Violating company policy WRT to firearms

The government taking money from me by force, and you knowing this and choosing to leech of me through that money, especially when another option exists, is a far more grievous affront to rights that carrying a gun on someone's property.

Click to expand...

Wow, tell us how you really feel.

i really don't see how this is such a matter of honor or respect as much as common sense. if you want to break the rules, you reap what you sow. don't act surprised or indignant when it bites you in the a++. if you think you're stickin' it to tha man, wake up. an old proverb says "i was looking for a job when i found this one".
if the SOP doesn't conform to your views on carry, look elsewhere. don't break the rules thinking you're proving a point.

if you want to break the rules, you reap what you sow. don't act surprised or indignant when it bites you in the a++. if you think you're stickin' it to tha man, wake up.

Click to expand...

No one has said they're "stickin it to the man". Every single poster who has said they would carry even when prohibited, has also said they are willing to accept the possible consequences.

i really don't see how this is such a matter of honor or respect as much as common sense. if you want to break the rules, you reap what you sow. don't act surprised or indignant when it bites you in the a++. if you think you're stickin' it to tha man, wake up. an old proverb says "i was looking for a job when i found this one".
if the SOP doesn't conform to your views on carry, look elsewhere. don't break the rules thinking you're proving a point.

Click to expand...

Surprised, indignant?

As Ragnar points out, once again we're arguing right past each other. Those who carry contrary to company policies are NOT saying they're "sticking it to the man" or that they're "proving a point." Every single one has said, "If I'm caught, I'll be looking for another job," and accepting that as the right of the employer to fire them if he/she/it so chooses.

Most of us are not lawyers so the legal opinions probably just do not matter and the laws vary from state to state anyway.
That high moral ground BS can go right out the window when you are talking about life or death situations.
What it really comes down to is one of the following two options.
A. You carry regardless of company policy and protect your life and maybe your co workers lives? The worst case scenario is you lose your job and you find another job.
B. You do not carry and you have peace of mind about abiding by company policy. Worst case scenario you or one of your co workers loses your life and you just can’t find another life.
Me I am taking option #A. You have to do what you feel is right for you.

Ragnar Danneskjold said:

Funny you should phrase it that way, since by choosing to take government handouts instead of working the job you were offered while carrying, you would steal the product of my work and consume that which you have not earned. The government taking money from me by force, and you knowing this and choosing to leech of me through that money, especially when another option exists, is a far more grievous affront to rights that carrying a gun on someone's property.

Click to expand...

I said charity, not welfare. It's there in the section of text you quoted. You didn't specify "handouts" as referring only to state welfare, so I specified it in my response.

For those who carry to work where it's prohibited (whether left in the car, or concealed on person or in a purse/briefcase/box): If agreeing to a search on demand became a condition of employment... that is, if getting caught were a certainty... if you could no longer get away with breaking the rules... would you quit the job or quit carrying to work?

3KillerBs said:

I'm still waiting for anyone who is arguing against my positions to actually address any of the reasons that I posted.

I'm especially interested in how you will manage to get around the fact that my workplace has already suffered a violent episode -- resulting in ICU time for the victim -- which was not in any way prevented by the "no weapons" policy if you stop completely ignoring it.

Click to expand...

In answer to the bolded, above:
COMPANY MEMO: Past incidents of violence are not predictors of future incidents.

The Cynical Argument

The Company is more important than you.*
Workers are disposable. Rules are indispensable.
It is easier to replace workers than The Company.
The Company would rather you die than It get sued for something you did.
Pragmatism is reserved for The Company, not its workers.

* The city, the state, and the federal government take more money from The Company than from you. Thus The Company is entitled to more consideration under the law than you.

The Private Property Argument

You are private property and have private property rights to establish rules regarding your private property. (Don't touch my privates, for instance.*)

The Company is private property and has private property rights to establish rules regarding Its private property. (Don't bring guns here, for instance.)

The Company may violate your private property rights (touching your privates) by the rules it has established regarding Its private property.

