This is a discussion on Does my employer have the right to fire me for carrying at work? within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; As an employer, the simple answer is Yes. If your company has a no firearms policy you may even mess yourself up for your unemployment ...
As an employer, the simple answer is Yes. If your company has a no firearms policy you may even mess yourself up for your unemployment benefits. YMMV
"He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." – Luke 22:36
"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." – Thomas Jefferson
Well, it's right up there, anyway: "life, liberty, property..."
Still, (since we're treading on thin ice anyway with this thread), Scripture indicates that the only right we have is to a just judgement. Pain and death are guaranteed, though. Everything else is gravy.
Yes, they can fire a person. Believe it. Probably that's because they figure they can get a new employee cheaper than paying out the deep-pocket lawsuits that are guaranteed to come after ANY shooting, for emotional trauma to bystanders hurt to the family of "our boy wasn't like that" if the employee with the gun was able to take out the bad guy. But that's their perogative (their property, their rules, the employee's decision to stay and play by the rules or to leave). There are no locks on the door: if one doesn't like the policy, leave and find another job!
I encourage all to act with integrity: by continuing to work at such a place one is tacitly saying that one won't carry. Stretching the point, one could make the argument that one is following the policy by agreeing to be fired if found to be in violation of the policy. So one should act in accordance with the decision one has 'voiced' by continuing to work there: don't carry (my decision) or smile, say "We'll, that's a gotcha!", tip your hat, and head for the door if discovered.
Recently updated website: http://www.damagedphotorepair.com
As far as a company being allowed to violate basic human rights. We all are assuming that the employer isn't requiring you to show up for work, and then attacking you requiring you to just stand there and take it. That would be the violation of your rights.
Do you really think that the employees right supercedes the employer/property owner. So should the employees right to free speech allows them to wear a t-shirt that says vulgar things on it or belittle other employees or customers, or should the employee be allowed to try to convert customers on religions beliefs?
When you go to work for someone else, on their property and agree to the company policies, you are choosing to act in the way they require and do work required in return for a pay check. If you don't want to follow the rules, then don't take the job, and don't expect the pay check. If you take the job anyway, but fail to follow the rules, no whining when your caught doing things that you agreed not to and get fired. Even the 2A shouldn't override a mans/womans word. If your word isn't any better than that, no one want to hear, but, but, but.
Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
Texas CHL Instructor
Texas Hunter Education Instructor
Now days, employers have what is called an "employment at will" contract where they really don't need a reason. They can conjure a reason and lay you off. Like: " Company reorganization,your job is liminated" Then, they simply change the job title for the other worked who are doing what you did. "staff reduction" Temporare layoff" They just never call you back. If you are in a closed shop state and are carrying against company policy, the union can't protect you against firing for that.Actually it don't have to be a written company policy. Best to have a lock box in the car and leave it there.
We had a guy at one of my past employers who was hitting on all the women in there. HR had a notebook full of complainst on him. However, when His time for walk-out came, they laid him off due to "company re-org". Employers don't want to get sued for unjust termination, even if they are totally justified, so they lay off and not rehire you. A lot easier, legal wise.
They would rather pay more unemployment to the state than go to court. See, if you sue, you have a jury. Everyone had been screwed by an employer in his life, so the employee would easily win, even if he is totally wrong.
Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis
People forget; the Second Amendment only protects you from the government taking away your right to keep and bear arms. It has no bearing on a private person or private company from doing so on private property. If you don't like it, go find a job somewhere else...
I'll keep this is short as I can to describe why I feel like I do and why I have no sympathy for making corporations jump through hoops to open shop.
I do, and we all should, fear concentrations of power, irrespective of whether it's business or government. I'm sure that everyone on this board is a skeptic of government and rightfully so.
A long time ago when being the government was the only way to have power it was obvious who the enemy was. Government was something to be feared and kept in check. That's why our consitution was written as it was and why we have the bill of rights. What wasn't anticipated was that new centers of power would be formed around concentrations of wealth and other resources: we now have dynastic families such as the Kennedys and Bushs who have influence they never earned (their ancestors did) and huge megacorporations that practically own parts of the government.
