Ha! My employer just modified company policy to disallow firearms on the premises...

[hogdogs]

I keep motor insurance

If it weren't a crime, I wouldn't have the car insurance.
Brent

[skeezix]

Originally Posted by TG

There is no morality in an anarchy only might.

Morality isn't dependent on government (or lack of), only on the person who chooses to wield it :-)

Originally Posted by TG

often there is no economic alternative

Not sure I understand this one - even if I had to work at McDonalds to survive, it is still a choice, and there is always an alternative. It just comes down to the individual and what is more important to them.

Originally Posted by TG

Or do nothing based on their bottom line? Maybe legal but hardly moral.

Originally Posted by TG

My beef is those who judgementally condemn others who would rather live than die by immoral work rules.

Originally Posted by TG

They don't care what happens to the employee because unless they foresee the event (crime in this case) they will not suffer from liability. In other words there may be no where else to go and not everybody can work for themselves.

These are related so I'll just reply to all at once. It is indeed up to the employer to secure a facility, or not to. And it is ALWAYS the bottom line - there are only 2 factors that determine whether or not a company survives, those are profit and loss. If a company saves money with a less secure facility, it may also lose money because they cannot get worthwhile employees to work for them, or get robbed or any other combination of reasons. But this is up to the company, as they set the rules for employment with them, and it requires an agreement of the employee to follow them.

Anyway I think we all know what the other thinks and where we all stand, and I doubt we'll change each others minds lol! Then again, if we could change each others mind on a whim away from our convictions, then we wouldn't have much of a conviction in beliefs :-)

It would certainly be ideal for companies to stick to a business plan rather than meddle in things that really do not matter, but I doubt that will ever happen. The real problem is the perception and beliefs surrounding not only firearms, but what "rights" really are and what freedom and liberty are truly about. Only when those misconceptions are dealt with at the core with this society will anything really change for the better. We've had decades of brainwashing hoop-la telling everyone that firearms kill people, or that there is no such thing as a conspiracy, and that the new world order doesn't exist and to ignore the man behind the curtain. Such is life :-)

[Colt1911forever]

As a friend of mine quotes in his signature.....

If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers. T. Pynchon

[Tennessee Gentleman]

A friend of mine says that the ultimate responsibility for your own personal safety is YOU. I agree, and believe that the other stuff is good for a beer and a smoke.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by skeezix

Not sure I understand this one - even if I had to work at McDonalds to survive, it is still a choice, and there is always an alternative.

If you worked at McDonalds they will prohibit you from carrying (like virtually ALL big corporations) and if the Mickey D's you work at happens to be in a high crime area, too bad for you. The alternative of which you speak may be unemployment and there we have the immoral choice again. Safety or economic survival. For some us there are more options than for others.

[Colt1911forever]

If you worked at McDonalds they will prohibit you from carrying (like virtually ALL big corporations) and if the Mickey D's you work at happens to be in a high crime area, too bad for you. The alternative of which you speak may be unemployment and there we have the immoral choice again. Safety or economic survival. For some us there are more options than for others.

This is the United states of america..... you can move.

[gc70]

This is the United states of america..... you can move.

There is always an alternative in a theoretical discussion - and often not in reality.

[skeezix]

In reality there is always an alternative too, even if it seems grossly out of proportion to the benefit or the results you get from following that alternative.

And yes, McDonalds I am sure would not let me carry, but an alternative is still an alternative. Just depends on what is most important. We have the right to starve to death just as much as the right to defend ourselves.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by gc70

There is always an alternative in a theoretical discussion - and often not in reality.

Dead on GC! I call it the "Let 'em Eat Cake" alternative. Very cavalier but not possible for many. We had a thread once about moving out of high crime areas. Generated a lot of heat from those who have and those who have not so much. Actually it kind of makes me mad sometimes to hear it. Very very easy for others to say for sure.

Originally Posted by skeezix

We have the right to starve to death

Now THAT makes a whole lot of sense! But at least we will starve with honor right? Geez!:barf:

[6x6pinz]

If you look at it from another perspective let say 4X's

You are a property owner with a well manicured lawn. I have a 4X that I have a license to operate and the 4X is even registered. I decide to cut up your lawn, my license makes it so that you can not kick me off or hit me up for trespassing, doubt that will hold up in court.

