Carrying At Work

[David Armstrong]

Quote:
Violating company policy while at work is dishonest. Stealing, smoking, dress code, hygiene, behavior, etc are not protected by the constitution however. Carrying a gun is. No entity shall make rules or laws that violate the constitution. Getting folks to agree to having their constitutional rights violated in exchange for employment doesn't make the constitutional violation less a violation.

There is some truth to that but I'm not sure it applies to guns or SD weapons in general. The difference, IMO, is implicit and explicit laws. The right to self defense, to carry at all times as desired, is IMPLIED in 2A.

More than just implicit and explicit laws, there is the basic constitutional concept that it is a restriction on GOVERNMENT, not private citizens. Carrying a gun at work is no more protected than is free speech, search and seizure, due process, and so on while at work.

FYI: The Constitution has nothing to do with a contract between private parties. You have no more right under the COTUS to call your boss a retarded pot bellied ape and remain employed than the landscaper mowing your lawn has the right to do the same to you and remain employed.

Exactly.

[longcoldwinter]

Let me sum up the view most employers take with reguard to employee safety.

1)You work to make me money, your safety does not matter unless one of the following applies.
a) a government agency with the power to acess fines makes me take steps to provide for your safety.
b) working conditions are so obviously hazardous I can't find anyone to work.
c) you have a union which forces me to take action to provide for your safety
d) I keep getting sued which costs me money.
e) it costs me too much money to replace you

2)If you die by third party action I dont care, if you die, I am only out the cost it took to train you. If you defend yourself, I could be sued which will cost me many times the money I have invested in you.

Employer-Employee relationships are all about money very little honor or moral fiber involved IMHO

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Exactly, the point about the Constitution is not understood by some in this debate. That's why specific legislation is needed to control conditions on the workplace scene.

I support such legislation for the workplace and for businesses open to the public except for demonstrated technical risks.

Now, folks will argue that it is their private property but if you hire others and do business with the public, that doesn't fly for me.

[Musketeer]

Exactly, the point about the Constitution is not understood by some in this debate. That's why specific legislation is needed to control conditions on the workplace scene.

Well Glenn, I applaud your understanding the COTUS. I wish more did.

The idea though that the gov't should pass more laws controlling what I allow in my property is abhorrent though. Mind you that I think that laws banning racial, sexual and religious discrimination in the private workplace are also wrong. By no means do I support such practices, I just do not think the Gov't has any business tell a private citizen who they can or have to engage in a private contract with. Once that starts the line begins to form over who gets the special treatment.

Blacks, fine.
Jews, alright.
Gays, we'll go for this one.
Satanists, huh?
Transgender individuals demanding their own bathrooms at work, your kidding?
Balding pot bellied men looking to be Hooters "girls", see the problem?

The only way NOT to slide to the bottom of that slippery slope is to realize gov't shouldn't be standing on it to begin with.

Like I said, I respect your understanding of the COTUS, and I even see the very real reasons you feel gov't involvement in private matters might be justified. I just cannot accept the cost of letting "Dracula into your house" that happens when you start letting the gov't regulate who you can do business with.

[Musketeer]

Now, folks will argue that it is their private property but if you hire others and do business with the public, that doesn't fly for me.

The thing is I do not intend to do business with "the public." I choose to do business with the private citizens I so choose to deal with. I have yet to see a credit card or check which states "Public" for the name.

If you want to tie this to the expenditure of gov't funds you can, but when everything is private the gov't should be OUT.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

2)If you die by third party action I dont care, if you die, I am only out the cost it took to train you. If you defend yourself, I could be sued which will cost me many times the money I have invested in you.

Employer-Employee relationships are all about money very little honor or moral fiber involved IMHO

EXACTLY! They don't pay you to follow their rules. They pay you to make money for them. I don't think most of them care that you carry as long as they don't get sued!

Tying this argument to honor or honesty is disingenious at best, dumb at worst.

[Edward429451]

My position is simple: If you voluntarily agree to behave in a certain manner for purposes of getting something of value, then hiding the fact that you are violating that agreement and taking the full value as agreed on is dishonest

I think your analogy of dishonest for carryin vs an employer being dishonest about your pay or benefits is a logical fallacy. When an employee is hired it's to work and make money for the company, not to not carry a gun.