As far as these mega corporations go, they behave like private entities when it suits them, (e.g. at will employment policies, no cary policies) but act like public entities when it benefits them. e.g. public stock, grants, tax breaks, etc.. .Well, in my world you can't have it both ways. This is why a sole proprietorship can be treated differently from a public/private company: it's one man who actually owns the property where he's doing business. In a public corporation, you have a legal entity which owns the property and the humans simply own "shares" or equity stock in the company. The share is the only property that they own - read that again, it's very important.
I think that you can get even the most Rand-esqu Libertarian to agree that child labor laws are a good thing. Child labor laws violate property rights to the benefit of the child's right to be a child. Should we abolish them? I think most (hopefully) would agree that we shouldn't. If we all agree that there are some rights that supersede property rights the question becomes where to draw the line and that's where we have the debate.
I personally think that the line is drawn to far in the favor of the mega business leaders and mega wealthy. The latest evidence that proves this is our latest financial collapse. The legislation that allowed this to happen basically deregulated the investment banking industry and allowed them to create "weapons of mass financial destruction" which has brought down not only our country, but the whole planet. (as an aside, the second richest man on the planet coined that term and a lot of my ideas are based on what we can glean of his philosophy combined with a lot of Dale Carnagie's philosophies - who was also the richest man on the planet at the time he lived). Anyone who thinks it was fanny and freddy that did this are misinformed, the mortgages that set the stage for this were available well before fanny and freddy got on board. Edit: and it was the deregulation of the gramm leach bliley act of 1999 that allowed the financiers to multiply the problem 30 fold.
So, we see that given a truly free market, the centers of wealth and power will use that freedom irresponsibly. For an individual to do so typically results in the individual paying the consequences and perhaps the few that they scammed. Because of the size of these corporations and the magnitude of their scams, thousands and in the case of the financial meltdown, biillions pay the price and the perpetrators get off scott free. Preserving a legal entities rights to do what they want at the risk of society itself simply isn't worth it (I've got a good defensive cary analogy if anyone wants to hear it).
So, first I want to draw a line between people such as you, me and a sole proprietor and a legal entity such as an LLC or a Corporation. People get rights, legal entities get what we allow them through our legal system. They never get rights. The shareholders do retain property rights to their shares - they can do whatever they want with them.
Because legal entities do not get human rights and because public corporations do not truly have owners, it is a fully valid strategy to restrict what they can and cannot do while doing business and what shots they may and may not call on businesses property in order to better preserve an individuals rights and liberties. If the corporation's leaders don't like it, they can always choose to do business in another country or open a sole proprietorship. If they want to do business in our country though, they must play by our rules (which is a whole nother political post).
Much longer than I anticipated but what the heck....Flame on but let's keep it on topic.
Last edited by Cycler; December 5th, 2009 at 05:47 PM. Reason: typos and one clarification
i like the martyr line....they are seldom heroes in real life..only on the big screen...in real life they are examples...
You betchya.Does my employer have the right to fire me for carrying at work?
As far as any labor law goes they aren't necessary. If it's a dangerous job, or has terrible pay, or horrible hours and you think it's wrong, then don't work there. If an employer says "here's the job description and pay rate" and someone else says "ya I'll do it", why should anyone else care or have a say. If the job/pay changes and they don't like it they can leave. No law is necessary if the employee can freely leave. If you can't freely leave when you don't like the conditions, that's slavery, which is both immoral and illegal.
An individual can own an LLC, S Corp, C Corp and be the only owner. What he owns is a share 100%, the entity owns the property. Should he lose his property rights because he used a corporate structure? What about 2 owners?where is it too many owners 10, 50, 100? How do you decide. Why do other people, whether the government or private, have a better claim to property rights than the investors who put up their time and money to aquire the property?
You are correct to be concerned about government power, because you have no choice if you disagree. If tomorrow they said all guns are illegal you couldn't then say "well I'm not going to pay taxes to fund the collection of the guns." if you did they would round you up along with the guns.
With corporations you have a choice. If you don't like their policies don't buy their products or work for them. Go support the people you agree with.