Carrying At Work

[Tennessee Gentleman]

An employer has the right to establish the rules he thinks are best for his workplace provided he does not violate the law.

OK, is my right to self defense a "higher" law than that of the employer's work policy. Particularly if the employer does not take steps (metal detectors, armed security guards etc) to protect me.

The reference to civil disobedience was really meant to highlight that idea. That is: I have a God-given (so no one can take it away from me) right to self defense, therefore the employer may not ethically take it away from me without providing substitutionary protection from harm? I am not arguing that the law and the employer might sanction you for carrying but maybe it isn't dishonest as you say to disregard those policies and carry anyway, realizing of course you will be fired if discovered.

Remember Jim Crow laws were at one time legal but immoral to many and many disobeyed, not all openly either. Is the employer giving an immoral order?

As to civil disobedience, I think only Thoreau said it has to be public dissent Tolstoy might give me more slack on that.

[David Armstrong]

That's BUNK, David. I agreed to no such policy when I hired on. The company changed the rules after I had 25 years service. Guess I should have quit and found another job and lost my retirement. Right?

Did you continue to take the company money and retirement benefits, with the understanding that you were following the new rules?

....like Mr. Armstrong, who consider the company's policy more important than their life and wish to comply.

Please, let's not make things up and try to present them as factual. that is another example of being dishonest. While possible, I can think of no company policy that is more important than my life right off the top of my head. However, I go back to a couple of points. If you fear for your life so much that you're afraid to come to work without a gun, I suggest you find new employment. And, no matter how you try make it smell nice, it boils down to "I think it is OK for me to be dishonest just for money, but I don't think it should work that way for the company." Sorry, my personal code does not allow me to lie or cheat just to make a buck. I've seen way too many folks use that justification under way too many circumstances. I'm not down on those whose moral fiber points a different direction, but I am down on those who attempt to use hypocrisy to justify dishonesty.

[David Armstrong]

OK, is my right to self defense a "higher" law than that of the employer's work policy.

From a practical standpoint, no, it is not. That is why the law allows them to do what they do. But also from a practical standpoint, the employer is not removing that right if you voluntarily agree to waive it in exchange for salary, benefits, etc.

That is: I have a God-given (so no one can take it away from me) right to self defense, therefore the employer may not ethically take it away from me without providing substitutionary protection from harm?

Again, the employer is not taking it away, the employer is offering an incentive---you agree to follow my rules and I will give you employment.

...but maybe it isn't dishonest as you say to disregard those policies and carry anyway, realizing of course you will be fired if discovered.

Of course it is dishonest, otherwise there wouldn't be all this talk about hiding the behavior from the employer. If one truly believes, they should have the fortitude to tell the employer they disagree with the policy and they will not follow it, thus giving the employer the ability to decide if they wish to continue the contractual work/salary relationship.

Remember Jim Crow laws were at one time legal but immoral to many and many disobeyed, not all openly either.

I think it somewhat questionable to compare an unalterable genetic issue with a voluntary choice issue.

Tolstoy might give me more slack on that.

Ummm, are you sure you'd rather have your actions associated with Tolstoy than with Thoreau?

[longcoldwinter]

My employer does not expressly forbid carring conceled weapons, I am sure thats just because its never been brought up. I would not be comfortable carrying unless I asked first and I sure they would not grant me "permission" to carry.

From a practical stand point, my job entails going into too many prohibited places on a daily basis for carrying to be practical. I figure with all the adminstrative handling associated with taking the gun on and off in the confines of my car I would be more likely to have a accidental discharge then I would needing my gun for self defense.

[Gamisou]

Anybody know what the Walgreens policy is?

I just got hired as a manager trainee, and haven't received any work policy forms yet.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

From a practical standpoint, no, it is not.

I think you mean from a legal standpoint. But, is it ethical and yes if the employer doesn't provide protection and tells you that you can't carry they are, from a practical standpoint, taking it away.

Of course it is dishonest, otherwise there wouldn't be all this talk about hiding the behavior from the employer.

