Does my employer have the right to fire me for carrying at work? - Page 3

Does my employer have the right to fire me for carrying at work?

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 ...

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 76

Thread: Does my employer have the right to fire me for carrying at work?

  1. #31
    VIP Member Array gottabkiddin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    North Georgia
    Posts
    7,072

    Can a company fire you for breaking any policy.

    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

    GBK
    "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


  2. #32
    Member Array Cycler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    281
    Quote Originally Posted by cliffyp View Post
    Property rights supercede (or at least should) all other rights.
    All other rights? You sure you just wrote that?

  3. #33
    Distinguished Member Array Paymeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,536
    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

  4. #34
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,886
    Quote Originally Posted by Cycler View Post
    Although I understand that today your original statement is true, it shouldn't be that way.

    Just like we require employers to provide a safe work environment etc., employers should not be allowed to violate basic human rights such as the right to defend one's self. I think at most, an employer should be allowed to ban open cary and possibly an option to fire if obviously revealed iff you could convince me that this wouldn't be used to out people somehow.

    I also might be convinced that sole proprietorships might be able to do what they want.
    Ok, why would you be convinced that sole prop. be able to do what they want and a larger company not? That makes no sense to me.

    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.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  5. #35
    Distinguished Member Array orangevol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Southwest, TN
    Posts
    1,247
    Proud NRA member

  6. #36
    Senior Member Array mastercapt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    502

    fired for carrying?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Macklin View Post

    If it is only company policy and you're discrete, why would they know? The only way they would know is if you stopped a deranged killer at a board meeting before the CEO and BD were all killed. How could they possibly fire you then?
    The last place I worked for would have still fired you. The home office rules them.

    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.

  7. #37
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,105
    Quote Originally Posted by Cycler View Post
    Although I understand that today your original statement is true, it shouldn't be that way.

    Just like we require employers to provide a safe work environment etc., employers should not be allowed to violate basic human rights such as the right to defend one's self. I think at most, an employer should be allowed to ban open cary and possibly an option to fire if obviously revealed iff you could convince me that this wouldn't be used to out people somehow.

    I also might be convinced that sole proprietorships might be able to do what they want.
    But they are not denying you any Rights. You are forfeiting them when you accept the terms of your employment there. Your presence there is not legally required by anyone. You choose to obey company policies as a condition of your employment. If those policies are not acceptable to you, you are not required to continue working for them. You can walk away at any time.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  8. #38
    Distinguished Member Array Guardian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wichita Falls, Texas
    Posts
    1,618
    Quote Originally Posted by varob View Post
    As I've read thru these "carry at work threads" I can't see how some would risk loosing their job in a time where the unemployment rate is 10% or higher?
    Exactly, I have to question your reasoning for this action do you have rich parents or something.
    "I dislike death, however, there are some things I dislike more than death. Therefore, there are times when I will not avoid danger" Mencius"

  9. #39
    Member Array pollardjd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    76
    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...

  10. #40
    Member Array Cycler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    281
    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 06:47 PM. Reason: typos and one clarification

  11. #41
    Distinguished Member Array bladenbullet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    englewood, fl
    Posts
    1,751
    Quote Originally Posted by Cycler View Post
    Although I understand that today your original statement is true, it shouldn't be that way.

    Just like we require employers to provide a safe work environment etc., employers should not be allowed to violate basic human rights such as the right to defend one's self. I think at most, an employer should be allowed to ban open cary and possibly an option to fire if obviously revealed iff you could convince me that this wouldn't be used to out people somehow.

    I also might be convinced that sole proprietorships might be able to do what they want.
    the employer is not violating a basic human right to protect oneself...thinking more broadly they are merely only limiting what means you use to defend yourself...dress code might prevent someone from wearing a bulletproof vest...is that limiting their ability to protect themselves?...or...maybe you should consider a bulletproof vest if you are concerned that your ability to defend yourself is compromised then additional protection is warranted...should i be allowed to carry a samurai sword at work because i choose it as a device for personal protection?...

    Quote Originally Posted by Frogbones View Post
    Yep...IMO this is really a no brainer and not much for disucssion. They say no...well no means no.

    You go against thier wishs and regulations..and they find out?..well?

    If you say to somebody not to do something in your house as such....you expect them to respect that request, no?. If they don't and blantently disrespect your wish's...... would you not ask them to leave?

    .......
    ditto that...unfortunately some involved in minority recreational and lifestyle classes such as ccw holders seldom consider the rights of others to limit what takes place on their own property in their own desire to "delicately force" their lifestyle on others...

    Quote Originally Posted by liljake82 View Post
    IMHO if you want to challenge a company policy hire a lawyer, but don't tempt fate. If you break the rules don't complain if you get fired, it's no skin off my nose either way. Martyrs may be inspirational but are rarely useful.
    thats where the big boy pants come in....if youre breaking rules expect consequences if discovered...dont whine....accept them...if you want to challenge...challenge before youre discovered...if its that important to you it should be worth the risk of dismissal or disciplinary action...

    i like the martyr line....they are seldom heroes in real life..only on the big screen...in real life they are examples...

  12. #42
    Ex Member Array Ram Rod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fayetteville, AR
    Posts
    13,687
    Does my employer have the right to fire me for carrying at work?
    You betchya.

  13. #43
    Member Array cliffyp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    90
    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.

  14. #44
    Member Array Cycler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    281
    Quote Originally Posted by cliffyp View Post
    As far as any labor law goes they aren't necessary.
    So children should be allowed to work in factories?

  15. #45
    Member Array cliffyp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    90
    Quote Originally Posted by Cycler View Post
    So children should be allowed to work in factories?
    Allowed, Yes. Forced, No.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Is there a law about carrying a knife at work, unconceald
    By WpnCllctr in forum Defensive Knives & Other Weapons
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: May 1st, 2010, 01:59 PM
  2. Carrying concealed at work ?
    By Donodii in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: June 13th, 2009, 11:24 PM
  3. Carrying At Work
    By Adam500 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: June 12th, 2008, 11:59 AM
  4. Carrying at work
    By nkanofolives in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: November 29th, 2007, 03:58 PM
  5. Carrying at Work
    By vernonator in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: November 21st, 2006, 11:21 AM

Search tags for this page

can a emoloyer fire for ccw
,
can my employer keep me from carrying a concealed handgun
,
can my employer keep me from carrying a gun
,

can my employer prevent me from carrying a gun

,
can my employer prohibit me from concealed carry
,
can my employer stop me from carrie my hand gun in michigan
,

can my employer stop me from carrying a firearm

,
can my employer stop me from carrying a gun
,

can my job fire me for open carry

,
does my employer have the right to search my locker
,
my employer terminated me for owning a gun
,

right to fire states

Click on a term to search for related topics.