The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 23, 2009, 01:12 PM   #26
David Armstrong
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
Quote:
I wish that someone would sue one of these companies for wrongful death in the event that someone who is a CFL holder is killed on their way to or from work.
As mentioned, that is not going to happen. You voluntarily accept the job, you voluntarily accept the risk. Given the millions of peole who get to and from work every day without needing a gun, you will be hard-pressed to show any cause for action against the business. But again, as I've said so many times before, this shouldn't even be an issue. Are you (generic "you", not specific) an honest person whose word means something? If so it is pretty clear. You have made a deal with the business...you hire me and give me salary and benefits, I agree to follow your rules regarding work. As long as the business is within the parameters of the law, you should follow their rules. That is the deal you have made. Is your word as a person any good, or are you not to be trusted? Very simple, IMO. I see my friend Glenn has brought up the moral issue. If there is anything more basic to morals and ethical behavior than honesty and trust I'm not sure what it would be. And I always suggest turning the issue around. If it is OK for you to lie to the company about your work, is it OK for the company to lie to you about your compensation? Or would that be dishonest of them?

Last edited by David Armstrong; February 23, 2009 at 01:19 PM.
David Armstrong is offline  
Old February 23, 2009, 01:50 PM   #27
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,852
While I understand the issue, Dave raises - it is because of the necessity to lie to one's employer, that such control of employee behavior that perhaps causes a moral conundrum not be permitted.

In a similar note, I do know in the past - when it was legit to discriminate on the grounds of religion, persons who were non-Christian made up church affliations to get hired during the Depression. Were they immoral to maintain employment with such a deception? Thus, to avoid the conundrum, I propose that employers have no ability to control behavior not related to the job directly. Being unemployed during the Depression was a bad thing.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old February 23, 2009, 03:45 PM   #28
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong
If there is anything more basic to morals and ethical behavior than honesty and trust I'm not sure what it would be.
Fairness and equity would be just as basic and just as important.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong
And I always suggest turning the issue around.
As do I. If the employer denies you the right to defend yourself at work shouldn't he then take similiar steps to protect your safety?

You see, it works both ways and if it only goes one way then it is immoral and unfair.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
I do know in the past - when it was legit to discriminate on the grounds of religion, persons who were non-Christian made up church affliations to get hired during the Depression.
Good thoughts Glenn. Things are not always so black and white as some would think. Take those who hid Jews from the Nazi's in WWII. Were they immoral for "lying" to the Nazis? I think not.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.

Last edited by Tennessee Gentleman; February 24, 2009 at 12:32 AM.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old February 23, 2009, 04:04 PM   #29
zxcvbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,215
Quote:
state law reads "No employer shall ... " the company says it can still fire you even if state law prohibits it? Excuse me? Isn't this a declartory statement that the company will violate the law as it sees fit?
That's exactly what it is; I'm surprised nobody else sees it. But what's to stop them from adding your name to an unwritten list somewhere of people to be let go next time there's a "downsizing"?
__________________
"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun"
zxcvbob is offline  
Old February 23, 2009, 04:18 PM   #30
pax
Staff
 
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: Washington state
Posts: 6,983
Quote:
If it is OK for you to lie to the company about your work, is it OK for the company to lie to you about your compensation?
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.

Try this instead: if it is okay for you to fail to disclose to the company about matters unrelated to your job, then it is okay for the company to fail to disclose information to you about matters unrelated to your job. Agree or disagree, this is a one-to-one correspondent. What you suggested was not.

