February 23, 2009, 01:12 PM | #26 | |
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
|
Quote:
Last edited by David Armstrong; February 23, 2009 at 01:19 PM. |
|
February 23, 2009, 01:50 PM | #27 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
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. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
February 23, 2009, 03:45 PM | #28 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Quote:
You see, it works both ways and if it only goes one way then it is immoral and unfair. Quote:
__________________
"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. |
|||
February 23, 2009, 04:04 PM | #29 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,720
|
Quote:
__________________
"Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth |
|
February 23, 2009, 04:18 PM | #30 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: In a state of flux
Posts: 7,520
|
Quote:
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 |
|
February 23, 2009, 04:48 PM | #31 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,970
|
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.
|
February 23, 2009, 04:50 PM | #32 |
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.
|
February 23, 2009, 05:16 PM | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 16, 2002
Location: alaska
Posts: 3,498
|
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 |
February 24, 2009, 12:44 AM | #34 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
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. |
|
February 24, 2009, 02:53 AM | #35 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,117
|
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
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) |
February 24, 2009, 03:24 AM | #36 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,117
|
Quote:
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) |
|
February 24, 2009, 03:35 AM | #37 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 5, 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,721
|
Quote:
|
|
February 24, 2009, 10:07 AM | #38 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 24, 2007
Posts: 1,149
|
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 |
February 24, 2009, 10:22 AM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
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. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
February 24, 2009, 11:05 AM | #40 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,714
|
Quote:
__________________
"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 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
|
February 24, 2009, 11:16 AM | #41 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
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. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
February 24, 2009, 11:57 AM | #42 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
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 porn (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 |
|
February 25, 2009, 09:05 AM | #43 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,117
|
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:
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) |
|
February 25, 2009, 09:22 AM | #44 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 5, 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,721
|
Quote:
|
|
February 25, 2009, 12:21 PM | #45 | |||
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by David Armstrong; February 25, 2009 at 12:56 PM. |
|||
February 25, 2009, 12:28 PM | #46 | ||
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
|
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by David Armstrong; February 25, 2009 at 01:01 PM. |
||
February 25, 2009, 12:59 PM | #47 | |
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
|
Quote:
|
|
February 25, 2009, 02:31 PM | #48 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
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. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
February 25, 2009, 03:53 PM | #49 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"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. |
|||||
February 25, 2009, 05:57 PM | #50 | ||||
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|