The Firing Line Forums

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old October 29, 2013, 06:23 PM   #51
RX-79G
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 27, 2013
Posts: 1,139
While I understand all the arguments offered, I'm perplexed why the word "morality" is thrown around. Morals are personal - you might share them with other people in your culture, but they are yours alone to have and either adhere to or violate. If you don't think what you're doing is immoral, it isn't.

Integrity speaks more to the problem - if you imply that you are going to follow a set of rules and you don't, then anyone who questions your integrity wouldn't be wrong.

I don't think it makes sense with something like violating rules (or even laws) to worry about what that says about you as a person. Your feelings on the matter trump anyone else's. If you have a good reason to break the rules and are okay with the consequences of doing so, that's all that needs to be said.

Most of what I've read in this thread are justifications for breaking the rules. Either break the rules and live with that, or don't. Attempting to justify it won't change what you've done or change a bad decision into a good one because you've played a philosophical game in your mind.



As far as Aguila's experience goes, it sounds like he's the victim of gender discrimination, being forced to work at a more dangerous hour than his female colleagues. That's illegal.
RX-79G is offline  
Old October 29, 2013, 09:21 PM   #52
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,539
Quote:
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.
So I suppose abolitionists were immoral and lacking in personal integrity when they ran the underground railroad before the Civil War in violation of the laws of slave holding states?

I am not going to turn this into a religious discussion but think about religious leaders who broke laws for justifiable reasons. If you're Christian, think of Jesus breaking a good number of laws, such as healing on the Sabbath.

While I am a "rules follower" by nature, there are times when breaking rules is justified. The law even acknowledges this. Breaking the speed limit to get someone in cardiac arrest to a hospital justifies the violation. Self-defense is another form of justification.

Now, I do think that agreeing to a policy and then violating it is normally an integrity issue. You are giving your word and then breaking it. However, merely acknowledging that you have received notice of an employer's policy does not mean you have given your word to follow it. Of course, you have to live with the consequences if you violate it.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Old October 29, 2013, 09:32 PM   #53
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,232
Quote:
Morals are personal - you might share them with other people in your culture, but they are yours alone to have and either adhere to or violate. If you don't think what you're doing is immoral, it isn't.
So what word do you use to describe the commonly held values of a society or group? Things like rape, murder, child molestation, etc., are considered immoral by most of us, hence their illegality. SO if you feel morals are personal, only, what tern do you use for the group "morality"?

Quote:
I don't think it makes sense with something like violating rules (or even laws) to worry about what that says about you as a person. Your feelings on the matter trump anyone else's. If you have a good reason to break the rules and are okay with the consequences of doing so, that's all that needs to be said.
I believe the word often used to describe a person like you just did is sociopath. I may be wrong on the word, but behavior like what you describe is classic, the basic justification for all criminal, and immoral acts. "I can do what ever I want, because I want, and I'm ok with that" is the rule of the jungle, is it not?
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old October 30, 2013, 12:51 AM   #54
RX-79G
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 27, 2013
Posts: 1,139
44Amp,

Ah, no. I wasn't suggesting that everyone do whatever you want. But very few individuals share identical mores of behavior or their reasons for having them.

My post was to point out that the choices you make are your own. No appeal to a higher "moral power" absolves you of that responsibility.

I'm much more disturbed by people who break the rules using some convenient philosophy to dump the blame on.

Rigid morals are a crutch for people who can't decide right from wrong on their own. Sociopaths don't care about doing right at all.
RX-79G is offline  
Old October 30, 2013, 01:20 AM   #55
Gbnk82
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2013
Location: Florida
Posts: 288
Depends on the work envirnment imo..if you work in a large office in a nice area and have nothing worth taking (i.e money valuables goods) then why not obey there policy leave it in your car and dont risk your job..on the other hand if you work graveyard at a convienent store in a bad neighborhood i say to hell with there policy id rather be alive and unemployed than dead knowing atleast i "followed the rules". All in all though if you can legally carry and choose to at work more power to you you are not breaking any laws.
Gbnk82 is offline  
Old October 30, 2013, 08:20 AM   #56
zxcvbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,155
Quote:
I believe the word often used to describe a person like you just did is sociopath. I may be wrong on the word, but behavior like what you describe is classic, the basic justification for all criminal, and immoral acts. "I can do what ever I want, because I want, and I'm ok with that" is the rule of the jungle, is it not?
I left a reply to this last night and it's gone now; not sure why it was deleted.

You left out the part where the one ignoring the rule is okay with accepting the consequences. There is a proud history of civil disobedience in this country, and I find your use of the word "sociopath" offensive in this context.
__________________
"Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward." --Thoreau
zxcvbob is offline  
Old October 30, 2013, 08:46 AM   #57
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by RX-79G
Rigid morals are a crutch for people who can't decide right from wrong on their own.
No, that describes rigid adherence to rules or laws, not rigid morals. The fact that someone may have stricter or laxer morals than you doesn't mean that person either can't decide right from wrong on his/her own, or has no moral compass whatsoever ... it only means that person has chosen differently from you.

