PDA

View Full Version : What would you do?


yakfish
April 1, 2009, 01:24 PM
I'm an independent contractor and I deliver drugs to nursing homes 6 nights a week. My route is about 320 miles long and it takes all night. the company that I'm contracted with says, " no firearms are aloud to be with me in the car while I'm driving an my route." on an average night I am carrying serveral thousand dollars worth of medication and I would feel better if a was able to carry consealed for SD. 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"? as an idependant contractor I feel like I should be aloud to have whatever I want in MY OWN CAR but if I am found to be carrying I could loose my job. But the chances of someone looking in my car are slim to none. So what would you do?

Brian Pfleuger
April 1, 2009, 01:32 PM
So what would you do?

You agreed to follow company rules when you took the job. It is essentially this:
Them: "Hey, I'll give you $X if you do this list of things"
You: "Ok. I'll do that"
You (later on)"Well, I don't like this rule so I'm not going to follow it."

Follow the rules. If you don't like the rules then get a new job.

What if they decided that they weren't going to abide by the mutual employment agreement? Like they suddenly decide to pay you half of what they originally said? You'd be pretty mad. You expect them to hold their side of the agreement, you should hold up your end.

hogdogs
April 1, 2009, 01:34 PM
I live by the creed... "I was lookin' for a job when I found this one"...
That said I would carry in my ride but would really feel safer if armed 'tween the car and the door to the building... But arrest is imminent in many areas for violating the rules posted on the signage.
Brent

hogdogs
April 1, 2009, 01:35 PM
Petes-a-killa:D, he plainly stated "Nursing Home" not individual residence...
Brent

csmsss
April 1, 2009, 01:36 PM
That's pretty amazing. ALL of the homes have "No Guns" signs? I've never seen an individual residence with a "No Guns" sign. Ever.He doesn't deliver to individual residences or homes - he delivers to nursing homes.

Tennessee Gentleman
April 1, 2009, 01:43 PM
I would get a new job.

yakfish
April 1, 2009, 01:50 PM
I was not informed about the rule until a couple moths ago when one of the other drivers mentioned he was carring a weapon on his run and was shortly after let go.

and no I don't deliver to private residences, they are nursing homes.

I can't get another job. This one pays too well!!

Tennessee Gentleman
April 1, 2009, 01:53 PM
Need to choose between lifestyle and life.

Brian Pfleuger
April 1, 2009, 01:57 PM
I can't get another job. This one pays too well!!

Then your choice is between money and integrity. If you continue to drive, knowing the rules, and carry anyway then you are a dishonest person. If your reason is money then you're trading your integrity for cash.

yakfish
April 1, 2009, 02:00 PM
well since learning of the rule I have not carried a weapon with me.

skydiver3346
April 1, 2009, 02:01 PM
Hmmmm, lets see now. You are probably delivering class II and III narcotics and other potentially "desirable drugs" that the bad guys would like to have. You are doing this all night long? Your company says no firearms in you car or on your person? NOT GOOD...(for you that is). I realize that you must have a job and we all need the money to live,(but that to me, is a recipie for disaster for you someday). I recently retired from the medical sales industry myself (after 30 years) and worked in most all the skilled nursing homes in north Florida area. There are some bad things going on and around in these nursing homes that I became aware of. I DID carry a Glock 19 in my glove compartment of my vehicle (just in case). When coming out of some of these nursing homes, I personally have had strangers come up to me and ask me what I was carrying in my briefcase..... I looked them straght in the face and said loudly, "NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS"... It took them back a bit but I didn't care as they were the ones that started this. Later on, I felt it was safer to carry (at least in my car), especially at dark. My company has never personally told me not to carry or keep in my car (although it is a pretty well known fact that they don't want you to). Better safe than sorry I say, but to each his own. I guess the bottom line is you will have to endure this "situation" until either you find another job (or God forbid, you have a run in with some bad guys one night and the decision will be made for you). I sure hope not and best of luck to you whatever you decide.

Brian Pfleuger
April 1, 2009, 02:04 PM
well since learning of the rule I have not carried a weapon with me.

Good man.

You should most certainly be allowed to carry but your integrity is who you are. Try to get the rule changed, if there is no hope then try really hard to find another job. Be the best employee you can, so it hurts them when you leave, and make sure they know WHY you are leaving. Maybe they'll reconsider.

Tennessee Gentleman
April 1, 2009, 03:23 PM
Then your choice is between money and integrity.

Peetza, For the record and I have debated this before with many others, I feel that a company that creates such a rule and removes your right to protect yourself and makes no effort to then provide you reasonable protection are themselves immoral.

A lot of companies do this to CYA at the expense of the employee and it is wrong. Just as wrong IMO as someone breaking their work rules.

In this case, I think the poster can work elsewhere, but as I have pointed out before, if this were a battered female who had a stalking ex after her I might think otherwise.