Really? So a person in the employ of his government in the spy business, say infiltrating a terrorist cell, passes himself off as someone he is not is dishonest? Was Shindler dishonest when he told the Nazi's he needed x number of workers in order to save their lives when, from a practical standpoint he did not really need them? Was the underground railroad dishonest? They broke the law. Don't ever confuse legal and ethical they are very different. The clowns that wrote those sub-prime loans probably broke no laws in doing so, however, I think most would call them unethical.

I think it somewhat questionable to compare an unalterable genetic issue with a voluntary choice issue.

Race or Religion is not the issue. Is the rule immoral and if so are you dishonest for disobeying it? I think you frame the issue wrong. We aren't lying to make money we are lying to protect our own lives which we have a God-given right to do. I think you are applying a very stringent rule for ethics here that might not pass muster even in your own experience not related to this issue.

Ummm, are you sure you'd rather have your actions associated with Tolstoy than with Thoreau?

Hey! Whats wrong with Tolstoy? Just another suicidal Russian writer.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

We are drifting into various theories of morality.

Some theorists regard the highest level as following the ethical principles of your own conscience. So, if you think it is moral, you would disobey a law.

Some postulate that the highest level is to follow the laws even if you disagree with them.

Some argue that you should operate at self-interest levels.

However, if you disagree and disobey - is that the highest level if you don't simultaneously, try to change the policy? Without that, the morality argument devolves to the self-interest argument with high moral values just used as a rationalization.

Now, who is to say that self-interest isn't the most important motivation - that's another argument.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

We are drifting into various theories of morality.

Glenn, you are right. However, David used the word "dishonest" and passed some judgement and I wanted to challenge that as an absolute.

I do believe in the rule of law so please don't misunderstand but I do NOT believe it is the higher way to obey laws that violate your conscience. In fact, based on my military background obeying an unlawful order is the same as doing the crime and you cannot claim a defense that you only did as told.

I guess the bottomline is that each person must decide whether to quit, carry secretly or not carry based on what their conscience says. David may think to carry in a prohibited place is dishonest but I am not so sure.

[Nnobby45]

You have all the rebuttles for eveything, don't you David.

The thread was started by a man who works at a gas station, at close to minimum wage, I suspect, and can't defend his life because his employers' insurance company won't cover his employer, I suspect, unless all employees are unarmed and incapable of injuring an armed robber.


As I've already stated, my company changed it's policy on the advise of it's lawyers after I'd worked there 25 yrs. Prior to that, weapons weren't covered by company policy. I wasn't allowed to have a pocket knife, even though I drove a truck that contained hammers, screwdrivers, heavy metal rods, cable sheath knives, etc., etc.

Obviously, you consider me dishonest for not following the rules of a major utilities company that considers it's liability more important than the lives of it's employees. So be it. And, as stated, I never carried a fire arm on the job, but only so that I may be armed to and from work.

American anti-resistance of any kind businesses never had a better ally than yourself, who I suspect, is armed most of the time for your own protection--except where the company doesn't approve, of course.

[David Armstrong]

I think you mean from a legal standpoint.

No, I mean from a practical standpoint, as I believe the entire "higher law" philosophy is not only unworkable, but also impractical. But since you bring it up, yes, it is that way from a legal standpoint also.

But, is it ethical and yes if the employer doesn't provide protection and tells you that you can't carry they are, from a practical standpoint, taking it away.

Yes, it is ethical and no, they are not taking it away, both for the same reason. They are giving you the option to participate. Nobody is forcing you to take employment with them. If you wish to exercise the option that is your choice, but the option includes following the rules.

Really?

Yes, really. That you have to resort to items that are so far removed from what is being discussed pretty much indicates that you can't justify your position except under the most unusual of circumstances.

Don't ever confuse legal and ethical they are very different.

Don't think I've talked about legal and ethical in this context. I've talked about honesty. Honesty should also not be confused with legal and ethical, as they are different.

Race or Religion is not the issue.