When an employee shows up covertly armed, what is he seeking to take? Nothing. If he can keep that pistol hidden lke a good pocketwatch or his wallet, and still perform his job and deliver productivity to the employer, then the employer has lost nothing.

If an employer cuts down your pay without your knowledge, that is clearly dishonest and it takes from the employee.

This is clearly a situational ethics question and there isn't a free lunch. If the employer seeks to make policy (aside from work & productivity) which would / could affect the employees personal life, then it's a bargain of sorts. "Will you not bring your gun to work?" "What benefit do I receive in exchange for this behavior?"

!! Well it's either we will protect you, or, nothing. If there's no value in the bargain and maybe a real danger also...People will vote their conscience for a perceived greater value of personal safety.

If you think this is a rationalization to be able to break the rules.....then you are on the other side of the spectrum obsessing over the letter of the rules, as if the only thing that matters is the letter of the contract. Kinda how most cops obsess over the letter of the law. There's law, and there's life. Simple sit ethic question. If he wont provide protection then do I still carry? He has his reasons, good ones. I have my reasons, also good ones. Yes I will and accept the consequences. That is not dishonest, I will still be productive and work so deserve full value for my work.

I love being self employed.

[.300H&H]

I worked at a company that as a matter of policy forbade all weapons<including nonlethal ones>...


Not necessarily a bad policy - BUT when leaving work at 2am after counting out a few $1000 dollars...and walking across the dark wide open parking lot where there has been a shooting and carjacking...well, one realizes the company would rather send flowers to my funeral and help with my eulogy than insure my safety.


Most workers in America hang up their constitutional rights on the wall when they enter their employer's domain. Real free speech and real freedom of expression, fly out the window. The 2nd Amend. flies out the window too.
We take our own chances. We pay our own dues. Life can be unfair.


My former employer also had the 'policy' of being able to search an employee's locker at anytime for any reason. Yeah it's unconstitutional, but arguing the constitution is also grounds for dismissal. I carried anyway and my former employer never knew it...but I certainly don't recommend such dastardly violations of company policies. I do, however, understand and appreciate such dastardly violations of company policies.


As far as laws and the idea of higher laws...are concerned, I do not usually like lawyers and the bureaucracy of the courts. I tend to view the Justice System as a kind of hallowed snake den of corruption and bad faith politics.
If a madman with a knife runs up to me and asks me where he can find someone to stab - I feel perfectly justified and honest when I tell him a bold faced lie. Yes, boss I will walk unarmed across that dark parking lot every night at 2am. and always not carry anything to protect myself. Yes, boss, I will die for $8 per hr. Yes, boss you are always right.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Good points Edward and .300,

You know the guy I feel for is Joe Citizen who HAS to work an extra job to feed his family. I know a lot of people like that.

He can't "just quit" and go somewhere else because there is no where else to go. So, he delivers pizzas and his "caring" company demands that he deliver in bad parts of town. Of course they also demand he not arm himself as the risk to THEIR insurance is too great and it might hurt their profit.

Everyone knows that frequently thugs call in pizza orders in order to rob the delivery man and sometimes they just shoot the guy because they don't want witnesses.

The company doesn't care and demands that all called in orders be filled. So, according to some, in order for the man to maintain his "honesty" and "honor" he must not carry a firearm at work into the bad parts of town and so he ends up dead in a robbery.

His family gets nothing, nothing happens to the pizza company, they just keep delivering pizzas. But at least Joe Citizen, rather than not feed his family and quit, gets killed but keeps his honor!

Absolutely disgusting. That's not honor that's stupidity.

[threegun]

He can't "just quit" and go somewhere else because there is no where else to go.

Exactly! It never ceases to amaze me how some fail to understand the other side. The everyday costs of keeping up a family preclude job hopping and in many cases up rooting and moving to greener pastures. Yet the dangers still remain dangerous and as fathers our duty is to keeping our family safe and supported. Both are hard to do when you are dead.