Regardless of how strict your moral code is, a personal moral code is based in personal choice and is not backed by force of any law (although it may or may not coincide closely with adopted law. It may also be stricter than adopted law). On the other hand, abdicating decision and just following the laws because it's easier than making a morality-based value judgment (example: zero tolerance school rules that punish the victim of an assault as severely as the assailant) is a crutch.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old October 30, 2013, 09:07 AM   #58
bt380
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 14, 2012
Posts: 331
When you hire in, you accept the conditions. If you accept the conditions, it is your responsibility to abide by them. You will know within a few weeks whether or not you want to keep the job or move on.
-
The rub is having a job and then a new wave of managers come in and makes new rules. Once again the decision to leave is still there, but now the loss of time, any pay raises, and potential retirement pensions com into play.
-
If you get caught violating company policy, you end up fired (lost pension). You lose a paycheck instantly and have to deal with rent, etc You may have a record which will prevent future good jobs. You will have to go thru hoops to get unemployment, which they may deny.
-
Lots of variable to consider. Consider where you work. If they tend to have shootings, you may want to leave anyway. If they have never had a shooting, may be adjust perspective and go with the odds. The odds are safe at work than on the road that we take for granite every time use a cell phone, go over the limit, etc etc. Pick anything else we do and apply the same logic.
-
If married, X10 the effects of violating policy. If kids, X100. If both, really evaluate the need and maybe suck it up.
-
I use to be an emt after I retired from the military, you are placed in crazy situations some times because or you and your partner missed the clues, you hope you get out safe. No guns there either. Think of the number of crazy people out there an why you carry and try to avoid those places. The medics go into that frequently with "THOSE" people.
bt380 is offline  
Old October 30, 2013, 10:56 AM   #59
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,630
I might suggest that the views of moral theory expressed here are folk wisdom. There is a philosophical and psychological literature on morality.

A few reads into Wikipedia might focus the folk theories. It is easy to say you would do XY or Z. It is also well known that verbal expression of moral virtue may have little correlation with actual behavior.
__________________
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 30, 2013, 11:34 AM   #60
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,079
If you work for a company then be loyal to that organization. If you cannot abide by the company rules then quit.

After repeated warnings, i fired two employees of my company for carrying concealed weapons on US Army bases against the rules. Those guys jeopardized my contracts with the US Army.
thallub is offline  
Old October 30, 2013, 12:59 PM   #61
Koda94
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2012
Location: Oregon
Posts: 386
Lets not lose sight of the moral responsibility of the company. If they want to strip the right for their employee to take responsibility of their own peraonal safety then dont they have a moral obligation to provide that safety not just at work but to and from?

We can debate our individual moral and integrity but where is the companies?
__________________
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2
Koda94 is offline  
Old October 30, 2013, 01:59 PM   #62
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,630
Companies and institutions have responsibility for the survival and success of the corporate or institutional structure over that of the individuals who work for it.

What else is new?

It is very easy to say Quit. That's why these internet moral debates can be silly.

Let me give you real corporate circumstances that I know of personally.

It is the Depression - jobs are scarce.

A company will not hire you because of your religion. Thus, you fake membership in a church to get the job. Your other choice - starve.

Your company demands that you join a particular political party to keep your job. Your choice in the Depression - starve.

Thus, be a moral tough guy and watch those dependent on you go down the economic drain because of a company policy which is seen by many as controlling or immoral.

Note the policy was just social tyranny and had no effect on company success.

Thus, I repeat that this 'moral' preaching is a particular stage of moral beliefs in a more complex set of decisions.

You can go sell Apples on the corner and proclaim that on the Internet if we ever get to that extreme circumstance.
__________________
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 30, 2013, 03:44 PM   #63
Koda94
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2012
Location: Oregon
Posts: 386
Then weve lost the same battle
__________________
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2
Koda94 is offline  
Old October 30, 2013, 04:34 PM   #64
BobCat45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 2004
Location: East Bernard, TX
Posts: 178
Company Policy

Electronics technician in his lab lamented to me that HSE had come by and confiscated his X-acto knife. It was "theirs" to confiscate, supplied and owned by the Company. New policy was that X-acto knives are banned company-wide.

Turns out someone at another plant had sustained a puncture wound in a finger from a sharp X-acto knife, failed to clean the puncture wound adequately, it got infected, almost lost the finger. X-acto knives banned at all plants, in production and in labs.

This guy needs to use an X-acto knife in his work. He went and bought one, brought it to work, uses it as needed, and hides it in his desk when he is not using it.

Company knew this would be the outcome - but if he ever cuts himself, they are covered because "we banned those knives company-wide in 2012."

