Violating company policy WRT to firearms

[Ankeny]

And if there is no other employment available?

Then follow the rules.

 

[WinThePennant]

Where would this country be if George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and many other famous persons had "followed the rules?"

 

[Agsalaska]

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.

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.

 

[351 WINCHESTER]

I was a boarding agent for cargo ships and from time to time I had to carry ships payroll by myself (stupid, I know). I was always armed even though our employee handbook forbid weapons of any kind. My boss knew I carried, but never cared.

I was given special consideration by the Military Sealift Command insomuch as they would allow me to give them my weapon upon entering their facility, holding it upon my departure. I never had a problem, but I retired shortly after 9/11 as things went south real quick.

 

[gearhead]

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.

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.

 

[Mikhail Weiss]

...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?

Yes.

No one can guarantee your safety and security.

You are responsible for your own safety and security.

It is immoral for one to violate the safety and security of another.

Adults make their own decisions and accept the consequences of those decisions.

Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp followed a Texas law (not a workplace rule) that violated her safety and security by forbidding carry of concealed weapons. As a consequence, she could not provide for that safety and security, nor that of her parents, when George Hennard used a pair of pistols to massacre her parents, and 21 others, in a Texas Luby's in 1991.

George Hennard's actions were immoral. The law demanding that Dr. Hupp disarm before entering the restaurant was immoral.

Dr. Hupp could have chosen to enter Luby's with her gun illegally concealed in her purse, conducting her business without harm or interruption to others, and might therefore have had a chance to save lives when Hennard embarked upon his killing spree. She instead chose to follow an immoral law. She lives with the consequences.

It's highly unlikely that one will be murdered while dining at a San Ysidro McDonald's, attending college in Virginia, riding a train on Long Island, visiting a mall in Salt Lake City, attending a church in Colorado Springs … but such things happen.

As has been said here many times before, it's not the odds, but the stakes.

Adults get to make their own decisions, and live with them.

 

[Agsalaska]

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.

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.

 

[Lou McGopher]

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.

You feel no moral compunction against trespassing and fraud?

And if there is no other employment available?

Then become self-employed.

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.

 

[gearhead]

And when the private property is the company vehicle? A vehicle that I'm only driving on a business trip because the company policy is to require me to use a company vehicle if available because it's cheaper for them to pay for the fuel than to pay me the IRS-mandated per-mile rate for traveling in my own car? I've found myself in enough pretty disreputable parts of town while trying to find my way around a strange place to make it a personal rule to never travel out of town unarmed where legal. I've been verbally threatened on one occasion and felt threatened by the way the crowd of locals looked me over on a few other occasions, simply for the act of being a stranger with out of state license plates in their neighborhood.

 

[WinThePennant]

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.

 

[brickeyee]

guess who's gonna get fired and have no recourse?

Guess who will end up dead and have no recourse?

 

[Lou McGopher]

And when the private property is the company vehicle?

If it's their property, you follow their rules when using it.

What rational relationship exists between your job and being denied a civil right?

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.

 

[3KillerBs]

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?
...

I would not be so idiotic as to attempt to determine my employee's choices of underwear (assuming it was not visible). A concealed gun is on the same level. It 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.

 

[3KillerBs]

...

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?

You could try responding to what I actually said.

As for "honor", ...

Let's try some Kipling here, ...

...
Man, a bear in most relations — worm and savage otherwise, —
Man propounds negotiations, Man accepts the compromise.
Very rarely will he squarely push the logic of a fact
To its ultimate conclusion in unmitigated act.

Fear, or foolishness, impels him, ere he lay the wicked low,
To concede some form of trial even to his fiercest foe.
Mirth obscene diverts his anger — Doubt and Pity oft perplex
Him in dealing with an issue — to the scandal of The Sex!

But the Woman that God gave him, every fibre of her frame
Proves her launched for one sole issue, armed and engined for the same;
And to serve that single issue, lest the generations fail,
The female of the species must be deadlier than the male.

She who faces Death by torture for each life beneath her breast
May not deal in doubt or pity — must not swerve for fact or jest.
These be purely male diversions — not in these her honour dwells—
She the Other Law we live by, is that Law and nothing else.

