Replies

Dear spunkets,

I think our arguments are starting to circle each other's, so I'm going to restrict my comments to the small area of new ground in your post. My failure to respond to arguments that we've been going 'round and 'round on just means that I think we've pretty much exhausted those arguments.

Whether Lockheed Martin knew about this man's previous threatening language or not isn't clear. Furthermore, without a specific threat, it can be difficult for a large organization to move against someone using such language. As well, even a specific threat must be judged in context.

Plenty of room there for human error.

I knew a fellow, quite harmless, who got mad at his boss once and made a specific threat - "I'll kill you."

He was fired. The union didn't even try to get his job back. Really a shame. The fellow was harmless. He was just blustering.

But this is what the union said. Absent a specific threat, the company could not have dismissed him. If he'd have just said stuff like, "I really hate managers, I wish they were all dead. Some days I'd like to whack 'em myself. Especially the black/white/hispanic/orange ones."

If he'd have said, "I could do it, you know. I got the guts to do it."

If he'd have talked like that, the union would have been able to get his job back, with back pay for the missed time. According to the collective bargaining agreement, the company had no right to dismiss him without going through the normal disciplinary process of multiple warnings, re-evaluations, probationary status, etc. absent a direct and specific threat.

The reason for policies like that? Because not everyone who talks trash is a dangerous killer. There's plenty of room for human error, in either direction.

If this guy didn't make a direct threat specifically at an individual, or even if he didn't do it in the earshot of a supervisor, or if there were insufficient witnesses to it, the company may not have been able to immediately dismiss him.

And with him bringing firearms daily, I'm sure the supervisors would have looked forward to provoking him further with drawn-out disciplinary processes that may be required by collective bargaining agreement, already-set company policy, or even in this case, the Americans with Disabilities Act (another one of those laws that creates "rights" for folks that require businesses to spend large sums of money on behalf of the workers).

Which is the point of these policies, from the perspective of these companies. The folks writing these policies aren't saying, "We employ boatloads of homicidal maniacs - better not let them have guns in the company parking lot."

What they're saying is, "Bob, down at Lockheed Martin, told me after the Williams shooting that management had no idea that this guy was so crazy.

"Since then, Lockheed Martin has really tried to figure out how to identify these folks before they go off like that. In the meanwhile, no system is perfect. It would be one more step to take if we didn't permit folks to have firearms in their vehicles while on company property.

"I'm sure 99% of the folks affected are great folks. But we likely don't even know who the one nutcase is. And no matter how hard we try, we may miss him. And if we miss him, folks might die. I went to Lanette McCall's funeral. I can't imagine having to do that for one of our own folks.

"And of course, the real difficulty is, as the crazy guy starts to show that he's crazy, and we start to initiate disciplinary action against him, our disciplinary policies and the law combine to force us to be careful, to go slow. Absent a direct threat on a specific person, we may not be able to dismiss him after just one incident. And then, just getting into it with the fellow who is crazy may provoke him. If he's got a gun in his vehicle, we might be in the same situation as Lockheed Martin."

And of course, he's going to finish by saying, "This policy may not apply to the vast majority of folks, but IF IT SAVES ONE LIFE, it will be worth it."

Although I may or may not agree with everything in this line of thinking, I will tell you something I know for sure: no one can predict with certainty who will and who won't become violent. Not everyone who says something mean, malicious, racist, or even threatening-sounding is a real threat, and not everyone who is a real threat says something.

But that's almost irrelevant. What you're saying is that Lockheed Martin, or any company, to meet this threat, has to create a near-flawless management system to identify these threats before they're realized.

What I'm saying is that Lockheed Martin is entitled to deal with the problem the way they see fit, within reason. Within THEIR reason. Whether I, or you, think their solution is ideal or not doesn't count.

Firearms are sometimes used by people to kill people in workplaces. Forbidding the presence of firearms from company grounds is a reasonable attempt to reduce the possibility that this may happen. It does not infringe on anyone's "rights" as no one has a "right" to possess a firearm on another's property.

Even you appear to have acceded to banning firearms within the company's offices or workspaces. Thus, the right to keep and bear arms doesn't seem to apply absolutely.

Thus, we're arguing about where to draw the line, not a matter of basic principle. You have already compromised on the basic principle - someone does not have the right to bear arms in the halls of the office or the manufacturing floor.

You just believe that it isn't reasonable to draw the line at the company gate. Others disagree with that.

Since we've already vindicated the company's right in principle to ban firearms to some degree or other in or on its premises, I believe that the company has the right to decide where to draw the line, and that it is an unreasonable intrusion into the property rights of the property owner that we've already recognized in principle to try to draw that line for him.

"'Quite insulting. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.'

"I've addressed the facts of the matter and the relevant points. If the find the analogies presented are improper then point out how that is so. The employees here are deamonized as incapable of civil behavior, self control, and postals ready to go off at any time. They are considered statistical event generators."

Part of the problem is that you didn't make an analogy. And analogy goes like this, "your argument is similar to that argument in this-and-that way."

What you said was:

"Your argumnets are the same [emphasis added] as those put forth by the bozos paying in script, redeemable in the company store, by those who kept the dangerous properties of such things as asbestos secret, toxic waste dumping, ect."

You equated, you didn't analogize. Even an analogy, even an accurate analogy, may be inappropriate if the goal is to maintain a civil conversation with your interlocutor. But that isn't what you did.

You offered an unmitigated insult.

It's sad that you are unable to acknowledge that so far.

And of course, the other problem with this is that you really haven't put yourself adequately in the position of employers generally (not the ones who paid in script, etc.). You assume that they are demonizing all their workers. Rather, the employers are merely admitting lack of omniscience as to who is in the majority of good folks, and who is in the minority of dangerous folks that the company was otherwise unable to detect.

And in failing to see that, you have demonized the employers, impugned their motives and intentions, and cast their actions in the worst possible light.

You are unable to see that those who disagree with you might nonetheless be acting in good faith, even if they are objectively in the wrong.

Spunkets, try to understand the question from folks who don't view themselves as omniscient, but who nonetheless are held to standards bordering on perfection, and who are horrified by the prospect that some of their workers could be hurt or killed in incidents like this. Rather than ascribing the motive of wishing to deny rights to their employees, try to understand that from their perspective, they're trying to respond to a threat that they perceive as real.

sitetest

You are unable to see that those who disagree with you might nonetheless be acting in good faith, even if they are objectively in the wrong.

Rather than ascribing the motive of wishing to deny rights to their employees, try to understand that from their perspective, they're trying to respond to a threat that they perceive as real.
845 sitetest

Those who 'disagree' that people have a right to self defense directly challenge a base principle of our Constitution. Thus, they are not acting in 'good faith'.

From my perspective, they're trying to respond to a threat that they "perceive as real" by threatening our liberties.

Indeed, "they are objectively in the wrong".

" the other problem with this is that you really haven't put yourself adequately in the position of employers generally (not the ones who paid in script, etc.). You assume that they are demonizing all their workers. Rather, the employers are merely admitting lack of omniscience as to who is in the majority of good folks, and who is in the minority of dangerous folks that the company was otherwise unable to detect."

Now particulars and variations of the situation are being addressed. I know and understand more about these situations than you think, from all levels, perspectives and variations of. I'll get back later.