BTW I think Pizza Hut was immoral when they fired that guy who used his firearm in self defense and I won't buy their pizza's anymore since they forced the guy to go into bad neighborhoods without protection and knew of the risks he faced.

Again, when left with no option as the battered woman example then the rule would be immoral and disobeying it might get you fired but would not necessarily make you dishonest IMO.

Brian Pfleuger
April 1, 2009, 03:31 PM
Again, when left with no option as the battered woman example then the rule would be immoral and disobeying it might get you fired but would not necessarily make you dishonest IMO.

Disobeying it may not be immoral but disobeying it while saying that you obey it is lying. If management is informed that you do not intend to follow the rule and they allow you to keep working then fine. If you are aware of the rule and agree to follow it, either implicitly or explicitly, then you are in the wrong.

Now, the signs on the nursing homes may or may not be different. In some areas those signs carry no legal weight and I'd ignore them. There is no agreement, since you are not employed directly by those homes. If those signs are legally enforceable then you would be breaking the law by entering, another no-no.

Tennessee Gentleman
April 1, 2009, 03:49 PM
If you are aware of the rule and agree to follow it, either implicitly or explicitly, then you are in the wrong.

We disagree. If the rule is immoral then it cannot be dishonest to disobey it. Lots of historical examples of people who lied to authority in order to protect those or themselves from immoral law. That is an individual decision and I do not think it would be necessary to inform the employer. I would probably say nothing. Doesn't mean I can't face punishment, many have before but it doesn't make me dishonest. Everything that is legal is not always moral (see AIG) and sometimes things that are illegal are moral. Up to the individual. But that's just me.

Delta1067
April 1, 2009, 03:51 PM
It appears that most everyone is saying that you should not carry. Well I disagree--IF you have a concealed carry permit. The choice is simple for me. Should you choose keeping your job or should you choose to win a deadly force encounter. I would choose to win a deadly force encounter everytime and if I was fired then so be it. At least I would be alive to find another job instead of dead. Good Luck.

KLRANGL
April 1, 2009, 04:00 PM
Take morality out of it for a minute... would you be able to live with the consequences? Most people don't carry concealed illegally because they couldn't live with the consequences (jail). Your consequence is getting fired... If you can live with the possibility of getting fired, then by all means go for it.

Now take that one step further. Think of the odds of you getting into a deadly force encounter and the resulting consequence (living/dying)... Then think of the odds of you getting caught carrying on the job and the resulting consequence (staying employed/being fired). If, to you, the small chance of dying outweighs the more likely chance of you getting fired, then by all means carry.
Or ideally find a new job, but that is harder done than said...

onthejon55
April 1, 2009, 04:10 PM
How often does the company you work for search your vehicle? Do they also search bags you carry with you on your route? If not then i personally would carry and just not mention it to anyone. That's the whole idea behind concealed carry anyway right?

skydiver3346
April 1, 2009, 09:22 PM
Ditto what he said when it comes down to it. The only reason these companies won't let you carry a gun on your person or even in your vehicle is to protect their "deep pocket" butts from litigation. Bottom line is, they could care less about your safety over their "Bottom Line".......... Yes, I too believe it is immoral for someone to tell you that you can't defend yourself. Remember this: Among reports from interviews of prision inmates as to what they fear the most, they always admit that it is the "The Armed Citizen" who is willing to protect himself/herself and their property.

SMiller
April 1, 2009, 09:37 PM
Buddy if you need that gun the last thing in the world you will be thinking of is your job! Carry carry carry! It's your life, keep in mind your car is a 3000lbs bullet, use it to get out of dodge or drive over whatever would be in front of you. Your work will never know you have a gun in your car, nor is it there buisness...

Re4mer
April 1, 2009, 10:00 PM
I always differentiate between company rules and the real law. If I personally was driving the car I would keep my gun on me and leave it in a car safe when going into the buildings to drop of the supplies. In your own car nobody will know, even if you get pulled over you are fine as long as CCW's are legal in the state you are driving in.

Rich Miranda
April 1, 2009, 10:03 PM
Need to choose between lifestyle and life.

Lots of thugs and miscreants could use this sage advice.

As for keeping a gun, I would follow the rules or get a new job. It's a tough choice given that it pays well, but it's the current dilemma.

cracked91
April 1, 2009, 10:09 PM
Thats doesnt make sense. Noone is going to try to rob you while you are in a locked car, and if they do they will have to have a gun, and it will be on you first. So just having a gun in the glove compartment is pretty much useless. The most dangerous situation your gonna get yourself into is out of your car moving the drugs into the home. If it were me I would just get my CCW and break the rules. Id rather be fired than dead, because there are a ton of people out there who would kill over 1000 dollars

BigDaddy
April 1, 2009, 10:15 PM
+1 Peetza

If you have to break a rule to safely do your job, you need to find another job.

