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; Originally Posted by Cycler ............. I personally think that the line is drawn to far in the favor of the mega business leaders and mega ...
The melt-down was the result of a "perfect storm" a very long time in the making. The mortgages to which you refer were available, in some markets, prior to Fannie and Freddie "coming on board", but that misses the point - Fannie and Freddie securitized and sold the mortgages, thus creating a market for same.
This below piece from the WSJ lays it out pretty well based on my experience.I won't address the "Evil Cabal" theory, but needless to say, I don't agree with many of the points. Some, perhaps, all, no. The reason is while yes, Wal*Mart is huge, it is still a consumer driven corporation. They sell what people buy. If people do not buy an item, Wal*Mart ceases selling the product. Wal*Mart may limit choices to make their inventory management easier, but consumers can vote with their feet. I can, and do, everyday.Acorn and the Housing Bubble
By EDWARD PINTO
All agree that the bursting of the housing bubble caused the financial collapse of 2008. Most agree that the housing bubble started in 1997. Less well understood is that this bubble was the result of government policies that lowered mortgage-lending standards to increase home ownership. One of the key players was the controversial liberal advocacy group, Acorn (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now).
The watershed moment was the 1992 Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act, also known as the GSE Act. To comply with that law's "affordable housing" requirements, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would acquire more than $6 trillion of single-family loans over the next 16 years.
Congress's goal was to force these two government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) to purchase loans that had been originated by banks—loans that were made under the pressure of another federal law, the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), to increase lending in low- and moderate-income communities.
From 1977 to 1991, $9 billion in local CRA lending commitments had been announced. CRA lending by large banks increased dramatically after the affordable housing mandate was in place in 1993, growing to $6 trillion today. As Ellen Seidman, director of the federal Office of Thrift Supervision, said in a speech before the Greenlining Institute on Oct. 2, 2001, "Our record home ownership rate [increasing from 64.2% in 1994 to 68% in 2001], I'm convinced, would not have been reached without CRA and its close relative, the Fannie/Freddie requirements."
The 1992 GSE Act was the fuse, and the trillions of dollars in subsequent CRA and GSE affordable-housing loans would fuel the greatest housing bubble our nation has ever seen. But who lit the fuse?
The previous year, as Allen Fishbein, currently an adviser for consumer policy at the Federal Reserve, has noted, Acorn and other community groups were informally deputized by then House Banking Chairman Henry Gonzalez to draft statutory language setting the law's affordable-housing mandates. Interim goals were set at 30% of the single-family mortgages purchased by Fannie and Freddie, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development has increased that percentage over time. The goal of the community groups was to force Fannie and Freddie to loosen their underwriting standards, in order to facilitate the purchase of loans made under the CRA.
Thus a provision was inserted into the law whereby Congress signaled to the GSEs that they should accept down payments of 5% or less, ignore impaired credit if the blot was over one year old, and otherwise loosen their lending guidelines.
The proposals of Acorn and other affordable-housing advocacy groups were acceptable to Fannie. Fannie had been planning to use the carrot of affordable-housing lending to maintain its hold over Congress and stave off its efforts to impose a strong safety and soundness regulator to oversee the company. (It was not until 2008 that a strong regulator was created for Fannie and Freddie. A little over a month later both GSEs were placed into conservatorship; they have requested a combined $112 billion in assistance from the federal government, and much more will be needed over the next few years.)
The result of loosened credit standards and a mandate to facilitate affordable-housing loans was a tsunami of high risk lending that sank the GSEs, overwhelmed the housing finance system, and caused an expected $1 trillion in mortgage loan losses by the GSEs, banks, and other investors and guarantors, and most tragically an expected 10 million or more home foreclosures.
As a result of congressional and regulatory actions, the percentage of conventional first mortgages (not guaranteed by the Federal Housing Administration or the Veteran's Administration) used to purchase a home with the borrower putting 5% or less down tripled from 9% in 1991 to 27% in 1995, eventually reaching 29% in 2007.
Fannie and Freddie acquired $1.2 trillion of loans from banks and other lenders from 1993 to 2007. This amounted to 62% of all such conventional home purchase loans with a down payment of 5% or less that were originated nationwide over the same period.
Fannie and Freddie also acquired $2.2 trillion in subprime loans and private securities backed by subprime loans from 1997 to 2007. Acorn and the other advocacy groups succeeded at getting Congress to mandate "innovative and flexible" lending practices such as higher debt ratios and creative definitions of income. And the serious delinquency rate on Fannie and Freddie's $1.5 trillion in high-risk loans was 10.3% as of Sept. 30, 2009.