Your private property rights and the rules you've established regarding that private property (don't touch my privates) may be violated by The Company, whose rights supersede yours.

* The Company cannot, under law, touch your private privates, lest It get sued, but It can touch some of your privates, even depriving you of them, which is okay.

The Most Likely Argument
(or at least a version of it)

The company's right to establish rules that "endanger" you in only the most exceptional of circumstances is more important than your "right" to "self defense" in the event of such circumstances.

Now, why is that?

1. Workplace violence is rare.
2. Workplace murder is exceptionally rare.
3. The chances that anyone will be murdered at work are remote.
4. The chances that you, specifically, will be murdered at work, are exceptionally remote.

Therefore:

5. Your workplace has good reason to establish a "no guns" policy: guns in the workplace are a solution to a virtually non-existent problem.

Furthermore:

6. You are not trained.
7. If you are trained, your training is insufficient, or irrelevant (see 5).
8. The chances that you and your gun will cause a problem at work are much more likely than you saving yourself (or anyone else) from a murderer, while at work, with your gun.

Use the right sized holster and right sized gun and you can carry a gun anywhere it is legal. I carried at workplaces before and will continue to at my own office and others. It is no one else's business because no one else has the responsibility to take care of me.

geniusiknowit said:

What's legal or illegal has nothing to do with what is right or wrong...

Click to expand...

Yes. That's pretty much been my point all along (albeit in the context of an office policy, per this thread's OP). What others permit or do not permit exists separately from what is moral or immoral.

So: if what's legal or illegal has nothing to do with what's right or wrong, does this then mean that one might break the law (or an office policy) in order to do that which is right?

Just thought I'd put my two cents in here. After reading alot of the posts submitted here, it seems it's only a matter of opinions, morals, and policy in question. My simple solution to the one's decision to or not to carry is: Do what's going to bring you peace of mind. If fear of losing the job is the issue, then don't carry. If fear of losing your life is the issue, then carry. We all have to live our lives by the rules we set for ourselves, and not always by the rules set by others. Thanks.

I view this as a matter of professional ethics.

If you agree to take the job as offered, you are ethically bound to adhere to the terms and conditions of the job. If you cannot adhere to those terms and conditions, you should not ethically accept the employment.

If you feel strongly that you are endangered in the workplace, you probably should not take the job anyway.

Dr T said:

I view this as a matter of professional ethics.

If you agree to take the job as offered, you are ethically bound to adhere to the terms and conditions of the job. If you cannot adhere to those terms and conditions, you should not ethically accept the employment.

If you feel strongly that you are endangered in the workplace, you probably should not take the job anyway.

Click to expand...

As a statistical measure, there will always be people at the margins who will never have the good fortune to be so selective with their work.

So, you are basically hinging civil liberties on economics.

Unfortunately, most ethical decisions in business involve economic elements.

Also, you have no civil liberties in the workplace if you are not working for a governmental institution. Constitutional protections (except for the discrimination-related items) only extend to governmental actions.

Most employees in the U.S. are "at will." You can be fired at any time for any reason.

Dr T said:

Unfortunately, most ethical decisions in business involve economic elements.

Also, you have no civil liberties in the workplace if you are not working for a governmental institution. Constitutional protections (except for the discrimination-related items) only extend to governmental actions.

Most employees in the U.S. are "at will." You can be fired at any time for any reason.

Click to expand...

And, this is PRECISELY why I loathe the corporation. Everything is subjugated to the profit motive of the corporation.

So, as a statistical measure, as the standard deviations increase and freedom is further subjugated to the extreme psychopathy of the corporation, you can expect greater numbers to join the disobedient crowd.

Mikhail Weiss said:

So: if what's legal or illegal has nothing to do with what's right or wrong, does this then mean that one might break the law (or an office policy) in order to do that which is right?

Click to expand...

If the office rule somehow violated the morality of private property, yes. But as I've laid out earlier, setting rules for peaceful behavior wouldn't do that.

WinThePennant said:

And, this is PRECISELY why I loathe the corporation. Everything is subjugated to the profit motive of the corporation.