Agreed. Voluntary behavior is the issue, so one should not even try to equate that with race or other factors. Don't know why you brought it up.

Is the rule immoral and if so are you dishonest for disobeying it?

I might agree the rule is immoral, but that has nothing to do with the issue and is a completely different issue to discuss. You still voluntarily agree to follow the rules. If you have agreed to follow the rules in exchange for something, then you accept the "something" knowing that you have willfully violated the rules, yes, that is dishonest. It is that way with everything else in the rules, I don't know why a gun rule is any different. If you agree to work 8 hours for $80, but then only work 5 hours but still take the $80 by hiding the fact you did not work the full 8 hours, that is dishonest.

We aren't lying to make money we are lying to protect our own lives which we have a God-given right to do.

If that is your concern then you should give back your paycheck, right? Or you can also chose to work someplace else, or not work at all. That way you wouldn't need to lie. But if you take the money based on the belief that you have met your end of the agreement and you have not done so, it is dishonest and it is for the purpose of getting money. The fact taht most of your co-workers are getting the same money while following the rules makes it even more problematic.

I think you are applying a very stringent rule for ethics here that might not pass muster even in your own experience not related to this issue.

Not sure what you mean by "even in your own experience not related to this issue." Sorry, but if you'll rephrase that I'll try to respond. But from an ethics standpoint, yes, it is a fairly stringent rule. Either your word is your bond and is to be trusted or it is not. Violating your word strictly for money is dishonest, even though it might be understandable. My $.02.

In fact, based on my military background obeying an unlawful order is the same as doing the crime and you cannot claim a defense that you only did as told.

IIRC, to claim that defense you have to openly decline the order and say why you will not follow it, correct?

[David Armstrong]

You have all the rebuttles for eveything, don't you David.

Oh gosh no. I doubt anybody has all the rebuttals for everything, and I know I certainly don't.

Obviously, you consider me dishonest ....

I have no idea what you are. I can only discuss whether behaviors presented meet certain standards of conduct as I understand them.

American anti-resistance of any kind businesses never had a better ally than yourself,

Not real sure what yo uare trying to say there with the first half of the sentence. But as for the second, as I'm fond of pointing out when people say such things, you have no way of knowing that and thus for you to suggest such a claim as fact is questionable at best, and dishonest at worst.

....is armed most of the time for your own protection--except where the company doesn't approve, of course.

I could care less about if the company approves or not. I am concerned if there is a legal issue or if I am violating a personal position of honor or honesty, but approval is immaterial to me.

[Ohio Rusty]

I never do that !! I work for a school system and weapons in the schools is absolutely verboten !! It's not worth losing my good job over. Not to many good jobs to be had these days ... that is why I don't risk it.
Ohio Rusty ><>

[orionengnr]

That's BUNK, David. I agreed to no such policy when I hired on. The company changed the rules after I had 25 years service. Guess I should have quit and found another job and lost my retirement. Right? My violation of the rules amounted to having a weapon in my car on company property (no choice).
I didn't carry on the job, but was able to arm myself after work and carry on with my life, which I valued enough to protect in defiance of the companys' personal liability concerns.

LASTLY: Personally, I have no quarell with those, like Mr. Armstrong, who consider the company's policy more important than their life and wish to comply. Or even those who only comply out of fear.

DingDingDingDing We have a winner...

[dabigguns357]

If it's legal and worth gettin fired over then yes by all means carry.If it's not legal or you are scared then don't carry.I carry to and from work every day,because there is no law against it nor does my company frown on it.

This is another issue where no one is right or wrong,just personal.So why when i read some posts in this thread i feel like i'm back in college..

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I believe the entire "higher law" philosophy is not only unworkable, but also impractical.

How so? You believe there is no higher law than rules made by men?

Nobody is forcing you to take employment with them. If you wish to exercise the option that is your choice, but the option includes following the rules.

Sometimes people can't just change jobs. Jobs may be hard to come by and people have to work to live. It sounds a bit cavalier to say "Well just quit!" Maybe easy for you but not for many others.

