymore based on some of my life experiences so I cut people more slack than I used. I would not carry under those circumstances that the OP describes but I am a bit slower to judge than some.

 

[David Armstrong]

Now all of the homes have signs sayiing no firearms aloud inside so should I have something with me in the car or should I just abide by the company "rules"?

Like peetza said, you agreed to follow company rules when you took the job. If they changed the rules you agreed to them the first time you took a paycheck after the new rules went into effect. It is a simple matter of honesty and good character. What is sad is seeing all the folks who support lack of character and acting dishonestly these days.

 

[David Armstrong]

Honesty works both ways so the employer is wrong from the outset and I have no obligation to follow an unjust rule.

You do have an "obligation" to inform the employer that you will not follow that rule. That's the gist of my argument. Follow it or don't, that's not the point. LYING about it is the point.

Exactly. While you might not have an obligation to follow an unjust rule you do have an obligation to not take money under false pretenses, which is exactly what one is doing when they accept pay for services when they are cheating and being dishonest about how they are fulfilling those services. It is certainly lying by omission, if not lying by commission, to do otherwise.

 

[Nnobby45]

It's very simple.

If I say to you "A condition of employment is that you do not carry a firearm while you are on company time." and you continue to work then you have implicitly agreed to the condition.

Yes, it is simple. I held my company's policy in contempt, and willfully violated it every day. Of course, I should have just quit and given up 27 yrs. service along with retirement benefits and health care to make you happy. Right? Or given up my right and ability to denfend my life. Right? Well, I did neither.

Let's call it a compromise. I wasn't armed while working and driving a company vehicle. They didn't disarm me my own time to and from work.


You're always talking about "honesty". But only on the part of the employee. What's honest about an employer who gives someone a dangerous job and mandates they go unarmed because they're more worried about getting sued should he use deadly force protecting his life and their drugs?

 

[ken grant]

Concealed means just that. So who is to know except you.
Keep it concealed until it is needed. Even when going inside the buildings. That is the most likely time you would need it.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

What's honest about an employer who gives someone a dangerous job and mandates they go unarmed because they're more worried about getting sued should he use deadly force protecting his life and their drugs?

You consider delivering drugs to nursing homes to be a dangerous job?

You're always talking about "honesty". But only on the part of the employee. What's honest about an employer who gives someone a dangerous job...

Gives? Jobs are not a GIFT. They are an OFFER, a contract in fact. There is nothing dishonest about putting straight forward requirements in a contract. Still no one has answered why it is OK for the employee to violate the contract while it is not OK for the employer to do the same.

 

[David Armstrong]

What's honest about an employer who gives someone a dangerous job and mandates they go unarmed because they're more worried about getting sued should he use deadly force protecting his life and their drugs?

They honestly tell you what the job is. They honestly tell you what the rules are. They honestly give you the choice of accepting the job or not. They honestly pay you what they agreed to pay you based on you doing the job as you have both agreed to. Seems like the company is being pretty honest and straightforward. Too bad some employees don't have the same honesty and integrity as the employer.

 

[bobn]

when you use a company vehicle and get paid hourly you are a employee. when you use your own vehicle and are an independant contractor and paid based on performance your contractor looses the right to dictate to you. they cannot have it both ways.
....as far as the high and mighties telling your you dont have to take the job, get real you got to work and take what is handed your way. bobn btw independant contractor, can you tell?

 

[Nnobby45]

Seems like the company is being pretty honest and straightforward. Too bad some employees don't have the same honesty and integrity as the employer.

OK, perhaps calling an employer dishonest for being more interested in their own liability than their contractor's life is the wrong terminology. Call it self interest. Call being armed in defiance of such a policy as acting one's self interest, also.

I'm getting tired of lectures David, and Peezakiller.

You've expressed your opinions before and your positions are clear inre: to "dishonesty" of those who won't be disarmed by their employer. What what you have done in my case?

1. Quit, and give up 27 years of benefits, including retirement and health care and find another job that most likely has the same rules?

2. Go unarmed on my own time, and violate my own committment to myself that existed before the company changed the rules?

I know you aren't going to give honest answers to those questions. It's going to be more lecturing---isn't it?

You consider delivering drugs to nursing homes to be a dangerous job?

I consider driving alone with large amounts of drugs potentially very dangerous. People who travel alone often carry for their own protection for reasons obvious to virtually everyone on this thread---even when they aren't carrying enough class one and two narcotics on just one trip to furnish numerous hospitals.

If the drugs didn't include those types of drugs, then I wouldn't count on Bubba and his friends to know that, anyway. That'd probably make 'em more likely to shoot me when they discovered they'd heisted a bunch of anti-biotics and hemorrhoid meds.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

I'm getting tired of lectures David, and Peezakiller.

My intentions in this discussion have been made crystal clear here. (Last Paragraph)

How exactly is my opinion a "lecture" while yours is not? Should I be tired of YOUR lecturing?



Considering that we're on to personal issues instead of the topic at hand the mods will be along to close this one shortly...

 

[Nnobby45]

Quote:
I'm getting tired of lectures David, and Peezakiller.

My intentions in this discussion have been made crystal clear here. (Last Paragraph)

How exactly is my opinion a "lecture" while yours is not? Should I be tired of YOUR lecturing?

That was an invitation and opportunity for you to demonstrate that you could answer a simple question with regards to my two options. I predicted in advance that you wouldn't answer the question, and that you would respond with more lecturing, which now amounts to a lecture about my lecturing.

But still now answere. And there won't be, will there?

 

[Ricklin]

Guys, Guys, are you not paying attention?

The OP is NOT AN EMPLOYEE. He stated in post #1 he is an independent contractor, as an independent contractor his work can not be "directed"
He has every right to refuse to follow this rule, as this company can not direct his work.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

I already did answer Nnobby, over and over. Before you even asked it, in fact. You have made it crystal clear that you do not like my answer. That doesn't change my answer.


Choose between money and integrity. Those are the choices. You can make a long list of the "types" of money. It doesn't change the choice. I don't care what choice you make. Really, I don't.


You didn't answer my question.

How is my opinion a "lecture" while yours is not?

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

He has every right to refuse to follow this rule, as this company can not direct his work.

That's entirely possible. As such, he should OPENLY refuse to follow the rule and live with the consequences, such as not being hired by that company. He should NOT ignore the rule and pretend to follow it.

 

[Nnobby45]

I already did answer Nnobby. You have made it crystal clear that you do not like my answer. That doesn't change my answer.

Yes, we've both made ourselves clear. The last bicker is yours.

 

[IDAHO83501]

you can get another job, as far as I know you only get one life, and it doesn't come with a rewind button. Understand the risks, take responsibility, and do what you think is right,,,,,,,

 

[pax]

I think this one is about done. What do you guys think -- is it time for a close?

pax

 

[Ricklin]

He is an IC, all the difference in the world!

Peetza:
Not only possible he stated in post #1 that he is an IC, that is all the difference in the world, and invalidates the argument.

He can choose to tell the company he is not going to follow the rule, his employer is not in a position to enforce that and maintain his IC status.

I would quietly carry, and know I have an ace in the hole with the company should the issue arise.

The IRS takes the IC thing very seriously, if the OP were to produce a dated "list of rules" from the company the company will get nailed hard by the IRS back to the date "the rules" went in to effect, or further back. The company will be held responsible for all the taxes not remitted. They can not direct the work they are very clear about it, and it is enforced.

I've been an IC for many years, I know of which I speak.