arma virumque cano (et alia)
Sigh, I can but hope that after seeing the news clip that he gives that woman some tips on muzzle awareness. He certainly doesn't fit the stereotypical mold of a midwestern businessman advocating for gun rights.
Good to see an employer taking his employees safety and rights seriously...Though Ms Payne needs more instruction on safe gun handling even with a presumably unloaded firearm..And I say presumably because the XD she was holding appeared not to have a magazine in it
Rule number 1.
So if I refuse to carry a gun will I be fired? Why should I not get $50.00? Has carrying a gun, or not have anything to do with my job performance? He is discriminating against his employees. Paying more to other employees based on something that has nothing to do with job performance.
No more so than those who get extra benefits for being married or having children. Those are all choices. If you choose not to you still get the same standard benefits as all of the other employees.
That's wrong also. Your idea of fair and equal pay is discriminatory.
"So if I refuse to carry a gun will I be fired?".....As stated several times in the video it is the employees choice and currently only one chooses to carry. "He is discriminating against his employees."...He has in no way discriminated anyone. The offer is open to all employees who choose to participate.
"That's wrong also. Your idea of fair and equal pay is discriminatory. " How is this any different than some employers offering pay for an employee's child care expenses? Having a child is just as much a choice as choosing to carry a firearm. It also has the potential for making for a safer employee. After all, they will have $600 per year to buy more training, range time and ammo to improve their skills.
In order to get the bonus money you are forced to carry a gun, which has nothing to do with job performance, that discrimination.
I don't know if I agree with Shelly, but I did wonder if the offer was a bit extravagant. $50 a month seems excessively generous. What do you think?
I don't know if I agree with Shelly, but I did wonder if the offer was a bit extravagant. $50 a month seems excessively generous. What do you think?Am I to understand that we are to look down on employers who exercise "excessive generosity"?
"That's wrong also."You quoted me, but I guess you don't get it.
Shelly - the owner of a business can give as much of his money to whoever he feels like for whatever reason he wants. It is his money. Fairness has nothing to do with it. If you want the money he is offering then you do want he asks you to do. If you don't want to do what he asks then you don't get the money.
Kurt, I made a serious observation followed by a serious question. Do you want to discuss it or just throw out a snide bullshit fake question?
Shelly,As JimF says, it's the employer's money and it's his prerogative to give it out for whatever reasons he wants.Does it discriminate? Yes. But discrimination is not illegal. Only certain forms of discrimination, e.g. based on nationality, race, gender, religion, and, in some jurisdictions, sexual orientation.As long as an employer isn't messing with a protected category he or she is allowed to set whatever incentives he or she wants, whether it's incentives like Sarge mentioned, incentives to not smoke and thus save on insurance premiums, or pay discrimination based on simple job performance.
Mike,The amount doesn't seem like much to me, just a small amount to encourage employees to take care of their own safety. I checked the firm's website (https://www.puryearlaw.com) and it looks like he's got a pretty general practice doing both criminal law (which sometimes leads to angry and dissatisfied clients) and a variety of civil litigation including divorces. Divorce attorneys and judges are the number one group who worry about clients coming in shooting (Number two are probate attorneys and judges). Having armed people in the office in case of a client or an opposing party coming in shooting is something some consider prudent.Also, as Sarge suggested, this bonus will provide extra money for practice. Around here, .45 ammo goes for $15-$20 per box if you buy them individually rather than in bulk cases of 1,000 rounds. If you add in range fees for those that don't have a farm with their own safe range to shoot on, usually $10-$15 per trip, one can easily hit $50 just paying for one or two practice sessions of 50-100 rounds per month. Also, folks may want to use the bonus to defray the expense of a gun purchase or of buying a quality holster so that the gun can be safely carried. Check Galco and see how much some of their holsters run.
"Does it discriminate? Yes."Thank you, that was my point. If you, or others want to support discrimination, that's your business.
Shelly,Please note: You are advocating pay discrimination based upon job performance. The problem you're wanting to fight against is not the fact that discrimination exists, but what is is based on.
I'm saying that it has nothing to do with job performance, so it is discriminatory. What's next? Do we pay employees less if they smoke, or if they have children, because that causes higher health insurance costs? Is there no line at which a corporation can discriminate because of personal habits? Carrying a gun is a personal choice and employers should not be paying employees bonuses because they carry a gun, or not. What would you say if another employer was decreasing an employees pay because they made a personal choice to carry a gun?
" Do we pay employees less if they smoke"....already happening ShellyShelly there is no law prohibiting an employer from providing his employees different levels of compensation based on the criteria the employer has set forth.You may not like and disagree what he is doing that's your right but that does not make it discrimination
"Do we pay employees less if they smoke, or if they have children, because that causes higher health insurance costs?""Like many firms, Direct General places a hefty surcharge on the health insurance of workers who smoke—an extra $480 a year in premiums. And for years, the Nashville-based insurer levied the fine the way most other businesses do: using the honor system."http://www.marketwatch.com/story/companies-make-smokers-pay-2013-03-05 Its pretty much common knowledge that employees have to pay more for health insurance to have the rest of their family covered. That could also be considered discriminatory also. And some companies go in the other direction, much like the attorney in Iowa,"Google offers new fathers six weeks of paid leave, while mothers can take 18 weeks after the birth of the child. Meanwhile Facebook offers both moms and dads four months of paid leave and $4,000 in “baby cash” after the child is born. AOL has a “Well Baby” program, which offers new moms prenatal instruction on childbirth and newborn care. They also get eight fully paid weeks off and adoptive parents get two weeks in maternity leave."http://www.lifehealthpro.com/2015/02/27/12-cool-and-unusual-company-benefits?t=employee-benefits&page=8 This last example is just as discriminatory since what about the employees that choose not to have children?
"What would you say if another employer was decreasing an employees pay because they made a personal choice to carry a gun?" Unless the discrimination is something that is defined by law as to be illegal, then its allowed. That's how it works in this country. The company is free to spend its money as it sees fit. If the employee doesn't like it, they are perfectly free to take their skills and labor elsewhere.
Shelly,"What's next? Do we pay employees less if they smoke, or if they have children, because that causes higher health insurance costs?"As has been said, this is already happening. It will probably also become more common as the system continues to be stretched thin in the coming years."Is there no line at which a corporation can discriminate because of personal habits?"Legally, the line is once you start discriminating based on protected categories as discussed earlier--e.g. religion, nationality, race, gender, etc."What would you say if another employer was decreasing an employees pay because they made a personal choice to carry a gun?"I wouldn't like that, but I wouldn't try to get the government involved. I'd just seek to neither work for or do business with the person.