So is he immoral or unethical for violating company policy? Just to do his job?
__________________
Retractable claws - the *original* concealed carry

http://www.bayourifles.org
TinyURL.com/qgdojvh
BobCat45 is offline  
Old October 30, 2013, 05:14 PM   #65
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,225
Quote:
Then weve lost the same battle
What "battle?" As long as one person has paid another for services, there has been some element of compromise.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old October 30, 2013, 05:29 PM   #66
born2climb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 17, 2013
Posts: 140
My brother-in-law works at a plant that has the panty-waist "no gun" policy. I told him there is mo way I'd take my gun out of the truck just to drive to work. I'd quit first...but I'd prolly just keep it in there and not mention it. Your vehicle is an extension of your home, and they have NO RIGHT telling employees what they can or cannot have in their vehicle.
__________________
Don't invest in idiots....the market's flooded!!!
born2climb is offline  
Old October 30, 2013, 05:29 PM   #67
Koda94
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2012
Location: Oregon
Posts: 386
Self defense is a civil right.
__________________
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2
Koda94 is offline  
Old October 30, 2013, 05:59 PM   #68
WyMark
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 10, 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 226
Quote:
Your vehicle is an extension of your home, and they have NO RIGHT telling employees what they can or cannot have in their vehicle.
Sounds like the hard way to learn more about criminal trespass laws, but to each their own.
WyMark is offline  
Old October 30, 2013, 06:06 PM   #69
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,539
Slight detour:
Quote:
Company knew this would be the outcome - but if he ever cuts himself, they are covered because "we banned those knives company-wide in 2012."
Depends on state law but there's a good chance it would still be covered by worker's compensation. For example, someone injured during "horseplay" may not be covered but if the company tolerates horseplay, then an injured employee is probably covered. YMMV.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Old October 30, 2013, 06:53 PM   #70
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by born2climb
...Your vehicle is an extension of your home, and they have NO RIGHT telling employees what they can or cannot have in their vehicle.
Do you have any proper, legal authority? The Utah Supreme Court ruled otherwise. See Hansen v. America Online, Inc., 2004 UT 62, 96 P.3d 950 (Utah, 2004) upholding AOL's firing of three employees for violating the company's "no gun" policy by having guns in their cars on company property. (The Utah legislature later changed the law.)
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old October 30, 2013, 07:26 PM   #71
Joespapa
Member
 
Join Date: September 30, 2012
Posts: 17
Carry at Work

There is really only one thing to consider:
Why does anyone carry a firearm?
Nuff said!
Joespapa is offline  
Old October 30, 2013, 07:26 PM   #72
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,225
Quote:
Do you have any proper, legal authority?
More to the point, do we have precedence for the phrase "extension of the home?"

Quote:
I'd quit first...but I'd prolly just keep it in there and not mention it.
Again, if you have that luxury in this job market, many people would envy you. Everyone else must play a balancing act. It may be more virtuous of me to stand my ground and get fired. Of course, that may put me in a position of being unable to provide for my family and collecting public assistance.

Explaining to the folks in the unemployment office that I simply won't accept work with a company that doesn't respect my right to keep and bear arms at all times could also be a bit of a challenge.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old October 30, 2013, 07:40 PM   #73
BigD_in_FL
Junior member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: The "Gunshine State"
Posts: 1,981
Their house, THEIR rules - don't like them? Go elsewhere. If you cannot be trusted as an employee to follow company policy, then I would have zero use for you as an employee.

If I cannot trust you to follow the rules without me searching you or your vehicle then why should I employ you?

Character is doing the right thing, even when no one is watching

That said, with a few exceptions, it is illegal in Florida for an employer to prevent a gun locked in a car, but carrying INSIDE the building is easily prohibited
BigD_in_FL is offline  
Old October 30, 2013, 09:09 PM   #74
zxcvbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,155
Quote:
Character is doing the right thing, even when no one is watching
Funny how that only applies to the employees.

Quote:
If you work for a company then be loyal to that organization.
That too. Maybe *especially* that.
__________________
"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun"
zxcvbob is offline  
Old October 30, 2013, 10:07 PM   #75
born2climb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 17, 2013
Posts: 140
I can only say that this country would never have been founded if everyone were so concerned with "following the rules"...

In reply to several points...
"If I cannot trust you to follow the rules without me searching you or your vehicle then why should I employ you?"...Why do you need me to be unarmed? What is it hurting for honest men to have firearms in their vehicles? The bad guys certainly aren't overly concerned with following these rules.

"Character is doing the right thing, even when no one is watching"...The "right" thing is often VERY different from different perspectives.

Then again, maybe the 2nd is not as precious as we thought it was. Maybe it can be interpreted away like just so much ink on paper...
__________________
Don't invest in idiots....the market's flooded!!!
born2climb 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 10:35 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 0.14244 seconds with 7 queries