If you have a family that depends on your income, you can't afford to be fired for breaking the rules.


just a thought,
--Dave

SW1911CT
April 1, 2009, 10:19 PM
I know this is against the grain but to be honest with you I would carry and keep it low key. If it's in a good ccw holster no one would know anyway.

In college I worked for a major convenience store chain that was very clear that you could not be armed while working. I ccw'd every single night that I worked for about 8 months. I almost always had someone there working with me and when I graduated and was quitting to move out of that town I asked the two people I regularly worked with if they had ever noticed. They both said no but they were glad I had been. I was glad too!

Rich Miranda
April 1, 2009, 10:34 PM
I know this is against the grain but to be honest with you I would carry and keep it low key.

SW, I was about to suggest that but it is illegal to carry a gun into certain medical facilities in certain states. In performing his duties he almost certainly enters these facilities.

Breaking an employer's rule is one thing, but violating the law is another. I'm willing to risk the first, not the second.

Hirlau
April 2, 2009, 12:39 AM
Approach the company you work for and bring this issue up with them. Rules have been changed before.

:)

Hellbilly5000
April 2, 2009, 02:29 AM
Follow the rules and regulations set forth by the company you work for. If you have issues with them then lobby to have them changed or bust your butt so your in charge and can change the rules. Until then there are other avenues for protecting yourself carry a knife and asp or even a taser if they allow tasers.

40s-and-wfan
April 2, 2009, 03:18 AM
Personally, I like the idea of having something to protect myself. I figure it's better to be jobless and alive than just plain dead! I'm not a fan of companies that set forth this kind of ruling and while it may be against policy to carry while you're working for them I would figure my life is worth more than the job is.
I've worked the convenience store scene where I was told I couldn't carry concealed while there and I've worked the same scene where they had no rules prohibiting such. I value my life. That being said, I will do whatever it takes to protect it.
My ultimate question is this: When you first signed on with the company did they make you sign anything stating you would not bring a firearm with you in your vehicle? I just don't understand how they can completely and totally control what you do in your own vehicle. :confused: I understand this may be a minute detail but in my opinion it does contain some validity. I would think the company would be more worried about their valuable merchandise disappearing than they would about something like this.
Just my opinion, for what it's worth!

Nnobby45
April 2, 2009, 06:33 AM
You agreed to follow company rules when you took the job. It is essentially this:
Them: "Hey, I'll give you $X if you do this list of things"
You: "Ok. I'll do that"
You (later on)"Well, I don't like this rule so I'm not going to follow it."


How do you know what he agreed to? I worked for a company for 34 yrs. I never agreed to anything concerning firearms. The company had rules and I followed them until they forbade firearms on company property. Since I had no where else to park, I violated that rule every day for 10 yrs., with utter contempt in my heart and a smile on my face, so I could arm myself to and, especially, after, work so I wouldn't be unarmed on my personal time.

For someone who works for a company that cares more about their own liability than an employee who has a regular routine delivering drugs that people kill for, then I'd strongly recommend he carry a weapon.

Yes, he'll be fired if he should have to defend himself, just like the pizza delivery guy who has the common, basic sense to carry a gun. Both have a better chance of being alive to find a better job.

This isn't just a matter of being armed on company property or on company time. This is a matter of a company sending an employee into harms way unarmed because their lawyers told them that it's easier to settle with his family after his death than fight Bubba's piece of crap realatives in court.

For those who have a lot of time and retirement benefits at stake, they'd have a decision to make. If nobody is going to know you're armed until you've saved your own life, then that should make the decision a little easier.


Yes, I do feel better now, thanks for asking.:cool:

Hellbilly5000
April 2, 2009, 06:43 AM
yakfish a couple of questions
1) do they provide a vehicle or do you use your own?
2) is it in writing that you can not carry a weapon (its hard to enforce whats not written down)
3) if it is written down does it say weapons or firearms guns ect.
4) if it specifically states no firearms can you carry non lethal protection like a taser or oc spray?

Nnobby45
April 2, 2009, 06:57 AM
One more thing:

Yakfish, the stuff you carry is worth as much to some as the bags full of money carried in an armoured car by two armed guards--- which haven't proven all that effective against criminals with a little sophistication and planning.

I hope you aren't so predictable in your route that you'd be easy to ambush. If you were, do you think your liability conscious employer, who disarms you in your own car, would be worried more about your life or their drugs?

cerberus65
April 2, 2009, 11:40 AM
This is a difficult situation. We owe obedience to God. We have a responsibility to our family. We owe allegiance to our country (including obeying its laws). Our employers have some legitimate demands upon us as well. It would be nice if there was never a conflict between those various obligations.

Does the company have policies and training for what to do in a situation where someone robs you?

I would also check your state statutes to see what legal weight the nursing home no-gun signs might or might not have.