pax
__________________
Kathy Jackson
My personal website: Cornered Cat
pax is offline  
Old February 23, 2009, 04:48 PM   #31
shortwave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,936
Nothing stops a company from putting your name on a "not wanted' list for anything they see fit(gun issue`s included). Right or wrong, it happens and will continue.
shortwave is offline  
Old February 23, 2009, 04:50 PM   #32
C Philip
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 9, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 784
Perhaps one could try sending an anonymous letter to the company boss asking if an exception to the "no guns" policy could be made for individuals with a valid permit? If they say yes, hold onto that letter and use it to your advantage if you're ever "caught." If they say no, then one could ask what reason they have to deny someone officially licensed by the state, possibly opening up the issue to further discussion.
C Philip is offline  
Old February 23, 2009, 05:16 PM   #33
spacemanspiff
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2002
Location: alaska
Posts: 3,212
The employee handbook is a contract. A contract could be amended, and still be lawful, if you follow the correct steps. I'm just speaking out of my posterior here, but most companies require you to sign a statement that gives your acknowledgment to the corporate policies. If you were to amend your handbook, and indicate on the statement that you sign that you amended it, then if your employer overlooks it, doesn't catch it, but you still made some effort to point out to them that you did change your copy of the handbook, then in my amateur-legal-mind, they would have little recourse if you did have a firearm in your vehicle.


When the office I work for was revising their handbooks, and the subject came up about weapons, I offered a suggestion for the wording. They did wind up changing it from "employees shall not possess any weapons while on company property blah blah blah" to "employees shall not possess any Illegal weapons on company property blah blah blah".
Hey, its not my fault they couldnt understand what difference that one word made to their policy.
"No, this pistol is not an illegal weapon, its 100% lawful."
__________________
"Every man alone is sincere; at the entrance of a second person hypocrisy begins." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Soren Kierkegaard
spacemanspiff is offline  
Old February 24, 2009, 12:44 AM   #34
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by pax
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.
Touche' Kathy! What is missed here is that the employer does not pay you to follow their work rules, they pay you to do a job and perform work.

Now, your continued employment may be severed if you disobey the rule but they are not paying you to follow it.

I as an employee am not being paid to not sexually harass female employees but I might be terminated if I do it.

Therefore following company policy does not equate to getting a pay check. Performing your work does.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old February 24, 2009, 02:53 AM   #35
BillCA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,089
Employers are required to minimize certain risks to their employees. All sorts of risks, from safety guards on conveyor equipment to loose carpeting to providing ergonomic chairs. In certain jobs they can mandate the length of your hair or the way your hair is worn/covered. A single incident of negligent discharge would mean an unacceptable level of risk.

To meet minimum standards for access security, many company offices now include ID badges to be visibly worn and access-control between public and working areas. Usually when this is done, there is some form of security at the front door or a screening process before people are admitted to the work area.[1]

By implementing a security-screening process the company provides a measure of security "that balances the company's obligation to a safe work environment with the cost of providing the security." In other words, they're taking "reasonable and prudent" measures to prevent injury to their people.

If a company overtly permits you and licensed others to carry at work and a single ND occurs which injures or kills another person, the company's "deep pockets" will put them center stage for a wrongful death lawsuit. A company that has no policy prohibiting or regulating arms will likewise be targeted as "negligent" for failing to control the presence of weapons.

Likewise a company that prohibits employees from having arms at work but does not take any steps to prevent unauthorized persons from entering the building will be targeted as "negligent" in the event of an assault or homicide.[2]

The company that both regulates the possession of arms and provides basic security to prevent unauthorized people from entering the work area can show that reasonable measures were in place to prevent or reduce risks to employees.[3] This means a "negligence" claim must show that the employer could have corrected a security flaw at very minimal cost or effort, but failed to do so.

Companies do not need to provide armed guards or have sufficient "tactical forces" to engage an armed intruder. Not even if a deranged ex-spouse entered a nearby business and killed seven. Nor do they need to have manned camera monitors watching every entrance point. And absent any specific threat to them or a notable trend in armed assualts to businesses, they've done a reasonable job of safeguarding their employees[4] .

There is a dark side to all of this, however. And I'm sure Pax will find this abhorent. Suppose you run a business and employ about 60-75 people. You've complied with any laws and/or regulations to screen incoming visitors and the extra cost of a card-key system to enter the building. Now you hear that an employee has a restraining order against her ex-spouse/boyfriend because of serious, but unspecified, threats to her safety. What do you now do?

You could
  • provide a security guard to escort the employee to/from the building and deter an attempt on them.
  • provide more security to the whole company to prevent a stalking ex-spouse from doing damage.
  • allow that employee to carry a firearm if licensed.
  • remove the threat to other employees by terminating the threatened employee.
The lawyers will recommend terminating the employee who poses a security risk. This is exactly what can and may happen if you reveal to an employer that there is some risk attached to your continued employment.

