Moral-Flexibility.Net

I have a few pet peeves, foremost among them are the ramblings and assertions made by “amateur lawyers” as to the legal ramifications of specific acts, and what dismal consequences face those that transgress these laws, bylaws or acts. I’ve spent some time dealing with these and, while they all share a few attributes, I have broken them down into two basic types.

The Labour Lawyer: This is the employee that routinely asserts that the employer is in violation of this obscure code or that unknown statute. He views these violations as carte blanche to perform substandard work, and feels they serve as a “get out of jail free card” should he ever be called out on the carpet for his own transgressions of company policy or common sense.

When asked if he has made the employer aware of these alleged violations, he usually expresses suprise. He feels the employee has no responsibility to inform the employer of “unsafe” or “illegal” duties, and is content to sit on the sidelines pointing out the problems from the moral high ground.

Heres a quick tip, it’s called an employer/employee relationship for a reason. The very nature of the thing suggests a give and take, with each party upholding certain obligations. The workplace is not a vacuum, and while ignorance is no defence for the employer, an employee failing to report said unsafe working conditions certainly illustrates how serious they felt the matter was at the time.

“This was so serious, so critical, so morally indefensible, that you entirely failed to make anyone in authority aware of it?”

The Criminal Lawyer: This creature understands criminal law thoroughly, while entirely failing to cite any precedence for their assertions they maintain that this is illegal, and that is criminal and that somehow a horde of law enforcement personnel will descend on the offender and drag them off to prison for a lengthy term.

They are the first to explain how things should work, and how the justice system is failing. Unencumbered by the big picture, they happily offer their “judgements” on both specific cases and perceived infractions of the law regardless of how trivial they may be.

Now, I am not a lawyer. I’ve made a few arrests, I’ve testified in court, I’ve read the criminal code and more provincial acts than I care to recount. This qualifies me to be a security guard, not a lawyer. Even I, however, appreciate that the law was meant to be a shield, not a sword. The only lawyers out there are the lawyers, the rest of us have to try to understand the philosophy behind the law, the pragmatic considerations of enforcing it, and the purpose it serves.

One final note, as I’m running out of steam here, is that “unfair” does not automatically mean “illegal”. If you don’t understand why then there’s no way this poor little blog entry will convince you otherwise.