As to following the rules, I say only if they are moral and just should they be followed. The employer is not a king and does not have carte blanche to force employees to do whatever they ask. You cannot be asked to "waive" your right to self defense without some measure of protection being afforded. Giving you a job and paying you does not entitle an employer to risk your life unjustly because his Insurance Agent or Lawyer advises him to. If the employer prohibits you from carrying then he implicitly assumes a greater responsibility for your safety because he has disarmed you and therefore must take measures to protect you. If he does not THAT is dishonest and you are not for carrying against their wishes.

That you have to resort to items that are so far removed from what is being discussed pretty much indicates that you can't justify your position except under the most unusual of circumstances.

No you are saying follow the rules no matter what and so these examples are legit. Maybe you won't answer them because you might not be able to justify your position anymore.

Honesty should also not be confused with legal and ethical, as they are different.

Ethics is about right and wrong and how a person should behave and is not different from honesty. Legality is different from ethics, but honesty is not.

Voluntary behavior is the issue, so one should not even try to equate that with race or other factors. Don't know why you brought it up.

Actually you brought up the race issue but my point with Jim Crow laws was that they were immoral but at the time legal.

Sorry, but if you'll rephrase that I'll try to respond.

I think when you answer the questions I posed in post #56 about not telling the truth or obeying the law in some circumstances you might find that your stringent honesty requirement is subject to some gray area. I think in the cases I mentioned you yourself might not tell the truth or follow the law because there is a greater good in not doing so. I think this carrying at work issue may be one of those same situations.

IIRC, to claim that defense you have to openly decline the order and say why you will not follow it, correct?

No, that is not correct. However, if you obey the illegal order you cannot use the defense of "I was only following orders".

More importantly, I disagree with your position that one must openly disobey immoral laws and that if you don't "fall on your sword" publicly then you are somehow dishonest. That is your opinion but I find no ethical basis for that. You can simply choose not to follow the unjust laws as I suggested in the examples on my earlier post and that includes carrying at work against unjust company policy.

[David Armstrong]

How so? You believe there is no higher law than rules made by men?

There may be, but as I said basing actions on them is impractical, as each of us may have a different higher law.

Sometimes people can't just change jobs.

But they can be honest, they can follow the rules they agreed to follow, etc.

As to following the rules, I say only if they are moral and just should they be followed.

So, who gets to decide that? What if your employer feels the "no carry" rules are moral? Or what if your employer feels it is moral to change your rate of pay whenver he wants without telling you? What if your fellow employees feel it is unjust to force them to work in the same building as aperson who is carrying a gun?

The employer is not a king and does not have carte blanche to force employees to do whatever they ask.

Actually he pretty much does unless there is some law that is controlling.

You cannot be asked to "waive" your right to self defense without some measure of protection being afforded.

But your employer will argue that there is some measure of protection being provided, and that prohibiting carry at work is part of that protection.

No you are saying follow the rules no matter what and so these examples are legit.

Please show us anywhere I have said you should follow the rules no matter what.

Legality is different from ethics, but honesty is not.

Of course it is. Ethics are principles or standards of human conduct, honesty revolves around principles of truthfullness.

Actually you brought up the race issue

No you did by trying to relate civil rights to this, but as it doesn't matter I'll take the credit if you want.

I think in the cases I mentioned you yourself might not tell the truth or follow the law because there is a greater good in not doing so.

OK, I follow you now. And I don't disagree, sometimes you might not be honest because it serves the greater good to be dishonest. I don't think that changes the fact that one is being dishonest, however.

No, that is not correct.

Must have change UCMJ from back in the 70s.

More importantly, I disagree with your position that one must openly disobey immoral laws ....

Sorry, but that is a postion I have not taken. 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.

You can simply choose not to follow the unjust laws as I suggested in the examples on my earlier post and that includes carrying at work against unjust company policy.