Is the great pay a recognition of the fact that you're doing a risky job? Or simply because it's during the night?

After having the answers to those questions I would try to balance the competing demands and make a decision on what to do.

cracked91
April 2, 2009, 11:49 AM
The real question is could charges be brought up against you in the situation that you had to use it when they found out it was actually agaist your company rules

Brian Pfleuger
April 2, 2009, 12:06 PM
How do you know what he agreed to? I worked for a company for 34 yrs. I never agreed to anything concerning firearms. The company had rules and I followed them until they forbade firearms on company property. Since I had no where else to park, I violated that rule every day for 10 yrs., with utter contempt in my heart and a smile on my face, so I could arm myself to and, especially, after, work so I wouldn't be unarmed on my personal time.

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. If you have not openly stated that you will not follow the policy then you have implied that you will, just like every other policy in the companies manual. The manual might say "business attire required" and you don't have to go to the boss and say "Boss, I agree that I will wear business attire.", you just do. Just because they cannot SEE whether or not you are complying doesn't change the fact that you have implicitly agreed to comply.

We can argue all day long about whether or not the rule itself is "moral". The fact is, it really doesn't matter. You have a choice, go work somewhere else. If you choose NOT to go somewhere else then you are putting money above integrity. It's completely different than the government trying to disarm you. The government leaves you no choice, they are all-inclusive, if the rule is sufficiently immoral then integrity requires that the rule be disobeyed. Employer rules are NOT impositions on your rights because you have a CHOICE.

Simply put, whether or not it is morally justifiable to disobey a rule very often depends on whether or not you are left with any other options. In this case you are, get another job.

Tennessee Gentleman
April 2, 2009, 03:59 PM
Employer rules are NOT impositions on your rights because you have a CHOICE.

Peetza, what would you tell the lady who is being stalked by the violent ex? Does she have a choice (other than becoming a LEO)?

Brian Pfleuger
April 2, 2009, 04:33 PM
Peetza, what would you tell the lady who is being stalked by the violent ex?

I'd tell her she should have a job were she can defend herself.

I'm not denying the right to defend yourself.



The whole question has nothing to do with the gun, really.

Remember my previous example? What if you were hired for a job and the guy said he'd pay you $25/hour but 2 weeks later he said, "You know, legally I've only got to pay you $7.50, so that's all I'm going to do." How would you feel? He could say "Well, it's my right to only pay you $7.50, you can't take away my right." I'll bet you that your response would be something like "Damn straight I can, I'll go work for someone else."

I'm not saying that the employer SHOULD disallow CCW while on the job. In fact, I say that he most certainly should NOT disallow carry but I'm saying he CAN and, if he does, you are sacrificing your integrity for money if you choose to carry anyway, and lie about it.

Tennessee Gentleman
April 2, 2009, 04:47 PM
I'd tell her she should have a job were she can defend herself.

While that is easy to say in this discussion that may be in fact a problem to do. Might be impossible. Sort of sounds like "let 'em eat cake" there might not be any cake to eat. Your option may not be present.

I'm not denying the right to defend yourself.

But the employer can with no responsibility or liability to the employee. Hardly seems fair or moral.

but I'm saying he CAN and, if he does, you are sacrificing your integrity for money if you choose to carry anyway, and lie about it.

And I say if an employer denies you the right to protect yourself then he must assume that responsibility and if he does not then it is immoral and he is sacrificing his/her integrity for his own bottom line (read money). Honesty works both ways so the employer is wrong from the outset and I have no obligation to follow an unjust rule.

Brian Pfleuger
April 2, 2009, 05:00 PM
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.

Where do we draw the line on following "unjust rules"? I think it's unjust that my tax money funds abortions. Should I not pay taxes? I think building permits violate my rights. Should I build without one? I think sales tax is unjust double taxation. Should I not pay it?


Secondarily, if "my option" is not present then it would be pretty silly to risk your irreplaceable job so that you can carry. If you live in a place that is honest to God so dangerous that you consider yourself to be in that much trouble unarmed, you really ought to move.... but then, we've had that thread so I know how people feel about that idea.


Edit: I'm also not trying to change your mind, or anyone else's. Like you said before "We'll disagree." Every persons integrity and decisions are between them and God. The above opinions are what I believe to be true. Many good people have solid, well thought-out, honest opinions that are in complete disagreement with other good people.

skydiver3346
April 2, 2009, 05:15 PM
Your first responsibility is to protect your life and go home everynight to your family, PERIOD......

Because some guy at the home office tells you NOT to carry a gun in your car (delivering drugs late at night) then something is very wrong with this scenario. Yes, you still probably need to find other employment if this keeps presenting a concern for you.

However; regarding the company: At the very worst, you lose your job if you have to defend your life some night.
Regarding you: If you follow their requirements, at the very worst you could lose your life!