Property rights definitely take precedence over your right to cc.

I am a ccw permit holder and carry well over 80% of the time but still respect others rights.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

6x6pinz,
Bad analogy. My not being able to drive my 4X on your grass will not cause me to be killed or injured by a criminal. I respect property rights too but my right to life trumps an immoral work rule.

[YodaMage]

Has anyone put themselves in the shoes of the "immoral" employer? The employer who holds liability for what does and may occur on their property or actions taken by their employees?

Am I willing to risk my business because an employee makes a bad decision and an accident occurs? Am I willing to bear the costs to defend my business in a court of law?

If I am an employer, I am going to minimize risk to my establishment...and if security is an issue I am going to contract to a 3rd party insured security provider. I want degrees of separation between myself and any culpability.

I don't think it is immoral...it sounds more like business savvy and risk aversion. Welcome to a litigious society.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by YodaMage

Has anyone put themselves in the shoes of the "immoral" employer?

The employer may or may not be immoral, the work rule certainly would be under the conditions mentioned before.

Originally Posted by YodaMage

The employer who holds liability for what does and may occur on their property or actions taken by their employees?

Cost of doing business?

Originally Posted by YodaMage

Am I willing to risk my business because an employee makes a bad decision and an accident occurs? Am I willing to bear the costs to defend my business in a court of law?

That's why we have commercial insurance.

Originally Posted by YodaMage

I am going to minimize risk to my establishment...and if security is an issue I am going to contract to a 3rd party insured security provider.

Reasonable protection of employees? Then they might not need to CCW. Agree.

I don't think it is immoral...it sounds more like business savvy and risk aversion.

Not if it's on the lives of the employee by denying them SD to save you some $. Then it is wrong.

[Shane Tuttle]

Originally Posted by Colt1911Forever

This is not true. Most states are not "at will" employment states. I live in VA where we are. Unless you are working under a union contract or a personal employment contract which outlines the process of termination I as the employer can walking in a fire you without giving cause. I can simply say you are fired and the state and the courts will back me on it.

Now in MD that might not be the case.

It may not be true in VA, but the OP is in AZ. Also, other states are, in fact, "at will", including the state I work which is Illinios. So, not only I stand by my statement, you further proved it by admission of Maryland...

Originally Posted by Tuttle8

So, a county sheriff that deems a person competent to carry concealed anywhere the state allows gets trumped by the opinion of an employer? Unless the employer can prove the employee was negligent i.e. brandishing, and others are allowed to carry at work, the employee would stand a very good chance to win in court.

Hostile work environment=Harrassment

Originally Posted by Colt1911forever

Once again Turtle you are wrong. The CCW permit allows you carry in public. The property owner is the one who allows or denies carry on private property.
Your statements are exactly what I am talking about. You seem to think that your right to carry should allow you to trample the property rights of others.
Put the shoe on the other foot. Will you allow anyone and everyone who has a permit to carry a gun in your home? I doubt it.

Before you dig yourself into a deeper hole, I suggest backing up and reread my post. Alleykat already tried to make the point it isn't about property rights. Now, we can go on and on like this thread did in quick fashion about what a business can do on their own property. However, I think it would be a waste of time. An employer cannot give favorable treatment of one employee and allow CCW and not another employee without just cause.

[zxcvbob]

I respect property rights too but my right to life trumps an immoral work rule.

When you choose to break a rule (or law) for a higher good you also choose to accept the consequences. That's one of the tenets of civil disobedience.

[YodaMage]

Cost of doing business?

Cost/risk of being employed?

That's why we have commercial insurance.

Not even close there...make sure to read the linked article.

http://www.insurancecoverageblog.com...decisions.html

Not if it's on the lives of the employee by denying them SD to save you some $. Then it is wrong.

