Then follow the rules.And if there is no other employment available?
Then follow the rules.And if there is no other employment available?
Wow. Some of you guys need to find some better companies to work for. You really think employers dont care about employees? I get it in certain areas but most companies actually do not view their employees this way. Thats a tired argument.I never gave anyone my word in this matter.
I am under no illusions that my employer gives 2 cents about my welfare beyond the barest minimum of OSHA requirements and I know from experience that they will violate those standards any time they think they can get away with it -- which is frequently because in this economy people are too afraid of losing their job if OSHA shuts the place down.
Whether I carry a gun or not is no more my employer's business than whether I wear bikini briefs or granny panties.
Do you truly know for sure?Wow. Some of you guys need to find some better companies to work for. You really think employers dont care about employees? I get it in certain areas but most companies actually do not view their employees this way. Thats a tired argument.
...I don’t believe I, having given my word to the contrary, can carry a firearm on company time and claim the moral high ground.
Any opposing views?
gearhead let me rephrase that because you bring up a good point. There are plenty of bad companies out there. In fact a friend of mine, a 2010 cancer survivor, was just let go after 20 years with the same wholesale company. He was a sales manager for a state. During his last review his boss said it was the best review he had ever given. He was let go three weeks after telling their HR department that he had to go in for some minor operations. Bad performance they said even though he had only missed budget for the quarter twice in the last 10 years. He is suing. But while there are bad bosses and bad companies to work for with regards to how they treat there employees, there are also thousands of companies hiring millions of workers in the US that treat their employees extremely well. They range from some of the largest companies in the US to two and three man operations. My point is a blanket statement like 'all companies care about is bottom line income' is too sweeping. There a lot of great companies out there.Do you truly know for sure?
I've had my honor questioned in this thread but I've willingly resigned from a job where the Sr. VP personally instructed me to disregard any resume submitted by a female for a position I was interviewing applicants for. No, I didn't leave immediately but I began seriously seeking a new position at that point. On my last day, since I wasn't offered the courtesy of an exit interview I prepared a package of information that documented this and a couple of other borderline actions I had been instructed to take. I dropped that package into the mailbox of the President of the company on my way out the door. I heard through the grapevine that it caused a stir for about a week then it was back to business as usual. So I don't have a lot of faith in businesses putting their employees' best interests above their own and while your morals may have compelled you to resign immediately upon being asked to do something illegal I felt I owed it to my family to line up another job first.
brboyer said:The huge overwhelming percentage of company policies are a misguided attempt to reduce the company's liability. I feel no moral compunction ignoring such a policy when it interferes with my ability to defend myself in whatever manner/method I choose. I find such policies immoral.
Ragnar Danneskjold said:And if there is no other employment available?
guess who's gonna get fired and have no recourse?
Gearhead said:And when the private property is the company vehicle?
What rational relationship exists between your job and being denied a civil right?
So if you owned a company, and had a policy that employees wear a uniform, or follow other rules of employent, you'd be OK with them willingly violating that rule for personal reasons?
...
...
That's actually not what she said but it's close enough.
How about I abide by the company's rules to appease my sense of honor?
Wow. Some of you guys need to find some better companies to work for. You really think employers dont care about employees? I get it in certain areas but most companies actually do not view their employees this way. Thats a tired argument.
Then follow the rules.
Everything you said could apply to the Jim Crow laws of the Old South. If black folks don't like sitting in their section, then they just aren't respecting your property rights.If it's their property, you follow their rules when using it.
You're not being denied a civil right because a property owner has rules to be followed while on their property. You should be free to exercise your rights - whatever they are - in public, on your own property, or on the property of someone else with their permission.
If I hire someone to install carpet in my house, but refuse to let them keep their lunch in my 'fridge, am I denying them their right to eat or keep their food preserved? Or if they're wearing a shirt or sign with some message I find offensive, am I violating their right to free speech by insisting they take it off or be fired?
Your rights are your freedom to act within the boundaries of the rights of others. Once you infringe upon the rights of someone else, you are no longer exercising a right; you're trespassing, you're committing aggression.