That is a pretty simple decision to me......

Creature
April 2, 2009, 05:19 PM
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
April 2, 2009, 05:39 PM
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
April 2, 2009, 06:34 PM
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
April 2, 2009, 06:58 PM
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
April 2, 2009, 07:08 PM
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
April 2, 2009, 07:51 PM
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
April 2, 2009, 07:52 PM
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
April 2, 2009, 07:55 PM
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
April 2, 2009, 07:59 PM
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
April 2, 2009, 08:10 PM
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
April 2, 2009, 08:21 PM
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.:p

Brian Pfleuger
April 2, 2009, 08:29 PM
I'm getting tired of lectures David, and Peezakiller.

My intentions in this discussion have been made crystal clear here (http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3411105&postcount=39."). (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
April 2, 2009, 08:37 PM
:DQuote:
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
April 2, 2009, 08:40 PM
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
April 2, 2009, 08:41 PM
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
April 2, 2009, 08:42 PM
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
April 2, 2009, 08:46 PM
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
April 2, 2009, 09:00 PM
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
April 2, 2009, 09:32 PM
I think this one is about done. What do you guys think -- is it time for a close?

pax

Ricklin
April 2, 2009, 09:42 PM
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.

Tennessee Gentleman
April 2, 2009, 10:54 PM
I think this one is about done. What do you guys think -- is it time for a close?

I vote to close it. This issue has been hashed out a lot and no one is likely to profit from it continuing. As Glenn said in another thread; Morality is something that is open to debate amoung gentle folk. Or something like that:)

LoneWolf22056
April 2, 2009, 11:36 PM
The right to carry at work really depends on the work that you're doing.

If, say, you're an Electrical Engineer working on a program that provides certain electronic devices per government contract, chances are that's a "need to know basis" environment and all things going on in the area need to be watched closely. Most times they won't even let you bring a cell phone, pager, or any electronic device. Could you imagine bringing a gun into a place like that? There are spies who would love to get ahold of some of this stuff and report back to their host countries with their findings. This is stuff you would NOT want any other nation to have. Do you think they're going to take a chance and let YOU carry a gun to work? Nope. Even though you'd need a very thorough background check before you could work, there are rules and limitations for security reasons. Let's say somebody slipped through the background check and DID bring a gun. They can steal whatever they like and escape. This is unlikely because of all the screening you go through just to enter the building, but still. Imagine that.

Top secret projects aside, I don't think that you have a real need to carry a weapon in the workplace unless you're a cop or security contractor. Workplace violence is a real dangerous things. I'm sure you've all had days where your co-workers did things that just irritated you to no end. If somebody got pushed "over the edge" and started shooting up the place, what then? I know that you feel slighted because it's your 2nd amendment right, but try to think in terms of the big picture. Why not keep a strongbox in your vehicle and leave your gun there? You can go to work, and, should your perceived imminent hostile takeover actually happen, MORE THAN LIKELY you will be able to go out a window or a door and escape.

You have to think about it this way. If you're allowed to carry a gun, then everyone else is going to be allowed to as well. Do you really want your co-workers or new co-workers you've never met before walking around with a gun? You don't know how they behave. Look at all the school shooters. Most times it's someone that nobody really knows, and they're bottling up all this rage until one day they just go and shoot everyone.

If you really feel the need to keep your gun on you 24/7 in a workplace that won't allow it, keep it in your car. As long as you don't announce it to everyone that you have it, nobody will know and nobody will care.

cerberus65
April 3, 2009, 08:31 AM
I wasn't going to add anything else to this thread but LoneWolf has "inspired" me. :-)

I'm sure you've all had days where your co-workers did things that just irritated you to no end. If somebody got pushed "over the edge" and started shooting up the place, what then?

Yes, I've had days like that. But I don't care how annoyed I get, I would quit long before I would ever even consider going anywhere close to "the edge". Arguments or disagreements aren't settled with guns. Period.

Now if someone else went "postal", that's a case where I'd definitely want to have the means to defend myself. Wouldn't you?

When I started keeping a gun in my car I noticed that I practically overnight became much more careful not to provoke anyone while driving. I think most folks recognize the immense responsibility involved in carrying a gun (in car, on person, whatever). I would actually feel safer if I knew others here in our "safe" little cube-farm were carrying.

I currently park across the street from my employer and leave my gun in my car. The building I work in is next to some pretty bad neighborhoods but you wouldn't realize that unless you went driving around back behind us. I would love to have my gun on me when I walk to and from the building (especially after dark - and even from the closest parking spaces) but my employer cares more about their liability than any of our safety. This is, of course, in conflict with the responsibility I have to go home to my family each night. I'm still struggling with what my final answer will be to this situation. But it's great to have a place to kick ideas and opinions around. I appreciate all of you and your opinions.