This is a statement filled with ambiguity. First, in most cases it is acceptable to substitute 'security' or 'protection' with SD. If you have decided that SD is the ONLY acceptable security, then stop reading here as we will never agree and anything else is a waste. If security is the point, then I agree that the employer must provide an acceptable level of security or putting $ above such may be considered immoral. That said...there is an interpretive level at play there too... commonly accepted security? Industry/area standard security?

There are some that would believe AK's and anti-aircraft batteries are a minimum.

I'm not sure that it furthers a productive cause to arbitrarily play an 'immoral' card when some one stands in the way of 'what I want to do'. It becomes not unlike an overplayed 'race' card.

[Double Naught Spy]

Originally Posted by YodaMage
The employer who holds liability for what does and may occur on their property or actions taken by their employees?

TG replied...

Cost of doing business?

Good Point TG!!! So not carrying as mandated by the employer is nothing more than a cost of employment. Everyone has costs. Who wants to pay them? That is what we are talking about, isn't it? Should the employer have to endure the extra costs of liability of an armed employee? Of course not. Unless otherwise mandated by law, the employer should not have to endure such unwanted costs, if they are in fact, unwanted, as they are with some employers.

I know, I know. Gun board many people think that every gun toting person is a level-headed, even-tempered good guy with 100% absolutely safe gun handling practices who meticulously conceal carry where absolutely nobody knows it and are absolutely great shooters and hence it would have ZERO impact in the workplace if they carried unless something bad happened and then that employee would be the one to save the day because s/he was armed and so we perceive that being armed somehow means being able to respond with 100% correctness.

Yes, I am generalizing, but what I stated above aren't themes foreign to TFL.

Then we have all seen the threads where people shoot themselves negligently, shoot their friends, shoot other employees, leave their guns in the bathrooms, get mad and whip out their guns to show how powerful they are, etc. The general consensus is that we give those people various titles such as moron, idiot, naive, etc. and none of us really want those people working for us or next to us because we don't consider them appropriately safe or stable. THOSE are the people businesses worry about.

[skeezix]

Originally Posted by TG

Now THAT makes a whole lot of sense! But at least we will starve with honor right? Geez!

As opposed to breaking the law with honor? ;-)

We have the right to fail, which is my point. The right to pursue happiness (not a guarantee to get it), the right to start a business and go bankrupt, the right to break a law and face the consequences, the right to work as hard as we want and keep the fruits of our labor, or the right to **** it all away and have nothing.

I am not forced to conform and use a grocery store (or restaurant) for food. I can grow my own if I get off my butt and work for it. I am not forced to pay for electricity unless I choose to use it. I am not forced to live in the city, or in the boondocks.

If it is important enough to me then I will get it done. If that means working my tail off for a garden, so be it. It is easier (at this time) to go to a grocery store. But it is still my responsibility to get food. Just as it is my responsibility for anything, and accept the results of those choices.

Do you think you have the right to free speech on this board? You do not, unless you own it :-) You do, however, have the right to start your own board and exercise free speech. Why? Property rights! They are the very essence of a free society, the root and foundation.

Government and employers are not here to take care of me, that is my job.

Private property was the original source of freedom. It still is its main bulwark. –Walter Lippmann 1937

Property is the fruit of labor. Property is desirable, is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently to build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence. – Abraham Lincoln

The program of [classical] liberalism, condensed into a single word, would have to read: property. – Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973), Austrian Economist and Author

The system of private property is the most important guaranty of freedom, not only for those who own property, but scarcely less for those who do not. – Friedrich A. Hayek, in "The Road to Serfdom"

[6x6pinz]

Tennessee Gentleman

No road rage where you live?, must be nice

[YodaMage]

THOSE are the people businesses worry about

Exactly. In a 'perfect world' many debates need not be had....but we live here.

[hogdogs]

Now if i were in my "4X" and some one was shooting at me, I would drive it on ANY private property that would aid me in either escape or if needed, to use the 8 inch pipe bumper as a lethal weapon to stop the threat to my life!
I will buy new sod if the property didn't belong to the shooter!
Brent

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by zxcvbob

When you choose to break a rule (or law) for a higher good you also choose to accept the consequences. That's one of the tenets of civil disobedience.