Consider: If something does happen and people are hurt, lawsuits will claim company-knowledge of an increased risk with no increase in mitigating it. Or that not enough was done by the company to mitigate the risk[5]

Most outrageous, however, is the suggestion by some trial lawyers that a corporation can deflect any negligence claims against it if the employee did not disclose the added risk to the employer. In other words, it's like telling a jury "we took standard and reasonable security precautions but since the employee didn't tell us of an increased risk, we were not able to mitigate it. Had we known of the risk, we could have mitigated it." Of course they won't tell the jury they would have fired the "risky" employee.[6]

Okay... long enough. Thanks for reading.

Footnotes
[1] Access control can be a keypad to open doors or a card-key system. Screening is typically determining that a person has legitimate business there and/or contacting an employee to come to the lobby. This allows an employee to reject the contact if needed.

[2] Here we are talking about general office buildings, manufacturing plants and other businesses not open to the public. Retail establishments, by nature, are open to the public and different rules may apply.

[3] Reasonable measures include locked doors to prevent unauthorized entry, a means of screening visitors, the use of access cards or key codes to enter certain areas of the building and employee conduct standards regarding building access.

[4] Legally speaking, that is.

[5] Lawyers know that hindsight is an exact science and use it all the time.

[6] This logic sets up a complete Catch-22. By denying responsibility because they were not told of the risk, a company can force financial responsibility to the threatened employee (or their estate). But if the employee reveals such risk, they are likely to lose their job and perhaps find it difficult to get another job. If they stay silent and a coworker is injured, their silence could be interpreted as negligence for not revealing a hazard to other employees to their employer. They are, in essense, damned if they do, damned if they don't.
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)
BillCA is offline  
Old February 24, 2009, 03:24 AM   #36
BillCA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,089
Quote:
Plus all vehicles on company property (inside the maingate and outside parking lots) are subject to search.
I presume there is a sign on the gate that conspiciously declares that all vehicles are subject to search.

Visitors should realize that the only recourse the security personnel have if you refuse a search is to deny you vehicular access to the property. You can revoke your permission to search at any time. And searches are limited - for instance, they may not open sealed letters found in a briefcase nor inspect the contents of your checkbook register.

For employees, similar rules apply. You may refuse a search (and risk discipline), revoke permission, refuse to open sealed or locked containers inside your car and prevent security personnel from rifling through personal papers or items. Each carries a risk of being threatened with termination.

Because it is your car, you may also insist on only one person searching the vehicle at a time and that you be present to safeguard your investment against damage as well as revoke permission. Even if a prohibited item is found, security has no authority to seize the item - they can photograph it, however. Company property may be recovered or seized (it's the company's stuff after all) regardless of authorized possession or not.

In most cases, I would go so far as to require company agents to disclose what kind of items they are looking for and under what rules. It is important to get them to be as specific as possible. Claiming they want to look for "company property" covers everything from a computer to papers and even 3M Post-it notes. Claiming they want to look for "contraband" doesn't fly either as that could, in their mind, justify looking for a single marijuana seed.

This becomes important. If there is an allegation that a weapon may be in the vehicle and they want to read papers in your briefcase, they have overstepped by looking in places where there is no expectation to find a weapon. Likewise, if they claim company property, then defining the size of that property before the search is important. While "company documents" might be concealed under a rear seat or under the dash, removal of either is not required to satisfy their search. Searching for a computer monitor does not require them to open a small glovebox or the ashtray.