OldMarksman
April 3, 2009, 09:55 AM
Top secret projects aside, I don't think that you have a real need to carry a weapon in the workplace unless you're a cop or security contractor.

So, the lady who works at the Stop and Rob, the jeweler, and the pharmacist have no "real need", in spite of their vulnerability.....

If you're allowed to carry a gun, then everyone else is going to be allowed to as well. Do you really want your co-workers or new co-workers you've never met before walking around with a gun?

Very similar, I think, to the usual ant-CCW argument. Those who are "allowed" to carry will be dangerous, and those who are not "allowed" will not be armed and will not do anything untoward. Mmmmm....

Look at all the school shooters. Most times it's someone that nobody really knows, and they're bottling up all this rage until one day they just go and shoot everyone.

And all of them do so where they are not "allowed" to have a weapon.

If you really feel the need to keep your gun on you 24/7 in a workplace that won't allow it, keep it in your car.

It will certainly come in handy on the parking lot.

David Armstrong
April 3, 2009, 12:07 PM
I'm getting tired of lectures David, and Peezakiller.
As peetza said, how is it that us expressing our opinions on a subject whre we disagree with you are lectures while those that offer opinions you agree with are not? Are you lecturing us? Why is it that some expressions of philosophy are OK, but others are not?
What what you have done in my case?
First I think you have narrowed it down to only two options while it is quite possible there are others available, so you have created a false choice issue. But I can tell you that if my job was that important, I would quit carrying, just like probably the majority of your co-workers do. I've never bought into this concept of "I carry a gun, I'm special and don't have to do what everyone else is expected to do."

David Armstrong
April 3, 2009, 12:10 PM
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.
Sorry, but I've done (and still do) a fair amount of independent contractor work, and that is not correct. A company can specify to the contractor how a job is to be done and what standards are to be met during the perfromance of the job. Yes, he has every right to refuse to follow the rule, but he does not have the right to pretend to be following the rule while he is not doing so.

Hard Ball
April 3, 2009, 12:16 PM
How much is yor life worth to you?

Tennessee Gentleman
April 3, 2009, 02:54 PM
Well, since the thread is still open here are a few more comments:D

I notice some seem to be very defensive of the employer as a paragon of virtue. In fact, employers often engage in legal subterfuge, let's look at that.

They honestly tell you what the job is.

Actually many times they don't tell you such. Especially when it involves risk aside from the infamous "other duties as assigned".
Take for example 7-11. Go into a store and ask the manager how many times the store has been robbed and employees injured and he will not tell you. Company Policy. They don't tell those they hire either. Think Pizza Hut warns employees not to go into certain neighborhoods for fear of robbery? Not likely they want the sales. Sounds honest to me:rolleyes:

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.

Umm, not really. In many companies if you reveal your salary to another co-worker it is grounds for immediate termination. Why? Because the company doesn't want you to know what they are paying others doing the same work as you who might be making more or less based on unethical reasons (though perhaps not illegal). More honesty from the employer:rolleyes:

So, the lady who works at the Stop and Rob, the jeweler, and the pharmacist have no "real need", in spite of their vulnerability.....

Great point! And so a moral ethical employer if he bans the carry of firearms for self defense will take reasonable measures to protect employees from harm. That could include several items like bullet proof cashier "cages" and other types of protection.

cerberus65
April 3, 2009, 03:12 PM
In the same vein as what Tennessee Gentleman is saying...

Most states are right to work. So if your employer decides to pay you less all he/she has to do is give you the choice of "accepting" a lower salary or taking a pink slip. So much for having a contract and abiding by it.

I'm not mentioning this to assert that since corporate behavior is not always moral that we don't need to be moral. I only mention it to assert that things are not always as starkly black and white as we would sometimes like to make them.

David Armstrong
April 3, 2009, 05:10 PM
Take for example 7-11. Go into a store and ask the manager how many times the store has been robbed and employees injured and he will not tell you.
So what? That has nothing to do with the employer honestly telling you what the job is.
Think Pizza Hut warns employees not to go into certain neighborhoods for fear of robbery? Not likely they want the sales.
Commenting on things one knows nothing about is a rather silly thing to do. Many delivery companies, including Pizza Hut, tell employees not to go into certain areas, and won't accept orders from those areas.
Umm, not really. In many companies if you reveal your salary to another co-worker it is grounds for immediate termination.
Umm, yes, really. Telling somebody else your salary has nothing to do with whether or not the company is honest with you in telling you what your salary is. Once again you try to tie something totally irrelevent into the issue under discussion.
Why? Because the company doesn't want you to know what they are paying others doing the same work as you who might be making more or less based on unethical reasons (though perhaps not illegal).
Nothing unethical about the company paying you a salary that is different from somebody else as long as they have told you in advance what your salary would be and you have agreed that is an appropriate salary for the job you have agreed to do (barring EEOC or other legal requirements). And that is the difference. The company is being open and honest about what they are doing, giving the employee the choice of whether or not to accept the position and the pay. The employee is being dishonest when they secretly violate the rules they have agreed to follow and still take the money. Let's face it, if folks didn't think it was wrong they woldn't have this need to hide it from the employer.