Company policy is not law, and yes, you can choose not to follow the policy but if you have agreed to do so it is dishonest. That the policy is unjust is an opinion that many would disagree with and is fairly irrelevent, IMO.

As Glenn has pointed out, this keeps trying to drift towards the issue of morality, which is quite philosophical as well as individual. Honesty should not be based on what you think, but on what you do.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

There may be, but as I said basing actions on them is impractical, as each of us may have a different higher law.

I think that is called a conscience. I have no problem with those who choose to follow theirs.

OK, I follow you now. And I don't disagree, sometimes you might not be honest because it serves the greater good to be dishonest. I don't think that changes the fact that one is being dishonest, however.

So being dishonest isn't always bad? I agree with that, especially when you are disobeying an unjust rule.

Must have change UCMJ from back in the 70s.

I was in then, it has never been different. You have inferred on two occasions in post #46 and again in post #60 that if you don't openly disobey the unjust law it is wrong and I disagree.

Please show us anywhere I have said you should follow the rules no matter what.

You haven't said otherwise until your last post and that seems to be the theme of your argument from the beginning. The rules are the rules and if you break them you are dishonest. You reject disobeying unjust laws unless the aggrieved party does it openly. I disagree as well.

Honesty should not be based on what you think, but on what you do.

It must be based on both.

However, Glenn is right this is drifting. My final bottom line and the final word from me is thus:

Every person has an inalienable right to self defense.

Any employer who denies employees the right to carry must provide equal protection to these employees or the rule is unjust.

If the employer does not provide the protection and prohibits carry then the employee is justified in disobeying the rule, secretly if need be but may be fired if caught. Purely a conscience call I feel.

[David Armstrong]

I think that is called a conscience. I have no problem with those who choose to follow theirs.

Nor do i. My problem is with those who use consciuence, higher law, or whatever as rationalization for dishonesty or other questionable actions.

So being dishonest isn't always bad?

Again, tha is a philosophical issue. Dishoest is always dishonest, but there are times when being honest can create more harm than the good it creates.

I was in then, it has never been different.

I was in at that time also, and I will disagree, as my memory (admittedly 30 years ago) seems to keep telling me otherwise. If someone can provide definite proof one way or the other I'm certainly open to it.

You haven't said otherwise until your last post and that seems to be the theme of your argument from the beginning.

HUH?? I've said nothing like that. I have been consistent in the position that if one agrees to voluntarily follow rules in exchange for a job or other reward then failing to follow those rules and still accepting the reward is dishonest. Don't think I have ever suggested anything much beyond that.

The rules are the rules and if you break them you are dishonest.

That is certainly a major part of what I have been saying.

You reject disobeying unjust laws unless the aggrieved party does it openly.

Again, that is not something I have said.

It must be based on both.

No, that is demonstrably false. I can think that I would really like to steal that watch, but if I don't do it I am acting honestly even though my thoughts were in favor of dishonesty.

Every person has an inalienable right to self defense.

Agreed, but that has nothing to do with following rules you have agreed to follow.

Any employer who denies employees the right to carry must provide equal protection to these employees or the rule is unjust.

Nonsense. If you volunteer to engage in an activity knowing the dangers, no protection is being denied. Of equal importance, what if a majority of employees feel that forcing them to work in an environment where others carry guns is unjust, and the company must provide them protection from you? Whose rights are being denied?

If the employer does not provide the protection and prohibits carry then the employee is justified in disobeying the rule, secretly if need be but may be fired if caught

So you recognize the employees actions are dishonest, as they must be hidden. And the dishonesty is multiplied if the employee then continues to accept his agreed upon reward, as the employee is not living up to his end of the agreement and he recognizes that what he is doing is in violation of the agreement he made.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Well, I guess we agree to disagree. I think your reasoning is faulty and believe I have made all the points I wish to make about it. I will let those who read this thread make up their own minds. Good debate though. Thanks!