Carrying a gun at work is no more protected than is free speech, search and seizure, due process, and so on while at work.

Free speech in most cases hampers job performance, interferes with other employees, or causes work slowing distractions. It has no place at work. That is completely different than a right to self preservation. It is certainly fair to compare all rights while at work. The right to self defense however doesn't effect job performance at all.

On a side note. An employer cannot tell me what to do on my off time. From the time I leave the job until I reach my vehicle the employers rule (that I not carry) prevents me from exercising my right for that time while I am no longer on the clock or premises.

[threegun]

I'd bet that those who are calling folks dishonest are hypocrites. Everybody has their thing. Electing to break a bad rule to protect yourself is hardly going to keep you from walking through the pearly gates. Following the rule might send you there faster however.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I would happily support a constitutional amendment that stated something like - the carry of concealed weapons shall not be banned by any governmental agency or private party business or institution unless an immediate and technical physical risk of some external process can be demonstrated.

By the latter - I mean things like a gun by the MRI. Not your opinion of guns.

Don't want to thread hijack by talking about civil rights. Off to a discussion of anthropology and war fighting. And we get free tacos!!

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I'd bet that those who are calling folks dishonest are hypocrites.

That would be a safe bet I think threegun. I have seen generally in my life experience that those who have the harshest and most sanctimonious ideas about "virtue" (Bill Bennett and several televangelists come to mind) are the very ones who break the code egregiously when it suits them. But of course since they are defining what virtue is they are entitled to do so

Exactly! It never ceases to amaze me how some fail to understand the other side. The everyday costs of keeping up a family preclude job hopping and in many cases up rooting and moving to greener pastures.

I think that's called living in an Ivory Tower.

[hogdogs]

On a side note....
I went into a gun store to buy ammo and I got really scared... ALL THE EMPLOYEES WERE ARMED pistols on the outside of their clothes! I was all a titter and shaking in my hunting boots
Brent

[David Armstrong]

Employer-Employee relationships are all about money very little honor or moral fiber involved IMHO

Somehow I fail to see that as a good thing or something that we should celebrate. plus, I tend to disagree with it as a blanket statement. Yes, there are may employers who are interested only in the money, just as there aree many employees whose only interest is money. But there are also emplyers and employees who respect each other, work toward common goals, and so on.

EXACTLY! They don't pay you to follow their rules.

OK, this is real simple. If you are not being paid to follow their rules, why do you think that you must hide your actions and be ddeceptiove about if you are following the rules or not. Sorry, but part of the salary is based on following those rules.

[David Armstrong]

I think your analogy of dishonest for carryin vs an employer being dishonest about your pay or benefits is a logical fallacy. When an employee is hired it's to work and make money for the company, not to not carry a gun.

Seems perfectly logical to me. When an employee is hired it is to do more than work and make money for the company. There is an agreement that he will follow the rules while at work. That is why you are given a rule book, and asked to sign off that you have received it/read it/understand it/ etc. If the rules don't matter and it is not dishonest to violate them, why hide the fact that you are breaking them?

If he wont provide protection then do I still carry? He has his reasons, good ones. I have my reasons, also good ones. Yes I will and accept the consequences.

Good. Then you should have no trouble carrying openly and/or letting him know that you are carrying a gun in violation of the rules, right?

[David Armstrong]

That would be a safe bet I think threegun.

Can't speak for all, but I can speak for me. See, I can carry just about anywhere. I'm covered under HR218, which basically relieves me of having to worry much about state handgun carry rules. But, my employer does have a new rule against carry. I went to him, explained my situation, asked if he would object to my carrying, and he said that he still didn't want me carrying. So I don't. I don't because I agreed to follow the rules when I got hired. And when the rules changed for me, even though I might not like or agree with them, I follow them. Wouldn't be honest otherwise.

But of course since they are defining what virtue is they are entitled to do so

You keep trying to change the terms under discussion. The issue is honesty, not virtue, unless I've misunderstood. Of course, the fact that some who suggest following that virtuous path fall off it themselves should in no way indicate the path is any less virtuous.