David Armstrong
April 3, 2009, 05:14 PM
So if your employer decides to pay you less all he/she has to do is give you the choice of "accepting" a lower salary or taking a pink slip. So much for having a contract and abiding by it.
Even in a right to work state if there is a contract it is binding through the duration of the contract unless there is a bankruptcy or such. And again, that is not quite the same. The employer is being honest about it, saying "here is what I am goin gto do, you may participate or not." As opposed to what many here are suggesting, which would be "I decided to cut your pay in half at the first of the month but thought I would keep it a secret from you until payday."

cerberus65
April 3, 2009, 05:30 PM
Even in a right to work state if there is a contract ...

That's the point of "right to work", there is no contract. They can dismiss you for any reason at any time.

kgpcr
April 3, 2009, 06:48 PM
Where do you live and work? Is it a bad area? I will agree you by taking the job agreed to THEIR rules not yours. They are not to blame as you had the choice of not taking the job.

David Armstrong
April 3, 2009, 07:35 PM
That's the point of "right to work", there is no contract. They can dismiss you for any reason at any time.
Yes, they can dismiss you. But they cannot change the terms of the contract, which is what is being discussed. Lots of contracts in right to work states.

skydiver3346
April 3, 2009, 07:53 PM
Look David, you make some cogent points and defend your arguments well to a certain degree. But I believe that your are too hard lined in your thinking and take other people's comments too personal. There are other opinions out there and that is what this site is all about. We all learn from it.

Bottom line is this: As you say, being honest is important and has merit as you suggest. But it just can't always be a black and white situation. The employer may be honest and then again, maybe they aren't. They may have had a hard prior experience with employees "getting into trouble" with late night delivery of drugs. They are worried that something may go south and do not want to responsibility, etc.

When its all said and done, he needs to go home to his family. Nobody should tell you that you can't carry a gun in your personal vehicle, period... Carrying on your person and/or in a nursing home may be a little different, NOT IN YOUR VEHICLE. Please try and understand. Let's all try and be a little open minded. Thank you.

Tennessee Gentleman
April 3, 2009, 08:30 PM
So what? That has nothing to do with the employer honestly telling you what the job is.

Yes it is. The known working conditions and the hazards are part of what the job is. Failing to disclose that fully is deception.

Even in a right to work state if there is a contract it is binding through the duration of the contract unless there is a bankruptcy or such.

You are confusing right to work with at will employment; they are different. There is no contract with at will employment. The employer in an at will employment condition can do just Kerberos said they could.

Commenting on things one knows nothing about is a rather silly thing to do.

I agree :D

Telling somebody else your salary has nothing to do with whether or not the company is honest with you in telling you what your salary is.

No, but the company wanting to keep it secret and threatening to fire you for revealing it for their own selfish reasons is. Just because a company tells you what they will pay you has nothing to do with honesty. Others who do the same work as you but get more or less than you without good reason is not honest. Using an argument you have posited before:

Let's face it, if folks didn't think it was wrong they woldn't have this need to hide it

I only mention it to assert that things are not always as starkly black and white as we would sometimes like to make them.

Which is the real nub of the issue. Dogmatic and unthoughtful judgments of others is what the problem is. The same people who at the Nuremberg Trials used the "I was only following orders" defense had the same black and white mindset. Rules are rules regardless of their morality or impact on others and look at where that went.

David Armstrong
April 4, 2009, 02:59 PM
But I believe that your are too hard lined in your thinking and take other people's comments too personal.
No more hard lined than those who think that unless there is a law they should be able to do whatever they want, no more hard line than those who feel lyhing is OK, no more hard lined than those that suggest being dishonest for money is OK, and so on.
Nobody should tell you that you can't carry a gun in your personal vehicle, period
True, but that doesn't matter. There are lots of things that people tell you to do that they probably shouldn't. What matters is that a person has made an agreement..."I will do X, Y, and Z in exchange for you providing me with 1, 2, and 3." If the perosn then still accepts 1, 2, and 3 while only doing X and Y AND INTENTIONALLY violating Z and hiding it, that person is acting dishonestly. If one doesn't like the rule, one should have the intestinal fortitude to violate it openly and inform the other that it is being violated. Doing otherwise indicates a severe lack of character.