She can bring no more to living than the powers that make her great
As the Mother of the Infant and the Mistress of the Mate.
And when Babe and Man are lacking and she strides unclaimed to claim
Her right as femme (and baron), her equipment is the same.

She is wedded to convictions — in default of grosser ties;
Her contentions are her children, Heaven help him who denies! —
He will meet no suave discussion, but the instant, white-hot, wild,
Wakened female of the species warring as for spouse and child.
...​

http://www.corneredcat.com/The_Female_of_the_Species/

 

[3KillerBs]

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.

What part of my explanation that the company I work for ROUTINELY violates OSHA rules did you fail to understand? I said nothing about companies in general, just about my personal experience with the specific factory I work in.

If I could just run out and get another job that payed a comparable rate, was a comparable commute from my home, suited my physical capabilities, and had significantly better working conditions I would. But I can't. I've tried.

I'm not going to starve my kids or go on food stamps because of some self-righteous blather about "honor". Especially from people who have continued to fail to honestly address the detailed reasons I provided in my original post.

I owe my employer an honest day's labor, nothing more. I do not in any way shirk that duty. I do any job I'm assigned to and do it to the best of my ability. I am more likely to come back from break 3 minutes early than 3 minutes late.

I have a family to feed. My self-employed husband saw the recession chop our income by 2/3. I don't have the luxury of being picky about my job.

But I have no moral obligation to obey a silly, ineffective rule that, as I have related multiple times, did not prevent a man who had just been fired from picking up a piece of pipe and nearly killing one of the supervisors -- especially when they instituted that rule after I had worked there for a year already.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Then follow the rules.

I value both my life and the means to provide for it more than any rule. I'm on this earth for me. You do what you will for you.

You're not going to pay my bills or defend my life. My boss isn't going to pay my bills and defend my life. I wouldn't ask anyone to do those things anyways.

I must do both. And I won't pick between one or the other.

 

[WinThePennant]

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.

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.

The corporate state, and the corporate mentality, is a prison of the human mind.

 

[Agsalaska]

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.

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.

 

[brboyer]

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.

Trespassing is illegal, I don't do that because I do not want to go to jail. Florida's trespassing statutes are very specific, I abide by them.

Fraud is also illegal. I do not commit that crime either. Those statutes are also quite specific.

 

[Shoobee]

In the "shall issue" states, I can sympathize with employers forbidding employees to bring guns into their establishments. I cannot sympathize when they go so far as to say not in your car either however.

If the employer wants to take responsibility for the employee's safety while on the premesis, then I think they are within their rights, but they better have a pretty good security and metal detectors etc.

But the parking lot is where the employees are then forced to keep their gun(s). Forbidding this in the parking lots is going too far, in my opinion.

These are all issues that come up in the "shall issue" states. In the "may issue" states which by and large *do not* issue, it is a pipe dream.

I suppose if I lived in a "shall issue" state, I would keep my 45ACP in my car whether the company liked it or not. I just would not let them find out.

If I worked for such a company, I would want a seat near an exit, so I could get out fast if there was a shootout or workplace massacre, so I could get to my car, at least, and get away.

 

[Chris-bob]

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.

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.

If I was in different employment, I would hope that my co-workers also violated the no firearms policy with me.

 

[Shoobee]

It's never "moot" because you still need to drive from your home to the property.

That's why it's never "moot."

Unless they also come and pick you up in an armored car, it's never "moot."

 

[WinThePennant]

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.

Very high-minded of you. You've got it all figured it, don't you?

I'd like you to introduce yourself to Suzanna Hupp. Kindly explain to her how important it is follow the rules (which she did), and how those rules got her family and many others killed in Luby's Cafeteria.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanna_Hupp

 

[WinThePennant]

Keeping it in the car is pretty much a no-go since most companies that have anti-gun policies also pair those policies with a "right" to search your car.

 

[ForumSurfer]

To me, the question boils down to what is your word worth.

I don't hold my signing of a contract with an employer on the same level as my word. If that is the case, then my word is meaningless. I signed an non-competition agreement specifically stating that I am not to use any knowledge gained during employment at future jobs. I have had more than one job in my career and I have taken knowledge gained with me each time. If I took that clause literal, I'd need to change careers every time I change jobs.