What would you do?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

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.

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

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.

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

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

I agree

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

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:

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

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

Originally Posted by Kerberos

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Just going in circles now.

Closed.

pax