[Edward429451]

Seems perfectly logical to me. When an employee is hired it is to do more than work and make money for the company. There is an agreement that he will follow the rules while at work. That is why you are given a rule book, and asked to sign off that you have received it/read it/understand it/ etc. If the rules don't matter and it is not dishonest to violate them, why hide the fact that you are breaking them?

Seems logical to me too until you realize that it's only the letter of the contract that you're obsessing over. The moment any practical common sense enters into it, then it falls apart. To openly carry in violation of company wishes would or could take something from the employer in the form of encouragung other employees to take note and give the boss grief over well he does it why can't I? (case in point, I worked for a company that had a no gun policy and ~75 employees, I had to stop in a jiffy to get the truck oil changed and forgot my G21 I had left in the vehicle. Of course they called the office when their tech spotted it. My boss radioed me and told me that "it" was safe and not to worry. Next day I get called in to speak to boss and he proceeds to tell me that even though no guns were a policy, that is was ok for me because I had worked for him long enough for him to know that I am not a hothead, and I always do a very professional job for him so he was confident that he could allow me to carry without worry, but please do not tell anyone else because it would make life hard for him,)

Good. Then you should have no trouble carrying openly and/or letting him know that you are carrying a gun in violation of the rules, right?

NO! because in spite of the letter of the policy, it would cause the co grief with every tom dick n harry wanting to do the same. It would take from him the ability to make his own decisions with regard to specific employees. That would be an unethical thing to do even if on it's face it sounds like a good thing to do.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Somehow I fail to see that as a good thing or something that we should celebrate.

I agree, it is a sad state of affairs but it is reality, not in every single case but in most, especially large corporations and reality is what we must live with. Don't just put the burden of good faith on the employee, the employer has duties beyond just paying your salary. Banning carry does not protect the employee but the employer from lawsuits.

Good. Then you should have no trouble carrying openly and/or letting him know that you are carrying a gun in violation of the rules, right?

No, there is no duty to make a public statement about it. That is your opinion. No duty to obey unjust laws. Just because something is done secretly does not per se mean it is wrong or dishonest. See the Underground Railroad for a historical example.

OK, this is real simple. If you are not being paid to follow their rules, why do you think that you must hide your actions and be ddeceptiove about if you are following the rules or not.

It is real simple to you David and your posts make it appear that you are speaking from an Ivory Tower. Unfortunately, for many Joe Citizens the choice you offer them is quit the job and starve or be "honest" and get killed or injured. You have not offered them a fair choice so this agreement you keep talking about while perhaps legal, is not ethical, moral or right.

You keep trying to change the terms under discussion. The issue is honesty, not virtue, unless I've misunderstood.

Not at all. Honesty is a virtue, but these are just words. The bottomline is that the choice you offer many is wrong. Nice to argue in the abstract but reality is what the OP discusses. Anyway, I think we concluded earlier that there is no such thing as being honest 100% of the time. If you want criteria for when it is right not to be 100% honest I can give those to you.

Can't speak for all, but I can speak for me. See, I can carry just about anywhere. I'm covered under HR218, which basically relieves me of having to worry much about state handgun carry rules. But, my employer does have a new rule against carry. I went to him, explained my situation, asked if he would object to my carrying, and he said that he still didn't want me carrying. So I don't. I don't because I agreed to follow the rules when I got hired. And when the rules changed for me, even though I might not like or agree with them, I follow them. Wouldn't be honest otherwise.

I just knew that somewhere in this discussion the fact that you have special privileges that the ordinary person doesn't have would come up! I could tell it from your posts.

Isn't it nice to be able to do what most others can't and then tell them they are dishonest for doing what you have the privilege to do!

And where is this you work where you can't carry? Some place where there is security like maybe campus police? I bet it's not in a liquor store in New Orleans or delivering pizza in Detroit. Of course you wouldn't work there because you are a white collar type I suspect.

And I would bet dollars to doughnuts that if you really ever felt threatened you would carry and then say it was OK because you are a former LEO.

Might want to climb out of that Ivory Tower and walk a few miles in the moccasins of the regular guy.