PS No soldier is required to openly disobey an illegal order. He is only required not to follow it. He may not be able to openly challenge it due to commo failures and such but he must not obey it nevertheless. He cannot be punished for failing to obey an illegal order even if he is silent. You can look it up in UCMJ or the Standards of Conduct if you wish since you brought it up but that is the deal.

[Sparks2112]

Really interesting conversation guys, thanks for all the great responses. Now, my 2 cents.

I agree, I'm being horribly dishonest by carrying at work while agreeing to obey the rules of employment. That having been said, I'd say my duty to my family to come home at the end of the night outweighs all other duties to honesty, etc...

At the end of the day, that's really all that needs to be said. I HAVE to come home, so I WILL come home, whatever way that entails.

Also it has nothing to do with "If the job is that dangerous, quit." I carry to take my trash to the curb on the off chance that something odd will happen, and this is an amazing neighborhood. So why would it be any different anywhere else?

[David Armstrong]

My final bottom line and the final word from me is thus:

Now see, that is another example of dishonesty. Might be done for the best of reasons, but when you declare that is your final word, then come back and do a whole post after that, you have been dishonest with what you have said.

No soldier is required to openly disobey an illegal order. He is only required not to follow it.

I believe that is referred to as openly disobeying. Not doing something you are told to do is disobeying that command. The fact that you are not hiding it or being deceptive about it means it is done openly. Again, it's been 30 years since I was doing UCMJ classes, and things can change or my memory can be faulty, but barring some evidence I'll stick with it as I remember.

Good debate though. Thanks!

Same to you, and thnks from my side. It's nice when vigorous dispute stays above the personal insult level.

[threegun]

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. Just as a company cannot ask me to break the law as part of the job........that rule to break the law would be wrong and thus not dishonest of me for violating it.

Also carrying doesn't effect job performance. Openly exercising free speech would likely hamper job performance or violate the rights of others who don't agree.

[Brian Pfleuger]

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. The explicit meaning has not been defined by the courts to include mutually agreed employment. Those other items, race, religion etc., HAVE been EXPLICITLY defined by the courts as protected from discrimination and you cannot, even voluntarily, relinquish those rights. Until a court (will have to be SCOTUS eventually) defines the right to SD as inviolable, you (and I) are obliged to follow the terms of employment to which we have agreed. If the terms are changed and we continue to go to work we are implicitly agreeing to the new terms, unless we have lodged a complaint and are allowed to work until the issue is resolved.

The morality of an employer making such a rule is actually a completely different discussion from the legality of such a rule.

[Musketeer]

Not long ago we got a "new" policy manual with loads of stupid stuff in it along with a Non-Disclosure statement. Specifically highlighted was that you could be dismissed at any time for any reason.

I can be fired for having the means to defend myself. I can be fired because the CEO makes a bad decision resulting in a loss of profitability and he needs to show a cost savings. I can be the best or worst employee at the company and be fired for any reason at any time.

I understand that and I accept that and make my decisions based on my value system. I know if I hear shots at the CEO end of the hall I have no intention of intervening, they have a policy to protect them after all.

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. Neither you nor your employer can have the offending party ARRESTED though for such actions. THAT is free speech and that is protected by the Constitution.

As Forest Gump says "and that's all I have to say about that."

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Specifically highlighted was that you could be dismissed at any time for any reason.

In an at-will employment state you can be fired for any reason or no reason.

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.

I agree but I don't know if the courts do. My ignorance. I don't think anyone here disputes if you violate a company policy and are caught you may be fired. The Pizza Hut delivery man comes to mind.

I understand that and I accept that and make my decisions based on my value system.

I agree there also. No duty to obey an unjust rule but may suffer the consequences of disobeying.

The morality of an employer making such a rule is actually a completely different discussion from the legality of such a rule.

True but it has a bearing on whether I might carry at work or not which seems to be what the OP posits.

As an aside, I recognize that many out in the world (on this forum I don't know) might not be in the economic shape to just quit their jobs because of this carry at work issue. I find it disgusting and wrong that the option could well be for them; don't carry at work and get killed or injured; or quit and starve. May be legal but it is not right.