You will note that nowhere have I asserted differently. We are all grown-ups here (I hope!) and just as there are consequences of not carrying and therefore risking death or injury in a dangerous job/situation in order to obey the unfair rules there are consequences in following the higher law disobeying the immoral rules and suffering for that as well. That is the crux of the moral dilemma, which consequence do you choose.

Originally Posted by YodaMage

Cost/risk of being employed?

More like, the cost of obeying an immoral work rule. That is a personal choice and I will not judge the act to either to obey or disobey. One may chose to be wronged if they so desire.

Originally Posted by YodaMage

Not even close there...make sure to read the linked article.

Yoda, you should know that I sold Commercial P&C Insurance for 4 years. The article has no bearing on this discussion. I never sold a policy that excluded liability for allowing employees to legally CCW therefore they would cover such suits. And I sold them for the biggest companies. Now the lawyers and the risk managers would advise the companies to not allow it to reduce potential law suits but apart from things like OSHA these companies had zero obligation to protect employees from crime since the law here in TN says crime is "unforeseeable".

Originally Posted by YodaMage

This is a statement filled with ambiguity. First, in most cases it is acceptable to substitute 'security' or 'protection' with SD. If you have decided that SD is the ONLY acceptable security, then stop reading here as we will never agree and anything else is a waste.

Like many of my statements it is a one that lends itself to negotiation. I agree and did in a post earlier that businesses may take reasonable steps (beyond OHSA) to protect their employees that would make the work rule moral. As my position has been consistent it is when the employer refuse to do it (in order to make more money) and then deny that right to the employee that it may be morally permissable to disregard such a rule. There are lots of ways to make it safer for employees. I have seen bullet proof protection in conveience stores in high crime areas and some pizza companies that won't deliver to certain parts of town as examples. I have also seen companies that prohibit CCW but will spend next to nothing for crime protection for their employees as well. As also stated before this is part of the criteria one should use when deciding whether to obey the rule or not. If morality decisions were always so certain then we would have one religion no need for law and no discussion here for sure.

Originally Posted by Double Naught Spy

Should the employer have to endure the extra costs of liability of an armed employee?

Should an employee obey an immoral and unfair work rule and endure the loss of his life or health to protect the bottomline of a souless company? Of course not!

Originally Posted by Double Naught Spy

THOSE are the people businesses worry about.

And those are the poeple who will make no moral evaluation of the rule and carry anyway. So, no protection there.

Originally Posted by skeezix

As opposed to breaking the law with honor?

No, it's breaking the law and living. Which makes my point of the silliness of obeying a rule without considering the moral implications. Does "I was just following orders!" ring a bell?

As to the rest of your post. Fine and dandy in the intellectual sense but hardly real. Theoretical alternatives like living on a farm and raising your own food may sound nice but most can not do such. Sure, there is always an alternative and one of those alternatives would be to disregard an unfair immoral work rule and protect yourself as the Pizza Hut delivery men did. They were fired (and I don't patronize that business anymore) but I hesitate to stand in judgment over their act to protect their own lives and in fact applaud them for having the courage to do what turned out to be the right thing.

[SCHoss]

Your Employer must have Probable Cause to Search your Auto. In Effect they would have to have a Warrant. Your Car is just like your Home and you have the right to say NO. However they will find a way to REMOVE you from their Employment if you deny them access. But I would call my Lawyer when Asked and let them know where I Stood. However they can If so stated in Company Policy that random checks will be made to include vehicle searches , You don't have any recourse but to comply or find employment elsewhere.

[divemedic]

What about the Florida law which protects the employee from an intrusive employer while protecting employer from liability?

Are you people trying to say that an employer has the right to prohibit employees from wearing or possessing underpants?

You claim that you want a business to have plenipotentiary powers to regulate what happens on that property without interference, yet the fact that you invited government interference when it was in your favor to do so (when you formed a corporation to dodge liability) is different somehow.

This right to control your property does not and has not ever existed. Fire codes, building codes, the ADA, rights of way, and other business regulations have proven that.

[mavracer]

Are you people trying to say that an employer has the right to prohibit employees from wearing or possessing underpants?

you can require them, and you can prohibit them from being seen.