[David Armstrong]

Seems logical to me too until you realize that it's only the letter of the contract that you're obsessing over. The moment any practical common sense enters into it, then it falls apart.

I see it differently. What I'm concerned about (as opposed to obsessing over) is the concept of honesty, of a person's word. You know, that old "your word is your bond" concept. Are you suggesting any time you enter into a contract the contract is null and void if you think common sense is better?

NO! because in spite of the letter of the policy, it would cause the co grief with every tom dick n harry wanting to do the same.

If I follow this, you are suggesting that you should be treated differently than any other employee!? Or only you should be allowed to protect yourself while all these other poor folks are not? Hooray, a new ethical dilemma<VBG>!

[David Armstrong]

Banning carry does not protect the employee but the employer from lawsuits.

And is that not a good thing for some reason? Preventing lawsuits so the company does not fail and dozens of people lose their job is of no concern? How does it happen that your personal veiw is more important, valid, or correct than all the other employees and the employer?

No, there is no duty to make a public statement about it. That is your opinion.

You keep trying to claim I have said things I haven't. If the rules don't matter, and you are not being hired/paid in part on the following of those rules, then there should be no problem with letting everyhone know that you are not following the rules. I haven't said anything about duty or public statements. Go have a private discussion with the boss and tell him that you have decided you know better than him and you won't be following any rules that you don't agree with.

No duty to obey unjust laws.

Again, you are trying to change things. I don't know why I should expect any better from someone who is now through his 6th post since telling us that he was done that was his last word. But nobody has said anything about law. This is a very simple concept--you have voluntarily agreed to do something in exchange for employment, and now you are going back on your word. No matter how you try to color it up, that is what it is. Very simple, very direct.

Unfortunately, for many Joe Citizens the choice you offer them is quit the job and starve or be "honest" and get killed or injured.

That is patently false, as virtually all of Joe's fellow workers are not carrying and do not get killed at or on the job. But apparently you think it is OK if Joe lies to get money. To me, that is the basis of a con job.

You have not offered them a fair choice so this agreement you keep talking about while perhaps legal, is not ethical, moral or right.

Let's see if I have this correct...I'm supporting being honest, not lying, and following the rules you agreed to. You are supporting being dishonest, not following the rules agreed to, and taking money under false pretenses. Yet you think it is my position that suffering ethically and morally? I think I see the problem.

The bottomline is that the choice you offer many is wrong.

I'm not offereing any choices. I'm sugesting that if you are given a choice, and you accept an agreement, it is dishonest not to follow the agreement that you voluntarily chose and agreed to follow.

Isn't it nice to be able to do what most others can't and then tell them they are dishonest for doing what you have the privilege to do!

Umm, in case you missed it, I don't exercise that privilege, which is in keeping with my position. I have no say in what privileges I've earned (at least legal privileges). But I don't do what most other's can't do (in this situation)because I have agreed not to.

I bet it's not in a liquor store in New Orleans or delivering pizza in Detroit. Of course you wouldn't work there because you are a white collar type I suspect.

While I have earned an academic postion now, I've worked plenty of those jobs. I have deliverd pizza in bad parts of town, I've worked in a liquor store, and I worked in convenience stores. In each, I followed the rules.

And I would bet dollars to doughnuts that if you really ever felt threatened you would carry and then say it was OK because you are a former LEO.

You would be wrong. First, my mind simply does not work that way. Second, if I ever really felt threatened I wouldn't go to work. I've yet to find a job that was worth getting killed over. A gun is not some magic talisman that will make someplece safe just because you are carrying it.

Might want to climb out of that Ivory Tower and walk a few miles in the moccasins of the regular guy.

You might want to try to find out a few things before you go making silly statements.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

And is that not a good thing for some reason? Preventing lawsuits so the company does not fail and dozens of people lose their job is of no concern? How does it happen that your personal veiw is more important, valid, or correct than all the other employees and the employer?

NO it is not a good thing if it means I lose my life because I obey an unjust rule. My life is more important than a potential lawsuit that the company may become involved in for which they are undoubtedly insured.

You keep trying to claim I have said things I haven't.