A court would be the final arbiter in determining if a company can claim grounds for termination if you refuse to let them search a place that obviously can't contain the search-target. Likewise, consent cannot be voluntary if any threats of termination are used, including euphemisms like "disciplinary action".
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)
BillCA is offline  
Old February 24, 2009, 03:35 AM   #37
hoytinak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 5, 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,719
Quote:
I presume there is a sign on the gate that conspiciously declares that all vehicles are subject to search.
Yep sure it. Plus all hand carried items are subject to search as well. We do have a specific list of stuff we look for. We only have one officer searching the vehicle (having the driver open all the compartments themselves). If we do find "contraband" we do seize it. Say we find a camera, we don't look at the pics saved on it, we just turn it in to the plant manager, he goes through it and he deals with it as he sees fit. I personally think alot if it's BS myself but we do have alot of classified stuff inside the plant that doesn't need to get out.
__________________
"Four wheels move the body. Two wheels move the soul."
hoytinak is offline  
Old February 24, 2009, 10:07 AM   #38
Willie D
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2007
Posts: 1,116
Basically any damage caused by a firearm (intentional/unintentional) is a selective exclusion to most insurance policies. That is, insurance won't pay a dime so all financial liability rests solely on the policy holder. They could get special firearms coverage but it is prohibitively expensive. Either way the policy holder pays for your privilege to carry on their property.


Here's an interesting article on how insurance shapes carry regulations:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...ract_id=621122
Willie D is offline  
Old February 24, 2009, 10:22 AM   #39
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,852
Great informative posts, BillCA. The gist is that the company is worried about the financial impact on the corporate entity. Changes in ergonomics, etc. were only instituted because of perceived financial impact. Little has ever been done because of an altruistic view of protecting the individual or negative consequences to the individual because of care for that person or persons.

This emphasis is what leads to the 'moral' aspect of the discussion. Since their motivations are venial as compared to emphasizing the safety and health of the employee, do their policies have moral suasion. Is the need to be employed and provide for yourself and others, a greater moral purpose than complying with a venial policy?
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old February 24, 2009, 11:05 AM   #40
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,582
Quote:
What is missed here is that the employer does not pay you to follow their work rules, they pay you to do a job and perform work.

Now, your continued employment may be severed if you disobey the rule but they are not paying you to follow it.

I as an employee am not being paid to not sexually harass female employees but I might be terminated if I do it.

Therefore following company policy does not equate to getting a pay check. Performing your work does.
You may see it that way, but it is a package deal. You are paid to perform work while adhering to the guidelines of the employer. The two really are not separate.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old February 24, 2009, 11:16 AM   #41
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,852
That's why guidelines should be defined as only directly job related. Package deals involving social control should not be acceptable.

I see no theoretical or moral reason to grant employers such control except for their perceived financial risk.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old February 24, 2009, 11:57 AM   #42
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Double Naught Spy
You are paid to perform work while adhering to the guidelines of the employer. The two really are not separate.
Actually my work experience says otherwise and I tend to agree with Glenn on the venial aspects of work rules. When I sold insurance my commission was based on what I sold not whether I obeyed company rules. Even if I violated said rules and was fired the company had to pay me for the policies I sold prior to the firing.

As to the company rules, there was one rule that they had which said no personal use of the company internet. Everyone in the place (including and especially the CEO) violated that one and no one was punished. The reason they had the rule was if they caught someone looking at **** (after a complaint) they could fire them for violating the rule. This was classic CYA. So, were all the employees there dishonest and immoral

Where I have a problem with this debate is when others start inserting "morals" into it and call people "dishonest" and "con men". The fact is many of these "rules" are written with little or no intent of enforcement unless it becomes an issue.

Now, if you do carry against company policy and have a ND you will suffer, but that is true for anyone who carries and goes out into public.

Now as to BillCa's comments I find the idea that an employer can fire you because you are being stalked abhorent to the greatest degree and I think gives my argument more credence to ignoring company rules that are unfair.

Keep in mind that morals and ethics work both ways. The employer (legalities aside) have an obligation to be objectively moral as well as the employee. Remember, what is legal is not always ethcial. See the Sub-Prime Mortgage debacle. While it may be legal to do or not do certain things (like BillCA speaks of) it may well be immoral to do so.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.

Last edited by Tennessee Gentleman; February 24, 2009 at 02:21 PM. Reason: spelling
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old February 25, 2009, 09:05 AM   #43
BillCA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,089
Tennessee,

Let's not confuse legality, morality and ethics. Generally speaking, professional ethics are constrained by laws governing the profession, but may go beyond the mere letter of the law. Morality does not necessarily have a relationship to the law or ethics (i.e. in some cultures, their morals allow a husband to kill his wife for infidelity).

Corporations, by nature, have no morals. Ethics, maybe.

