The Firing Line Forums

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old October 27, 2013, 04:58 PM   #26
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 5,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manta49
I don't understand why someone would leave a job because they couldn't carry a firearm.
Maybe I didn't make it clear enough.

The business was a retail operation in a strip center located on the periphery of a VERY seedy part of the city. The store stayed open until 11:00 p.m. -- every other business in the area was closed by 10:00 p.m. They wanted me to work the closing shift -- specifically because I am male and I am a veteran, so they would not have to have females working the closing shift. (Like being a veteran made me bullet proof or something.)

So I would have been leaving the store and traversing a poorly-lit and completely deserted parking lot at 11:30 (or so), in an area with a high rate of armed robberies ... unarmed.

That just didn't fit my life plan ... so when they rejected my request to be allowed to have the means to defend myself when leaving their store at night, I quit.

I don't understand why (or what) you don't understand.

FWIW, that store has since changed its hours to close at 10:00 p.m., like most of the other businesses in the strip, so their employees are leaving at the same time as everyone else who works there.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old October 27, 2013, 05:00 PM   #27
zxcvbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,027
Manta49,
Do you realize you talked full-circle on the issue, hitting both sides about equally?
__________________
"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun"
zxcvbob is offline  
Old October 27, 2013, 05:29 PM   #28
manta49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,149
Quote:
So I would have been leaving the store and traversing a poorly-lit and completely deserted parking lot at 11:30 (or so), in an area with a high rate of armed robberies ... unarmed.

That just didn't fit my life plan ... so when they rejected my request to be allowed to have the means to defend myself when leaving their store at night, I quit.

I don't understand why (or what) you don't understand.
I think I said it depends on the situation and where you work and the risk. The point was I making is that i would not think it was sensible to leave a job on principle just because you were not allowed to carry a firearm. And I think that an employer has a right if he doesn't want firearms on his premises. As I said some here carry a firearm in work usually because where they work puts them at risk of being targeted more in the past than now but the risk is still there. And it would not be an issue here as your employer would not know you were carrying a firearm and there is requirement to inform them.

Quote:
Neither do I, it is quite simple. You had a choice to: A. Accept the terms of employment ( At possibly great personal risk to yourself ) B. Ignore the company policies and compromise your personal integrity by carrying anyway.
I understand that for me there would have to be a real risk that I would be attacked not just it could happen.

Quote:
Some of us were "raised" to believe that our own personal integrity (being honest, and able to look yourself in the mirror ) Is more important than possible financial gain.
I am not sure what that has to do with what we are talking about. I doint see how choosing to or not to carry a firearm effects someone's personal integrity. I am sure that plenty choose not to carry a firearm at work I doint think that means they lack personal integrity do you. ?

Last edited by manta49; October 27, 2013 at 05:55 PM.
manta49 is offline  
Old October 27, 2013, 05:31 PM   #29
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,134
Aguila Blanca Wrote;
Quote:
That just didn't fit my life plan ... so when they rejected my request to be allowed to have the means to defend myself when leaving their store at night, I quit.
And, rightly so. We all face choices in this life, some trivial, others monumental.

Quote:
I don't understand why (or what) you don't understand.
Neither do I, it is quite simple. You had a choice to: A. Accept the terms of employment ( At possibly great personal risk to yourself ) B. Ignore the company policies and compromise your personal integrity by carrying anyway.
Or,
C. Resign, and go home to plan a new strategy ( and maintain your integrity )

I believe your decision was the correct one and , shows good character, IMO

manta49 wrote;

Quote:
The point was I making is that i would not think it was sensible to leave a job on principle just because you were not allowed to carry a firearm.
Some of us were "raised" to believe that our own personal integrity (being honest, and able to look yourself in the mirror ) Is more important than possible financial gain.
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood

Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska -

Last edited by OuTcAsT; October 27, 2013 at 05:36 PM. Reason: ETA
OuTcAsT is offline  
Old October 27, 2013, 08:38 PM   #30
zxcvbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,027
Quote:
Neither do I, it is quite simple. You had a choice to: A. Accept the terms of employment ( At possibly great personal risk to yourself ) B. Ignore the company policies and compromise your personal integrity by carrying anyway.
How is B a compromise of your personal integrity if you acknowledge that "these are the rules" and you accept the consequences of breaking them? A lack of integrity might be to break the rules and then expect special treatment if you get caught...

Or to *follow* a rule that you think is immoral -- the ethical issue then becomes whether it's okay to just ignore the rule or whether you must take a stand. These are all personal questions.

Keep in mind that big companies have no ethics -- and in many cases, the people running the companies have no ethics either. They will try to use your integrity against you if you let them.
__________________
"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun"
zxcvbob is offline  
Old October 27, 2013, 11:43 PM   #31
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 10,624
seems to be different things getting mixed together here....