Humans are physical, 3-dimensional beings. They exist in space. Space is rivalrous. That is, control over an area (or any other tangible thing) cannot be exercised by two people simultaneously. You and I cannot both eat this ice cream sandwich sitting next to me. Any attempt to do so would result in conflict. Control over tangible things is exclusionary. Property the manner in which we determine who has the best claim to exercise that control. Thus, your right to carry a gun, your right to speak freely... actually, your right to be anywhere, regardless of what you are doing... is dependent upon you having the permission of the owner of the property where you are. If the person who owns a building or piece of land states "no guns," it's their right to do so, and as a guest, you have no right to act otherwise.
Trying to defend a right by negating other rights is foolish. What's the point having a firearm if you have nothing to protect? I want to be able to carry my firearm with me wherever I go. But I don't have a right to something simply because I want it. When a government places restrictions on your ownership and possession of firearms, your property rights are being violated. Encourage other people to respect your rights by respecting theirs.
It has nothing to do with good guys or bad guys. It has to do with competency and protecting those that are not. The fact that you can pass a background check and pass a shooting or safety course may make you legal, but it certainly does not make you competent to use that weapon in a robbery situation like a Radio Shack or Pizza Hut face too often. I know, as I am sure you do, plenty of CCW holsters that would probably be better off not carrying in a situation where, for example, they were outdrawn or surprised. I certainly wouldnt want to be anywhere near them. Employers, insurance companies, and lawyers know that. That is why, especially in the retail world, they have those restrictions. They are right and it makes perfect sense.What rational relationship exists between your job and being denied a civil right? CCWers are people who are state certified "good guys." They've had a background check. They've had their fingerprints taken. They've successfully finished a course on the subject of carrying a concealed handgun.
We all (should) know that people with concealed carry handgun permits are much, much, much less likely than the general population to commit crime.
What rational relationship is there for a database programmer, a nurse, a doctor, an accountant, or a construction worker to be denied the means to protect himself/herself?
NONE.
It makes no sense. This country would be a d*mn sight better off if people just refused to take this kind of abuse any longer.
This is a civil right. IMHO, denying a gun owner his/her civil rights is right up there with segregated restaurants and buses in Selma, AL seventy years ago.
You feel no moral compunction against trespassing and fraud?
[snip]
This is private property we're talking about, not public streets and parks paid for with stolen money and controlled by whatever politicians happen to be in office at the time. When someone sets rules for the use of their property, you abide by those rules or you are trespassing. Trespassing is a form of theft. It's the unauthorized use of someone else's property. The fact that you've gotten yourself into a situation where there is only one place of employment available to you does not give you a right to violate the rights of someone else. Some people seem to think that just because a place is owned in the name of a business that there aren't real people who own that property - that there aren't real people who have the right to say how that property is to be used. I'm sure you have rules for your own property - your home, your car, your place of business, even your body - and you expect people to follow those rules while there. If you trespass, you deserve to be not only evicted, but also prosecuted for the cost of evicting and prosecuting you (at a minimum). If you can't follow the rules, go somewhere else.
My company has a no firearms policy. I also work in the SIDA area of airports(more than one). If I could carry, I would. But unfortunately, I need the job. If there was a way to carry without breaking state and federal laws, I would. But me in prison will not help my family. Given the choice, I would carry even in those places if there was no jail time attached to being caught.There is the unique situation in which the employer operates a secure facility in which crossing the property line puts you within a security perimeter with armed security. That makes the discussion moot as there is no practical option to ignore the employer's requirement. If they're government facilities it is illegal to violate the rule.
Very high-minded of you. You've got it all figured it, don't you?It has nothing to do with good guys or bad guys. It has to do with competency and protecting those that are not. The fact that you can pass a background check and pass a shooting or safety course may make you legal, but it certainly does not make you competent to use that weapon in a robbery situation like a Radio Shack or Pizza Hut face too often. I know, as I am sure you do, plenty of CCW holsters that would probably be better off not carrying in a situation where, for example, they were outdrawn or surprised. I certainly wouldnt want to be anywhere near them. Employers, insurance companies, and lawyers know that. That is why, especially in the retail world, they have those restrictions. They are right and it makes perfect sense.
To me, the question boils down to what is your word worth.