Company policies

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Thus, my friend - we will disagree. Theories of morality are open to debate among gentlefolk.

[David Armstrong]

Thus, my friend - we will disagree. Theories of morality are open to debate among gentlefolk.

Exactly, which is why I suggest basing a dishonest action on a theory of morality is an exercise in frustration as well as an unworkable concept. Thus the importance of honesty, which hopefully is not open to debate!

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

Can I pay someone else to pretend to be me and attend class and take all my tests? Can I steal Prof. Meyer's identity and qualifications to pass off as my own for the purpose of getting a better job? After all, it is for a greater moral purpose.

There is no greater moral purpose at all in the examples just given. There was no injustice on the other side. Just craven monetary self-interest on one side.

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

Theories of morality are open to debate among gentlefolk.

Well said Glenn. My experience is that those who have the most rigid views of morality often themselves fail to follow it in their own conduct.

[45guy]

How nice of them to state in advance that they intend to violate the law. This just about guaranties that they will not fire for this. If they do---. Keep a copy of this manual, it could be gold.

By this reason they could set up a stand ( in the parking lot ) and sell Crack. The cops will laugh all the way to the Jail. The Law is the Law. Brake it at your peril.

[shortwave]

I`m enjoying this discussion and have the utmost respect for the posters. That said, the issue of employer /employee morality in todays world, in a lot of different scenario`s is questionable at best. With over 30yrs. working for the gov`n.(city level) a book could be written about the dishonest/immoral things I`ve seen. One example of many: Watched a fellow employee that opens our gate every morning slip and fall on the ice(breaking ankle) unlocking gate and had to fight tooth and nail to get covered cause he was not yet clocked in. I`m sure I`m not alone in seeing these kind of immoral things . I enjoy my job(must,could have already retired) and am morally loyal to whom I work for but will continue to cc back and forth to work leaving my gun locked in my car until employer is responsible for my safety prior and after my hours of work. With crime rate as it is today isn`t it immoral for a company not to expect people to cc to and from work?

[BillCA]

Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman

I stipulate that a company may (in an At Will state) fire you for any reason or no reason. However, using the example you did earlier; firing someone who was being stalked to decrease your liability is immoral. It was legal to process sub prime loans but probably was not moral.

I say again - Corporations have no morals and they may have ethics. The sub-prime loans processed were likely unethical, even though legal. I don't know the canon of ethics in that industry.

As to firing a stalking victim who discloses to their employer what's happening is, in my view, disgusting. It could also be a civil tort because, as Mr. Armstrong points out, you agree to abide by the rules and do, yet the company terminates you for something not in their rules.

Again, if the employer denies you the right to protect yourself and takes no steps to protect you at work then that is an immoral work rule and one should be free of guilty conscience in disobeying said rule. May get fired but it isn't unethical to protect your life.

In many businesses, precautions are taken. Those card-key stations to access the building, a security guard in the lobby or parking lot, the wearing of badges at work, etc. If those steps are taken, it reduces (or eliminates) your valid reasons for carrying at work[1]

But let's take a different job. Suppose you are a 7-11 clerk. Southland Corp., owner of 7-11, (used to) refuse to allow employees to carry while working. Yet, they place 7-11 stores right next to freeway on/off ramps, out by the edge of towns and in high-crime areas. The store is open to anyone coming in the door. The company almost never discloses the number of clerks injured in robberies and never to job applicants.

The way I see it, the "security" measures at most stores (cameras, recording systems, alarm buttons, etc.) are tantamount to having no safety shields in a cannery and telling employees they're "safe" because the company has an on-site ambulance.

It's not an authority issue, it is an honesty issue. When we rebelled against the Crown we did so openly, with a Declaration of Independence. We didn't sneak around and pretend we were following the rules.

Oh, come now. The Colonies had a history of disobedience, especially about taxes. But it was the Currency Act in 1764 that really set tempers flaring.[2] The next 12 years saw increasing numbers of protests and skirmishes with British rule. In those years men quietly organized and discussed what measures could be taken. Only after years of suffering did they finally say "enough!" in 1776.

Not in my book. They both amount to getting money under false pretenses.

David, you need a two hour listening session with my mother who lived through the Great Depression. It was seriously ugly. She saw, first-hand both the desperation of the jobless and the cruelty of many employers. Some were simply bigots who would not hire a Jew - or a German or an Irishman or "one of them eye-talians". In fact, the local pharmacist went to jail after beating the tar out of an employee when he found that the family name Newhouse was anglicized from Neuhaus.