David Armstrong
April 4, 2009, 03:16 PM
Yes it is. The known working conditions and the hazards are part of what the job is. Failing to disclose that fully is deception.
As we have seen so many times, you have a tendency to try to discuss things that you obviously know nothing about, and then try to change the subject when you get caught. Known working conditions and hazards are very different from your initial claim, that the store owner had an obligation to tell you how many times the store has been robbed and employees injured.
You are confusing right to work with at will employment; they are different. There is no contract with at will employment. The employer in an at will employment condition can do just Kerberos said they could.
As mentioned before, try to learn something about a topic if you want to talk about it. First, you are the one confused, as Keberos was discussing right to work, not at will. From Kerberos: "Most states are right to work. So if your employer decides to pay you less all he/she has to do is give you the choice of "accepting" a lower salary or taking a pink slip. So much for having a contract and abiding by it." -AND-That's the point of "right to work", there is no contract. They can dismiss you for any reason at any time. Second, even with at-will employment, if there is a contract the contract is considered enforceable for the duration of the contract, barring certain events. For example, the Texas workforce Commission points out, "the basic rule of Texas employment law is employment at will, which applies to all phases of the employment relationship - it means that absent a statute or an express agreement (such as an employment contract) to the contrary, either party in an employment relationship may modify any of the terms or conditions of employment, or terminate the relationship altogether, for any reason, or no particular reason at all, with or without advance notice." Such contractual conditions are normal for at-will employment.
No, but the company wanting to keep it secret and threatening to fire you for revealing it for their own selfish reasons is.
So what? I know this is really hard for you sometimes, but try to stay on the topic, which is honesty between employer and employee.
Which is the real nub of the issue.
No, the nub of the issue is whether it is ethical and honest to accept money by pretending to be doing something that one is intentionally not doing.
Again, it is really simple here: Let's face it, if folks didn't think it was wrong they wouldn't have this need to hide it.

TridentOne
April 4, 2009, 04:10 PM
I'd carry it in the car if that were legal. As a contractor doing business in your own vehicle I think is a very different situation then carrying in the nursing homes where your liberty is at stake. Being unincarcerated is much more precious than money.

No, the nub of the issue is whether it is ethical and honest to accept money by pretending to be doing something that one is intentionally not doing.
Again, it is really simple here: Let's face it, if folks didn't think it was wrong they wouldn't have this need to hide it.

A rule, or a law, against carrying a gun is completly arbitrary. It is based on the opinion of the lawmakers, based on the assumption that that's what the voters want. The OP's customer has an opinion on carrying guns and made a rule that the OP disagrees with. Disagreeing is not wrong. Law breakers are "guilty" or "Not guilty" not right or wrong. And hiding ones opinion does not make it wrong or the person wrong or the idea wrong. I have opinions on all kinds of topics but I am not always comfortable discussing those opinions with some people, and I assure you, I am not wrong about any of those topics. One of them being, to carry my gun.

Ricklin
April 4, 2009, 04:58 PM
Go to WWW.IRS.Gov
Look at the IRS rules that determine whether an individual is a contractor or an employee.

If the company dictates how the work is to be done, you are NOT AN IC.

While the company might SAY you can't carry while performing this work, I can almost guarantee that it is NOT in writing. The company cannot direct the work, only the result.

Many Many companies want to have it both ways, they don't want the liabilities of employees, yet want to dictate very specific rules on how the work is to be done. That does not fly, the company is basically being dishonest with this "rule"

If it's not in writing, it never happened. The OP has a contract, if the contract states "no concealed carry" he should not carry, he would be violating his contract.

I'll bet a dozen donut holes that this is not in the contract, but that he was told verbally that this is a rule.

OP: Is the ban on concealed carry in your contract?

I bet not, as that would constitute directing the work.

Being an employee and being an independent contractor are very different things.

Creature
April 4, 2009, 05:38 PM
Funny thing about contract work...contracts eventually expire. And the contractor is dependent on re-negotiations if he want to continue working for certain employers. How many IC do you know that are NOT dependent on recommendations from prior employers during subsequent contract negotiations? I dont know any who arent.

Brian Pfleuger
April 4, 2009, 05:44 PM
A rule, or a law, against carrying a gun is completly arbitrary. It is based on the opinion of the lawmakers, based on the assumption that that's what the voters want. The OP's customer has an opinion on carrying guns and made a rule that the OP disagrees with. Disagreeing is not wrong. Law breakers are "guilty" or "Not guilty" not right or wrong.


It's not a question of whether the rule is right or wrong. It is a very simple question of whether or not it is OK to LIE about following the rule.

Employer: I would like you to do this job. Here are my expectations and I'll pay you $X.

Employee/Contractor: Sounds good, I'll get it done. (To self: except rule number 4, *sneer*, he'll never know I'm not doing that one.)

That makes the employee/contractor a LIER.

The question is not even whether or not the person is lying, I'd say that part is indisputable. The question is whether or not it is morally acceptable to lie in this instance.

pax
April 4, 2009, 06:05 PM
Just going in circles now.

Closed.

pax