Click to expand...

Are the employees there out of a sense of charity?
No, they're there out of a motivation for profit as well.
The nature of the job is irrelevant here. The profit isn't relevant. The only thing relevant are the rights of those involved - on whose property does this take place, what have the parties contracted to do. Whether the employer is greedy and selfish, whether the workplace is safe or not - these are things to be considered before agreeing to do the job.

WinThePennant said:

you can expect greater numbers to join the disobedient crowd.

Click to expand...

How about getting a greater number of people to openly refuse to work at places that don't permit employees to carry firearms? Try encouraging the use of persuasion instead of dishonesty.

So okay, work for the USPS and carry to work. Good luck. Good luck getting others to risk their job standing up for you. I hate to be a wet blanket but the whole thread is becoming a bit ridiculous, it isn't philosophy it's real world. If you want to carry where it's against the rules be prepared to collect unemployment for awhile when you're eventually found out. Take the risk if you wish but don't whine if you pay the penalty.

Big JJ said:

A. You carry regardless of company policy and protect your life and maybe your co workers lives? The worst case scenario is you lose your job and you find another job.
B. You do not carry and you have peace of mind about abiding by company policy. Worst case scenario you or one of your co workers loses your life and you just can’t find another life.
Me I am taking option #A. You have to do what you feel is right for you.

Click to expand...

If you're willing to accept getting fired because you violated company policy, why take the job (or stay there) in the first place? Instead of violating someone's private property and getting fired for bringing a gun to work, why not just work somewhere else that permits it? Is it going to be easier to find a new job after getting tossed for carrying a gun to the last one? Even if the new place is a gun-friendly establishment, how are they likely to view you for your cavalier attitude toward following agreed-upon rules... your shortcoming in integrity? Is it not wiser to get a more suitable job before you have that sort of black mark on your work history?


For those who will respect private property rights only when it is convenient for them, and view the question similar to this argument:

3KillerBs said:

A concealed gun ... stays inside one's clothes, concealed. It has no impact on the company image as a uniform would. It does not create a workplace disruption as playing loud music or arguing with co-workers would. It is a completely private matter.

Click to expand...

Suppose your company gave you a laptop to use that you took home on a daily basis. While your laptop was in your house, suppose they secretly activated its built-in webcam to record what you do and say, just to make sure you're not stealing from them or colluding with a competitor. Sure, they're recording what you do in the secrecy of your own property... but hey, it's not disruptive to you and has no impact on what you can do at home, and the company has a right to not be stolen from, and a right to have non-disclosure agreements kept. Maybe they even have a published policy of respecting employee privacy. But in the same way that you keep your gun hidden under your clothes in their building, or in your car in their parking lot, they keep their recording activities hidden in their computer in your house. Would you be okay with this? Would you be okay with them violating your property rights the way you think it's okay to violate their property rights?

exavid said:

it isn't philosophy it's real world.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you find it impossible to adhere to a property owner's rules? Is that the disconnection you're detecting between philosophy and reality? The philosophy describes something that cannot happen?

Nothing so complex. What I mean is that reality usually dictates one obeying the rules of one's employer while on the job. If one doesn't like the rules, go somewhere else and keep your integrit intact rather than sneaking a firearm
onto the employer's property.

So okay, work for the USPS and carry to work.

Click to expand...

Apples and oranges.

There are federal laws about carrying on USPS property. it is not just 'company policy.'

Trunk Monkey said:

Again, if I accept the position knowing that carrying a firearm on the clock is verboten I am agreeing to be bound by that rule. If I don’t agree to be bound by that rule I don’t accept the position.

Is that really so hard to understand?

Click to expand...

Just a couple statements from a retired employer. Most, if not all, companies will give you a paper that you sign that says you will be bound by their employee handbook. Then after you sign, they give you the handbook...

Guess what, you are not legally bound to the policies in that handbook unless they give it to you to review BEFORE you sign. You cannot agree to something you have not read, and anything that even smells like coercion on the part of Mr Big V Mr. Little is generally thrown out of court. Same goes for "revisions" to enployee policy handbooks.