Your experiences and mine vary greatly. In my job (Info Systems) we have to follow not only company policies, but our own I.T. "best practices" policies as part of our employment. We are paid to know, understand, implement and follow all of the rules. Some things will get your wrist slapped (tardiness) while others can get you fired (undocumented system changes). This is especially true since Sarbanes-Oxley (SOx) laws were passed after the Enron debacle.

Companies don't necessarily care about the individual as much as they care about impacts to productivity and the bottom line. Money spent on protective/ergonomic equipment comes back to better productivity and healthier employees (who don't call in sick and don't sustain injuries on the job). Security rules exist to protect the company and their assets, one of which is their employees (collectively, not individually).

The issue of firearms in personally owned vehicles on company property touches on the "reach" of corporate rules and their ability to affect off-duty/off-premesis activities. I believe courts have already held that lawful off-duty activities that did not have a safety implication.[1] were off-limits to corporate regulation (i.e. termination for engaging in pre-marital sex or participating in skydiving) as a general rule.[2]

In "the bad old days" Henry Ford built a small town for his workers to live in. Free housing in a controlled community. Sounds nice. But.... to live and work for Ford, at that time, you had to live there. And to live there meant men could not have facial hair, no alcohol at all, no public profanity, groceries must be bought at Ford's store and your church attendance was monitored. Firearms? Let's not be silly and give the workers any such notion!

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoytinak
Plus all hand carried items are subject to search as well. We do have a specific list of stuff we look for. We only have one officer searching the vehicle (having the driver open all the compartments themselves). If we do find "contraband" we do seize it.
For employees this is probably acceptable as they will be aware of limitations as part of their employment. For visitors arriving, seizure of personal property, in many instances, constitutes theft. This is especially true if a search takes place at or near the point of "notice" being given that [some item] is prohibited.

Just out of curiosity, what does your procedure say about a visitor refusing to open... a locked suitcase? A locked case in the trunk? A gift-wrapped package? Or a tape-sealed box?

The whole issue of a personal CCW and employment becomes more complicated if we muddy the waters. Think of an "outside salesman" job, where the company provides a leased car.[3] Would the employee still be able to secure his firearm in the trunk of a company-provided lease car? What about the employee wearing his CCW while driving in different cities or areas of the state? Would either violate having the firearm "on company property"?

Footnotes:

[1] Safety exceptions such as alcohol limits for pilots, train operators, bus drivers, etc. and legal restrictions about taking certain drugs, even for illnesses.

[2] Absent a specific contract spelling out prohibited conduct away from work; e.g. so-called "morals" clauses for pubic personalities like TV anchors or reporters that prevent them from engaging in things like wet t-shirt contests at Hooters.

[3] We presume the car is leased by the company. If the company provides a fixed stipend for a leased car to the employee who then leases a car in his name only, the vehicle is still "privately-owned".
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)
BillCA is offline  
Old February 25, 2009, 09:22 AM   #44
hoytinak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 5, 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,719
Quote:
Just out of curiosity, what does your procedure say about a visitor refusing to open... a locked suitcase? A locked case in the trunk? A gift-wrapped package? Or a tape-sealed box?
If we ask (which most of the time we don't) and they refuse, they just don't get to come in the plant. Everyone coming in for a visit is aware of the procedure. If they need to visit, they must give at least 24hrs notice and once they are approved to come in they are briefed and must stay with an escort while inside.
__________________
"Four wheels move the body. Two wheels move the soul."
hoytinak is offline  
Old February 25, 2009, 12:21 PM   #45
David Armstrong
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
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.
Quote:
Try this instead:...
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.

Last edited by David Armstrong; February 25, 2009 at 12:56 PM.
David Armstrong is offline  
Old February 25, 2009, 12:28 PM   #46
David Armstrong
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
Quote:
Being unemployed during the Depression was a bad thing.
So, should it have been ok to embezzle money from your employer? Or rob a bank? AFAIK, the plea of necessity only is accepted when there is no other reasonable alternative AND the harm of not doing the act is greater than doing the act. In this case there are multiple alternatives available.

