Quote:
|
When you suggest "turning the issue around," I suggest you keep it topical with an apples-to-apples comparison. The comparison you just suggested is not apples to apples, since whether or not someone is armed has nothing to do with their work product.
|
Whether one has to wear a tie at work has nothing to do with their work product either. How you answer the phone has noting to do with the work product. Lots of rules have nothing to do with the work product. The apples to apples, as spacemanspiff points out, is the employee manuals and rules are generally considered a contract, equally binding on each party (he is wrong on the amendment part, BTW). The issue is honesty and trust. If you (generic "you", not specific) are not going to be honest and trustworthy and follow the rules there is no legitimate expectation on your part that the company will uphold its end of the contract. Apple 1: you follow the rules you agreed to follow. Apple 2: the business follows the rules it agreed to follow. That some think that honesty and trust are not applicable if it applies to guns is no different than the rationalizations I hear from criminals all the time.
No need to try anything else. It is simple: If it is OK for you to lie to the company about what you will do (follow the rules) to get money, is it OK for the company to lie to you about what they will give you in exchange for your performance.
Quote:
|
if it is okay for you to fail to disclose to the company about matters unrelated to your job,...
|
With all due respect, I consider ones honesty and trustworthiness to be very much related to the job. If you have agreed to follow some rules in exchange for money, that is related to your job, just as the company paying you the amount of money it agreed to pay. That is the point. Honesty is a pretty simple concept, IMO.