This is about seven times the delinquency rate on the GSEs' traditional loans. Fifty percent of the high-risk loans are estimated to be CRA loans, with much of the remainder useful to the GSEs in meeting their affordable-housing goals.
The flood of CRA and affordable-housing loans with loosened underwriting standards, combined with declining mortgage interest rates—to 5% in 2003 from 10% in early 1991—resulted in a massive increase in borrowing capacity and fueled a house price bubble of unprecedented magnitude over the period 1997-2006.
Now this history may repeat itself as many of the same community groups are pushing Congress to expand CRA to cover all mortgage lenders, credit unions, insurance companies and others financial industry segments. Are we about to set the stage for another catastrophe?
Mr. Pinto was the chief credit officer at Fannie Mae from 1987 to 1989. He is currently a consultant to the mortgage-finance industry.
I can buy almost anything I want at any number of locally owned and locally operated businesses, without darkening the door of our Wal*Mart. Those businesses are generally operated as corporations or LLC's, and that does not make them inherently better or worse than a sole proprietorship. That is merely a form of operating and owning the business, generally driven by legal matters (limited liability, for one).......
Anyway, I just don't see our current economic position as comparable to the ages of Rockefeller's Standard Oil, or Carnegie's Steel Monopoly, or the Railroad Barons. There is simply too much competition.
That's just my .02.
So, to answer the thread, you're free to find a new employer, and will need to, because they have the right to terminate you.
It is very simple.
I carry a gun everywhere. My former SIL is just finishing up a 2 year sentance for Parole violation on a 7 year sentance for trafficking. He is there becuase my wife and daughter testified against him in court. people that have crossed him in the past have ended up dead. My wife also carries a gun everywhere she goes.Why would you want to carry a gun at work unless you are a copDid you read the part of my post where I said I work alone?why would you want to scare your fellow workers.
Personally I never wear my uniform off site period.I am a Security Officer who wears a generic uniform to work. The policy says that I cant carry while wearing the company logo & in uniform. Slacks, Blazer, white shirt w/tie, and a generic Badge is all it consists of. The only logo I wear would be on my company issued Bomber Jacket. I usually only wear it onsite, and leave it in my locker. I wear my personal coat in transit. I have decided to start taking the train to work and will not be doing so unarmed. I was wondering if I am in a grey area where my company policy is concerned?
"If we loose Freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the Last Place on Earth!" Ronald Reagan
Time to shut this one down (again). The horse is dead, no reason to keep taking the bat to him.
Thomas Jefferson - “To George Washington, 1796: One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.”
I started my own business, *require* my staff to carry, and even provide a weapon for every workstation. 'Course the staff is me and my wife, and the business isn't feeding us.
For food and medical insurance I have to go to town and work for a large company. They set the tune, and I dance: if I don't, I'll be on the street looking for work or congratulating myself on being a sole proprietor on a severe diet. I do *not* carry at work because the threat to my family is greater from out-of-work than it is from a bad guy. Others may come to different conclusions: I'm speaking for myself.
But you still have options that are within company policy: learn Krav Maga, and maybe carry a cane. My back pain is real and my weight and age are consistent with cane use, so I started to use one. I made my own of 1.5" hickory with a large brass harness knob on the top, which is stout enough for a 400-pounder to use. On investigation I was astonished to discover what even a minimally-trained person with a stick can do: see http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulle...ed-review.html and http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulle...ew-author.html.
I worked for a company in the 80’s that had a policy against firearms in the work place. Yet as I moved up the ranks, and stated attending meetings that including the president of the company, I found out he was protected by four men armed with Uzi 24/7.
So do as I say not as I do, was there true company policy.
So, like you I paid no attention to company policy and carried my Walther PPKs 24/7.
Sure it is hypocritical - but that's his lookout, not yours. His hypocrisy does not change the nature of his authority over his property and over you if you choose to remain on his payroll.
Any internet laywers want to take a shot at this one?
Any internet laywers want to take a shot at this one?It will depend solely on the employment law and regulations in the state of employment, and whether or not a company needs a reason or justification.OK, what if there is no company policy. If the employee handbook makes no mention of weapons, what would the employer have to do to justify firing a person. I agree if the company policy prohibits it they can fire you, but what if it's not covered at all?
Of course, we all know all of the exceptions to that, so that's my humble opinion.
Then they'll find another reason to fire you.OK, what if there is no company policy.
You don't have a "right" to a job.
Last edited by ccw9mm; December 8th, 2009 at 11:38 PM.