You say it over and over again. If you don't make an open proclamation that you intend to disregard the rules then you are dishonest. Read your posts again.

I don't know why I should expect any better from someone who is now through his 6th post since telling us that he was done that was his last word.

Hey, I changed my mind, that's my perogative. I guess your sanctimonious and logically flawed posts brought that out of me Anyway, I don't adhere to your standards which I think are out of touch, and don't need your permission to post here. I think the challenge may broaden your views some.

No matter how you try to color it up, that is what it is. Very simple, very direct.

And very wrong and out of touch with reality. Also, very self righteous. Just another academic "Let 'em eat cake" response.

Let's see if I have this correct...I'm supporting being honest, not lying, and following the rules you agreed to. You are supporting being dishonest, not following the rules agreed to, and taking money under false pretenses. Yet you think it is my position that suffering ethically and morally?

You support a immoral position that a person must either subject himself to an unfair and dangerous rule in the workplace, face death or injury or quit and let his family suffer. So, yes I think your position is wrong.

I have no say in what privileges I've earned (at least legal privileges).

Yeah, I know, you don't make the rules you just enjoy them. Nice for you. Maybe you should consider others not so privileged and their safety. You have "earned" no more right to self defense than any other person.

But I don't do what most other's can't do (in this situation)because I have agreed not to.

Yes and you work in a nice safe place with security don't you? I used to work in a place guarded by Marines, so I had no need to carry either. Additionally, everywhere else you can carry with impunity. Again, nice for you, but seems a bit hypocritical to judge others not as privileged.

I have delivered pizza in bad parts of town, I've worked in a liquor store, and I worked in convenience stores. In each, I followed the rules.

Well, I have only your word to take for that but frankly I doubt that you worked in dangerous places like I have descibed. Why? Your posts lead me to believe otherwise.

Anyway, even if you did that was your choice, I chose to spend a lot of time in the military in dangerous places but I CHOSE that. Joe Citizen doesn't always have a choice and that is where your position is so horribly wrong because you can't see that.

Second, if I ever really felt threatened I wouldn't go to work. I've yet to find a job that was worth getting killed over.

Again, how nice you have that choice (you must be wealthy or not have to work) but everybody doesn't have that choice. Not everyone can hide at home from danger, they have to work to live. Anyway, I thought you were an ex-LEO? Was that worth getting killed over?

You might want to try to find out a few things before you go making silly statements.

Just reading your posts David and they are telling the story.

[David Armstrong]

NO it is not a good thing if it means I lose my life because I obey an unjust rule.

And so the concerns of the other employees are irrelevant if they conflict with your concerns? I find that troubling. Of course, the entire concept of whether it is an "unjust rule" is strictly an opinion, so I wonder why you feel your opinion should be more important than all the other employees opinions.

You say it over and over again. If you don't make an open proclamation that you intend to disregard the rules then you are dishonest. Read your posts again.

Maybe you should read them again, as I say nothing of the sort. Your obligation, IMO, is to the person you have voluntarily entered into the agreement with. I could care less about the public. You have no contractual relationship with them.

Hey, I changed my mind.

Hey, that is where we differ. I don't find "I changed my mind" as a particualry good excuse. I find most rationalizations to be rather sad, in fact, as they rarely reflect well on a person's character. But hey, if your daughter or son has told you they would be home at 10:30, and come straggling in about 3 hours later, it'll be OK if they just changed their mind.

Anyway, I don't adhere to your standards ...

Obviously.

don't need your permission to post here.

Don't think I ever said you did, so sort of silly for you to try to make an issue of it.

I think the challenge may broaden your views some.

Oh, I've dealt with your view for a long time. I was a cop, remember. I've heard it over and over: That law isn't fair. It's OK as long as nobody finds out. Nobody should get to tell me how to live my life. It shouldn't matter because I'm acting on a higher law. Yep, heard it all before.

And very wrong and out of touch with reality. Also, very self righteous. Just another academic "Let 'em eat cake" response.