Nobody say "I need a gun at work, because my job be that dangerous"
(or did I miss that?)

Some want to carry, for the unexpected.
Some feel a need to carry, because they expect risk.
Risk going home after work (late night, bad neighborhood, etc.)

Boss say no gun on premises. Don't feel good leaving it in the car (plus risk between work and car).

Solution set:
no gun (boss happy you at risk)
gun left in car (boss not know, him happy, you still at risk, plus risk of gun being stolen. Not good)
You carry (boss not know, him happy. Boss know, you fired)
You find other work (boss not care much, if any, you better off, hopefully)

I think the integrity issue is not about disobeying an immoral (in your view) order, but about whether or not you lie about disobeying it. And I think that also includes lying to yourself.

There are situations where lying is necessary for safety and survival. I don't find it unethical to do so, if you are in one of these situations, provided you don't lie to yourself about what you are doing, and why.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old October 28, 2013, 12:12 AM   #32
Koda94
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2012
Location: Oregon
Posts: 325
gotta say I have to admire any man that chooses integrity with hardship over profitability, don't see that much in America. Salute.
__________________
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2
Koda94 is offline  
Old October 28, 2013, 01:57 PM   #33
spacemanspiff
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2002
Location: alaska
Posts: 3,108
Quote:
If there is a company policy against weapons, and you know this, and carry anyway, you are indeed dishonest and, have no integrity.
So many ways one could argue against this particular statement. Where to begin?
How about, it all depends on what the individuals conscience interprets as 'moral'.

Secondary argument, breaking a policy is not like breaking a law. Losing a job over a decision to not abide by a policy does not equate to facing criminal charges for violating a law.
__________________
"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 October 28, 2013, 02:34 PM   #34
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,114
Interesting debate as it lays out different views of moral action.

Following orders even if you think they are immoral is viewed by some as higher morality than ignoring such. It is your duty to obey such.

Others would disagree.

One can play the counterfactual game with ease to show that blanket statements are really not that useful.

You have a job - in tough times to give it up would starve your family.
Your job is in a dangerous location (A stop and rob) but it has an antigun policy.
If you get shot, your family starves.

What is moral then? Easy to say show your integrity and starve. Or perhaps the firm that denied you protection is immoral? Their goal was simply liability control.
__________________
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 October 28, 2013, 02:39 PM   #35
Koda94
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2012
Location: Oregon
Posts: 325
What is the liability behind these workplace policies, can a company really be sued for NOT having a gun free policy?
__________________
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2
Koda94 is offline  
Old October 28, 2013, 02:47 PM   #36
spacemanspiff
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2002
Location: alaska
Posts: 3,108
Liability....
Banning weapons in the workplace is a 'feel-good measure'. A companys insurance policy may not cover injuries or fatalities to an employee caused from violence stemming from a coworkers actions. That doesn't mean the business is not liable, it just means insurance might not cover the losses.
__________________
"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 October 28, 2013, 02:57 PM   #37
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,114
There's been law articles back and forth about whether employee carry puts the company at risk.

I don't think it has been tested with a real incident yet.

Probably because so many places don't have a procarry policy.

We have discussed that most legal scholarship think a company is not responsible for banning carry and then you get hurt. You claim you could have commando'ed the situation and saved the day. That hasn't been tested either. While Spats and Frank can comment - IIRC - the rationale is the fault accrues to the evil actor as causal agent. The tie is too indirect for the company to be blamed. There are precedents for this analysis in nongun cases.

But not my area.
__________________
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 October 28, 2013, 03:07 PM   #38
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 9,483
Quote:
What is the liability behind these workplace policies, can a company really be sued for NOT having a gun free policy?
As Glenn pointed out, we simply have no precedent for that. I doubt a court would find an employer liable.

Now, that said, let's consider an example on the other side of the spectrum. An employer allows or encourages employee carry on the job. Imagine Bob running the cash register on third shift.

One night, there's an incident. Some guy drives off without paying for his gas or runs off with a case of beer. Bob shoots the guy. The guy sues.

Now the employer could suffer serious liability. There would be claims of negligence. Bob wasn't trained or vetted by an accredited security agency or state body. Bob didn't take a psych eval. Yet the employer let this loose cannon carry a firearm on the job, with (it could be argued by some lawyers) an implicit mandate to keep the peace or protect assets.

There could also be claims that the employer put Bob in harm's way because he didn't want to pay for real security.

So, yeah, there are real pressures for employers not to allow carry that have nothing to do with them wanting to trample our god-given rights.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old October 28, 2013, 03:24 PM   #39
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 5,959
There is another aspect to the (perceived) morality.immorality of acknowledging a company's anti-gun policy and then willfully violating it while continuing to work there. In many discussions on many "gun" forums, discussions often devolve into, "If you're so pro-gun, what are you doing to advance the cause?"