Quote:
Is the need to be employed and provide for yourself and others, a greater moral purpose than complying with a venial policy?
Come now. The "greater moral purpose" appeal has been used to justify everything from serial killing to the Crusades to shoplifting to racism to blowing up abortion clinics to picketing military funerals and so much more. The basic problem and why it is not generally considered acceptable is that each person then ends up getting to decide what constitutes a "greater moral purpose" so you might as well have no rules at all.

Last edited by David Armstrong; February 25, 2009 at 01:01 PM.
David Armstrong is offline  
Old February 25, 2009, 12:59 PM   #47
David Armstrong
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
Quote:
You are paid to perform work while adhering to the guidelines of the employer. The two really are not separate.
Exactly. If one thinks otherwise then they should not feel any need to hide their actions from the employer. That one feels a need to be deceptive about their actions is pretty much proof postive that they know what they are doing is wrong, no matter how much they try to rationalize the act.
David Armstrong is offline  
Old February 25, 2009, 02:31 PM   #48
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,852
Each person does have to decide what is greater moral purpose. The ultimate moral level is to act according to the principles of your own conscience.

Also, lying about your religion to your employer during the Depression to hoodwink a bigot isn't really analogous to embezzeling funds. That's a stretch.

If we accepted authority, we would still be singing God Save the Queen or King. Disobedience of a policy for higher moral purpose is OK with me.

So is protecting yourself a higher moral purpose equivalent to other actions - that is the issue.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old February 25, 2009, 03:53 PM   #49
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillCA
Let's not confuse legality, morality and ethics.
Good point Bill, but I see the issue as one of morality and apparently others like David Armstrong feel that way too.

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.

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillCA
Companies don't necessarily care about the individual as much as they care about impacts to productivity and the bottom line.
While corporations may not have morality I do and therefore am not immoral to protect myself while ignoring their "nonmoral" rule. I understand about best practices but that is not the issue here. What is at issue to me is whether I should follow a company rule if it will get me killed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
Also, lying about your religion to your employer during the Depression to hoodwink a bigot isn't really analogous to embezzeling funds. That's a stretch.
Glenn, glad I am not the only one who sees that fallacy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong
why it is not generally considered acceptable is that each person then ends up getting to decide what constitutes a "greater moral purpose" so you might as well have no rules at all.
And the corporation that denies your right to self defense simply to insure it's bottomline with no thought to your safety is moral? Puhleeeeze!

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong
That one feels a need to be deceptive about their actions is pretty much proof postive that they know what they are doing is wrong,
or it can mean that they are doinga more noble thing. Like some did in WWII by hiding Jews. Anyway, no deception needed, just keep your mouth shut unless they ask. BTW if you told them you were carrying and they do nothing, neither fire you nor agree. Is it moral then?
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.

Last edited by Tennessee Gentleman; February 25, 2009 at 04:04 PM.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old February 25, 2009, 05:57 PM   #50
David Armstrong
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
Quote:
Each person does have to decide what is greater moral purpose. The ultimate moral level is to act according to the principles of your own conscience.
IIRC, that is in no small part the rationalization that was used in WW2 to exterminate "inferior people".
Quote:
If we accepted authority, we would still be singing God Save the Queen or King.
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.
Quote:
Also, lying about your religion to your employer during the Depression to hoodwink a bigot isn't really analogous to embezzeling funds. That's a stretch.
Not in my book. They both amount to getting money under false pretenses. What else is it OK to lie about? If my greater moral purpose is to support my family at a higher level of compensation based on getting a degree, is it OK for me to plagiarize a paper to pass Prof. Meyer's class? 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.
Quote:
So is protecting yourself a higher moral purpose equivalent to other actions - that is the issue.
I'd disagree, as the entire "greater moral purpose" concept is unworkable in practice. The issue is simple---is the person honest and trustworthy or are they not? Does keeping ones word matter or not? If there was no alternative, then possibly one could make the case, as I mentioned earlier. But given the fact there are multiple alternatives to being dishonest, choosing to be dishonest is not a greater moral purpose IMO, it is a dishonest action based on taking the easy way out, no different than the student who chooses to dishonestly plagiarize a paper or to cheat on a test.
David Armstrong is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15258 seconds with 7 queries