Oh please. It is quite in touch with reality, as evidenced by the overwhelming number of employees who do figure out how to go to work without a gun every day and manage to do just fine. As for self-righteous, I'd suggest it is far more self-righteous to claim that it is OK lie and cheat and be dishonest and deceptive because you think your opinion should count more than others. I'm not sure how a "live up to your word when you voluntarily give it" translates into an academic let them eat cake response, given as it was taught to me by my Father who was just a high-school educated farmer. Of course, he was a high school educated farmer who could walk into just about any store in our community and pick up something with a casual "I'll get you the money Friday" and nobody would worry about it and who made $100,000 deals based on nothing more that his word and sometimes a handshake.

You support a immoral position that a person must either subject himself to an unfair and dangerous rule in the workplace, face death or injury or quit and let his family suffer.

Nonsense. There is nothing unfair or unjust about the rule other than the fact that you think it is so. In fact, far more employees would argue against your position than for it, in my experience. I think the immoral position is that it is OK to lie to get money, to accept and/or keep a postion under false pretenses.

Yes and you work in a nice safe place with security don't you?

I don't know. Why don't you ask the folks at Virginia Tech how nice and safe their place was.

Maybe you should consider others not so privileged and their safety.

Perhaps you should do the same. Given the propensity for questionable decision making shown here, and the fact that you support dishonest behavior any time you feel it is OK, I might suggest having you run around armed in the work place is a greater danger to safety.

Well, I have only your word to take for that but frankly I doubt that you worked in dangerous places like I have descibed.

Given that I have consistently advocated honesty and telling the truth and you have advocated the opposite, I think my word might be a bit more solid than your doubts.

Joe Citizen doesn't always have a choice and that is where your position is so horribly wrong because you can't see that.

Joe always has a choice. Where your position is so horribly wrong is that you see that choice as a suggestion rather than an agreement. Joe can choose to work there or not. Joe can choose to follow the rules or not. Joe can choose to be honest or not. Most make the choice and then try to live up to their end of the agreement.

Again, how nice you have that choice (you must be wealthy or not have to work) but everybody doesn't have that choice.

Everybody has that choice. Come on now, be realistic. If you really thought your life would be in actual danger if you went to work tomorrow, would you go?? We all deala with potential danger regualrly without a care. You're probably in more danger driving to wrk than you are while at work. As for me, I don't know what you would consider wealthy or not having to work (Glenn is probably laughing his head off right now!) but I'd suggest honest should not be based on wealth or number of hours worked. As for the issue, I've made decisions on whether or not to take jobs before. The concept of taking it with the advance understanding that I would be dishonest never crossed my mind.

Anyway, I thought you were an ex-LEO? Was that worth getting killed over?

Gosh no. Taking a chance on getting killed was part of the job, but no more so than lots of other jobs, and I was fairly good about keeping myself going. Never really worried to much about it. Just like I never worried much about it as a clerk, or delivering pizza, much like most folks today who are clerking at convenience stores, delivering pizzas, etc.

Just reading your posts David and they are telling the story.

I see. You'd rather make things up that fuel your own opinion than make any effort to discover the facts. No problem. Ranks right there with some of these other ethical challenges that seem like such high hurdles for you.

[threegun]

As you can see David is very technical and to the letter. He is correct in what he has stated. By accepting employment we agree to abide by the rules. My trump card is my right to self defense. IMO it removes the dishonesty charge because the rule in question is a violation of my right to self preservation. That trumps everything else for me.

But apparently you think it is OK if Joe lies to get money.

Joe is not lying to get money...he is working for it. He just decided that following a rule might jeopardize his life and decided to stop following it. It would surely be dishonest if the rule wasn't effecting Joe's ability to protect himself.

I still maintain that everyone has broken a rule at work. Still some find it necessary to call others dishonest when they themselves have broken rules. Makes them feel better I guess.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

As you can see David is very technical and to the letter.

That's called rigid, unfair, unjust and out of touch. Often found in academic circles.

He just decided that following a rule might jeopardize his life and decided to stop following it.

That's called being in touch with reality and fair.

Still some find it necessary to call others dishonest when they themselves have broken rules. Makes them feel better I guess.

That's called sanctimonious hypocrisy.