If they want their handbook to be legally binding, you must read it FIRST before you sign the agreement to work for them. When you read the handbook and don't like something, you can run a single line through it, initial and date, have them initial and date the lineout, and it doesn't exist for you. You do this BEFORE you sign the employment agreement, but you do have to be confident enough to walk if they will not initial and date it.

Wiretapping

Suppose your company gave you a laptop to use that you took home on a daily basis. While your laptop was in your house, suppose they secretly activated its built-in webcam to record what you do and say, just to make sure you're not stealing from them or colluding with a competitor. Sure, they're recording what you do in the secrecy of your own property... but hey, it's not disruptive to you and has no impact on what you can do at home, and the company has a right to not be stolen from, and a right to have non-disclosure agreements kept. Maybe they even have a published policy of respecting employee privacy. But in the same way that you keep your gun hidden under your clothes in their building, or in your car in their parking lot, they keep their recording activities hidden in their computer in your house. Would you be okay with this? Would you be okay with them violating your property rights the way you think it's okay to violate their property rights?

Click to expand...

Assumed similarities are not similar.

Carrying an item of personal property on the premises of another entity is not intrusive or invasive, and has no immediately implied harmful consequences.

Bugging or wiretapping someone's home, on the other hand, does.

If you want to propose similar violations, then the other side of bugging your bedroom would be your bugging of the company boardroom. Assume that this is possible without engaging in breaking & entering or theft. Assume, for example, that the electronic bug is embedded in some innocuous object commonly carried into the boardroom by meeting participants.

Now you have achieve comparable levels of invasion.

Since neither you nor the company has no intent to abuse the information thus obtained, no harm, no foul, right?

Unless, of course, the company has something to hide? Nah. That couldn't be. What could they possibly discuss in the boardroom that would be of interest to anyone else? After all, I never discuss anything, at all, ever, within the confines of my home that would be of interest to anyone else.


So, no, there is no valid comparison between my carrying a concealed pistol (or a concealed crucifix, or a concealed class ring, or a concealed thong) and the company's establishment of a spying outpost in my home.

I do believe, in fact, that such a company action qualifies as a genuine crime -- an actual act of aggression.

That's quite a list of challenges you have there. But it still doesn't work for me.
Here in Silicon Valley, there is a standing rule in most companies that if you are caught reading someone else's documents coming off of the shared (i.e. in the hallway) printer, you will be fired. Seen people ushered out a few times for that one. And I support those rules for the sake of privacy.
So by your rules, these people could read all they want so long as they don't get caught, but be willing to leave without argument if they got caught. Violating someone's privacy is OK so long as they don't get caught?
Nope, I stand by the model that if you don't like the rules either get them changed (and while you are trying, alter your behavior), or leave.
And re the OP? Ditto.
Sorry.

Ragnar Danneskjold said:

Do what you feel is best for you, so long as you are aware of the possible consequences, and accept them.

The company's first allegiance is to itself. It makes those policies out of self-interest. Whether insurance costs will be too high, bad PR for a shooting on site, guns in the hands of employees clashing with their public image, etc. A "no guns" policy makes one point very clear: "We, the company, hold our own interests above all else, including your life".

That's fine. They can choose to act that way if they wish. You have a few options in response with corresponding outcomes for you.

-Don't accept the job. You don't get paid, but you also assume no risk of getting fire or prosecuted.

-Accept the job and don't carry. You do get paid but you place your own life in the hands of whoever may seek to take it.

-Accept the job and carry anyways. You get paid, get a better chance to preserve your own life if the need arises, but you take upon you the risk of getting fired or prosecuted legally if you are caught or involved in a shooting.

I don't care which one you pick, just accept the full outcome of your choice. I will not tell someone "a pledge to follow company policy is worth more than your life". A rule has not yet been written that I would value following over keeping myself alive, and I won't begrudge anyone for thinking the same. The day may come where you get found out, fired or even prosecuted. But you'll be alive.

Click to expand...

When lives are on the line? Yes.