I respectfully submit that this is a consideration that applies here.

Megacorp has a strict anti-gun policy. Al Norris reads the policy, signs a document acknowledging that he has read it (but not that he agrees to follow it), and starts working for Megacorp. Megacorp is happy, because Al Norris acknowledged their policy. Now, no matter what happens, they win. If there are no incidents, they have no liability for or to anyone, so they don't really care if Al Norris is ignoring the policy on a daily basis.

Al Norris is happy, as long as there are no incidents, because he has a job and an income, and he has his weapon. However, if there should be an incident, Al Norris will probably lose his job, lose his income, and his employment record may show future prospective employers that he was terminated for willful violation of a known company policy. Win for Al Norris if nothing bad happens, LOSE for Al Norris if something bad happens.

Let's examine the apparent win-win side. The company has its signed piece of paper, and Al Norris has his gun. Everybody's happy. BUT ... how does this further to fight against such immoral policies? Answer -- it doesn't. The company doesn't even know that Al Norris secretly objects to their policy, because he ain't talkin', he be packin'. Nothing is gained.

On the other hand, if all prospective employees who object to such policies were to vote with their feet, companies might begin to wake up to the recognition that they are giving up qualified employees over a basically useless, feel-good, CYA policy that ultimately accomplishes nothing in terms of promoting workplace safety.

In my specific case, the company had invested time by the branch manager to advertise the position, time for the manager AND assistant manager to interview and hire me, and staff and management time to train me. The company PAID me for a full week of training time, in which I performed virtually no actual work. And then I quit. Did they reverse their policy because l'il ole me quit over the gun issue? Nope. But it wasn't too long afterwards that they cut the hours back to close at 10:00 p.m., like the rest of the businesses in the area. So perhaps I had some, small positive effect. If numbers of people were to begin "pushing back" when asked to sign such policies, perhaps there would be some changes.

If we don't push back ... we'll never know.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old October 28, 2013, 03:53 PM   #40
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 17,488
Carry at Work

A person might say that the breach of integrity in such a situation is less serious than the consequences of not violating your integrity but I think the attempt to argue that it's NOT a breach of integrity must stem from some level of subconscious guilt/awareness acknowledging that it IS a breach of integrity and an attempt to assuage that guilt.

It is by definition a breach of integrity. It really can't be argued. Integrity is oneness, consistency. It is inconsistent to say that you will follow a rule and then not follow it. Justification is different than "not".

Some breaches of integrity are understandable, even *required* by a "higher" moral choice. The Jews in WWII as an example, there are many others too.

Justification is a separate argument. Saying its not a violation of integrity is silly, IMO.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old October 28, 2013, 04:10 PM   #41
manta49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,149
I would look at it from a risk point of view and not some rights protest. You are much more likely to be killed in a work related accident than not having a firearm. If your workplace is the army then having a firearm is a good idea if you work in Disney land I don't think it would be as important.

Quote:
Worker Injuries, illnesses and fatalities

4,609 workers were killed on the job in 2011 (3.5 per 100,000 full-time equivalent workers)—almost 90 a week or nearly 13 deaths every day.
manta49 is offline  
Old October 28, 2013, 05:23 PM   #42
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 9,483
Quote:
On the other hand, if all prospective employees who object to such policies were to vote with their feet, companies might begin to wake up to the recognition that they are giving up qualified employees over a basically useless, feel-good, CYA policy that ultimately accomplishes nothing in terms of promoting workplace safety.
As others have mentioned, we're not exactly in a booming job market, and things are tough all around. For any decent job, there are going to be a numerous applicants. If I'm the hiring manager for a company, and Bob makes a stink out of the no-guns policy, I'm probably going to pass him over for another applicant with similar qualifications.

Walkouts wouldn't work either. There just aren't enough of us in a position to have an impact on corporations or human resource departments to the point they question their policies. In fact, many would simply say, "well, Bob seemed like a bad apple anyway. We're best rid of him."

The antis beat us to the punch with this 25 years or so ago. They convinced human resources types that a gun in the workplace is a ticking time bomb. How do we reverse that? I'm not sure, but a change in perception like that will likely be slow and on a case-by-case basis.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old October 28, 2013, 05:47 PM   #43
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,114
Tom is correct - look at the demographics and numbers of CC types. The numbers are not impressive to an employer.
__________________
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 October 28, 2013, 06:56 PM   #44
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,134
44AMP Wrote;
Quote:
I think the integrity issue is not about disobeying an immoral (in your view) order, but about whether or not you lie about disobeying it. And I think that also includes lying to yourself.
This is the point. If you cannot be true to yourself, then you have no "moral compass" by which to gauge any other "moral" issue.
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood

Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska -
OuTcAsT is offline  
Old October 28, 2013, 08:44 PM   #45
BigD_in_FL
Junior member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: The "Gunshine State"
Posts: 1,982
IF you choose to go to work for a company and they have rules - no matter the subject matter - then you need to obey them. NO one held a gun to your head and said you must work for them - if they have rules you just can't live with, you are free to go to work elsewhere

This is no different if they prohibit sandals and mandate steel-toed shoes instead, or say no drinking on the job or they won't hire a smoker - their house, their rules. Don't like them? Go elsewhere or start your own business
BigD_in_FL is offline  
Old October 28, 2013, 10:40 PM   #46
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 5,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
As others have mentioned, we're not exactly in a booming job market, and things are tough all around. For any decent job, there are going to be a numerous applicants. If I'm the hiring manager for a company, and Bob makes a stink out of the no-guns policy, I'm probably going to pass him over for another applicant with similar qualifications.

Walkouts wouldn't work either. There just aren't enough of us in a position to have an impact on corporations or human resource departments to the point they question their policies. In fact, many would simply say, "well, Bob seemed like a bad apple anyway. We're best rid of him."
Tom, you are probably 100 percent correct. That said ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edmund Burke
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shakespeare
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theodore Roosevelt
Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat.
In other words -- ya can't win if ya don't even try.

Nonetheless, I completely recognize that whether or not to quit (or decline) a paying job over a matter of principle is a highly personal decision. Which means, for those who would not have chosen as I did, that my decision may be different from yours but that doesn't make my decision "wrong."
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old October 28, 2013, 11:05 PM   #47
WyMark
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 10, 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 199
I guess I think the whole notion that a policy that you personally define as "immoral" is therefore one that you can simply ignore is flat out ridiculous. It's disingenuous and hypocritical and you are lying to yourself to rationalize your own immoral behavior. It is, simply, a complete and total lack of personal integrity.

I can't carry at work, therefore I don't. I don't like the policy, and want to change it. But I won't just ignore it simply because I think I have some moral high ground and am doing the "right" thing. If I couldn't abide by the policy of my workplace, I'd find somewhere else to work. I guess it's a personal integrity thing, and I don't try to bend the definition of honesty and integrity to meet my peculiar definition of morality.
WyMark is offline  
Old October 28, 2013, 11:24 PM   #48
Koda94
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2012
Location: Oregon
Posts: 325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
As Glenn pointed out, we simply have no precedent for that. I doubt a court would find an employer liable.

Now, that said, let's consider an example on the other side of the spectrum. An employer allows or encourages employee carry on the job. Imagine Bob running the cash register on third shift.
I should clarify my original question, there are lots of ways to write a workplace violence policy that does not have to specifically allow or encourage carrying weapons nor specifically prohibit it. Its really about safety here and any action that can be deemed unsafe, dangerous, threatening can be cause for termination which can even include "displaying or use of weapons". There are lots of ways to write the policy.

Quote:
As others have mentioned, we're not exactly in a booming job market, and things are tough all around. For any decent job, there are going to be a numerous applicants. If I'm the hiring manager for a company, and Bob makes a stink out of the no-guns policy, I'm probably going to pass him over for another applicant with similar qualifications.
This is where I land in this whole scenario. A bit over a year ago I was laid off due to a budget cut. I saw it coming and was somewhat prepared and got by but my job search was depressing but I got one and was oh so thankful to sign the gun free zone policy. I didn't have to lose my home in fact making more money than the last job we've pulled ahead and I can provide for my family. FWIW I follow the policy but not so much for my integrity as it is I cant afford to not work right now... I'm not in a position to challenge the situation.
__________________
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2
Koda94 is offline  
Old October 29, 2013, 06:59 AM   #49
GEARHEAD_ENG
Member
 
Join Date: September 3, 2013
Posts: 20
Re: Carry at Work

We had an issue at a place I used to work where a woman's estranged husband threatened to come into her work and shoot everyone. There wasn't a no-gun policy at the time (I think they still allow conseal carry actually) . One of the employees had some family "connections" who pulls in with a black Lincoln and armed everyone in the building (think we had about 40 employees at the time). That's one way to prevent mass shootings.

Last edited by GEARHEAD_ENG; October 29, 2013 at 07:39 AM.
GEARHEAD_ENG is online now  
Old October 29, 2013, 11:36 AM   #50
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 9,483
Quote:
One of the employees had some family "connections" who pulls in with a black Lincoln and armed everyone in the building
I don't think that's really a practical option for other companies and situations.

If just one of those employees had an ND, shot the wrong person, or shot for the wrong reasons, the owner and the driver of the Lincoln could have been held criminally liable. That is the exact situation corporations had in mind when they passed policies banning guns.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Closed Thread

Tags
carry at work cothran

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 05:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2013 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15735 seconds with 7 queries