Appealing to "the greater moral good" or purpose only works for those with similar morals. Businesses have no morals. Thus, today I would phrase it in a more business-like fashion. Employers have a duty to minimize the risk of injury or death to employees and employees agree to avoid unnecessary risks. But certain jobs pose a risk of injury or death by others not controlled by the business and if the employer cannot mitigate those risks, he must allow the employee to provide for his own safety when necessary.

Footnotes:
[1]: At least in theory.
[2]: According to many, including Benjamin Franklin, the currency act was the primary cause of the American Revolution.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by BillCA

I say again - Corporations have no morals and they may have ethics.

Well, here is the definition of ethics that CHARACTER COUNTS! uses:

Standards of duty and virtue that indicate how we should behave.

You can go here as well: http://www.philosophyblog.com.au/eth...cs-and-morals/ and see terms are pretty synonymous.

I won't quibble with you on definitions but let's just say it is wrong and unfair.

Originally Posted by BillCA

The way I see it, the "security" measures at most stores (cameras, recording systems, alarm buttons, etc.) are tantamount to having no safety shields in a cannery and telling employees they're "safe" because the company has an on-site ambulance.

Agreed and those measures provide no real protection to the employee. At many 7-11 type stores in bad areas I have seen bullet-proof cash register areas. Not very nice to look at but safe and companies could easily put them in.

Originally Posted by BillCA

But certain jobs pose a risk of injury or death by others not controlled by the business and if the employer cannot mitigate those risks, he must allow the employee to provide for his own safety when necessary.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks Bill!

[David Armstrong]

Oh, come now. The Colonies had a history of disobedience, especially about taxes. But it was the Currency Act in 1764 that really set tempers flaring.[2] The next 12 years saw increasing numbers of protests and skirmishes with British rule. In those years men quietly organized and discussed what measures could be taken. Only after years of suffering did they finally say "enough!" in 1776.

But they did not, AFAIK, ever pretend to be following the rules. Their disobediance was quite forthright and open, as is appropriate for civil disobedience. "Protests and skirmishes" are far from "let's pretend we are doing what we promised to do but sneak around and hope nobody finds out we are really not doing what we agreed we would do."

David, you need a two hour listening session with my mother who lived through the Great Depression.

I listen to my mother and father, who lived through the Great Depression. What they said was the most important thing going at that time was a man's word, and that if you couldn't be trusted you were for all intents and purposes a social outcast.

Some were simply bigots who would not hire a Jew - or a German or an Irishman or "one of them eye-talians".

My people were the Irish.

Appealing to "the greater moral good" or purpose only works for those with similar morals.

Agreed, which is why I say the "greater moral good" concept is unworkable and prefer the concept of necessity as mentioned earlier. Your greater moral good may be my moral outrage. Thus the need for honesty and trust. I think one could make a pretty good argument that arguing a moral position to rationalize breaking the rules but then hiding the fact that one is breaking the rules is also rank cowardice, but that is probably a different thread.

But certain jobs pose a risk of injury or death by others not controlled by the business and if the employer cannot mitigate those risks, he must allow the employee to provide for his own safety when necessary.

So, when a business declares "no firearms" as part of their overall risk mitigation strategy, isn't it incumbent upon each employee to follow those rules? If the employee vountarily chooses to work for that company, the employee has an obligation to follow the rules he has agreed to follow by accepting the job. Anything else is dishonest, no matter how one tries to rationalize it.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

But they did not, AFAIK, ever pretend to be following the rules. Their disobediance was quite forthright and open, as is appropriate for civil disobedience.

That is not correct. Many of the pre-revolutionary resistance was secret due to fear of reprisal. The Boston Tea Party comes to mind.

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

So, when a business declares "no firearms" as part of their overall risk mitigation strategy, isn't it incumbent upon each employee to follow those rules?

No because: 1) It doesn't mitigate risk to the employee rather the company at the expense of the employee. 2) Unless they take other reasonable measures to meet the threat the rule is unfair and wrong.

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

If the employee vountarily chooses to work for that company, the employee has an obligation to follow the rules he has agreed to follow by accepting the job.

And the employer as the financially superior party to the contract has an obligation to recognize and secure reasonable protection for his employees. If that is not done the rule is worng, unfair and could honestly be ignored by the employee.

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

which is why I say the "greater moral good" concept is unworkable and prefer the concept of necessity as mentioned earlier. Your greater moral good may be my moral outrage.

You think that way because as pax and BillCA and Glenn have pointed out you compare apples to oranges. Equating someone who breaks an unfair work rule to protect their own life to an embezzler is what causes that confusion.