The Reluctant Security Guard: Blue Mountain

Tuff’s dismissal could have been resolved through a public apology or a probationary period. The public apology would include a direct quote or endorsement of the company’s forgiveness of his misdeeds. The apology would suit the company’s objective of redirecting the negative press somehow.
As a Marine, Tuff should have spoken directly to the administration in a calm manner to address his distaste with their new policies. His discussions with the media did present a violation in his licensure manual, but his moral judgment was a more confirmed act that could save many lives. The company’s dismissal reflected their crude judgment of Tuff’s moral character to address a problem that may arise because of their new policies.
At the same time, the security guard played a vital role in saving the lives of many on the highways. Morally, Tuff was absolutely right for refuting the new policies to send drunk drivers amongst the roads of innocent travelers. The company’s disregard for public safety was displayed through their negative reaction to his public address regarding their coercion of the security guards. The company, itself, could have changed the policies if they reflected upon Tuff’s complaints in a subjective view. Their dismissal was not a great reflection of the owner’s character or regard for public safety in any way.

If I were in Tuff’s position, I would have expressed my distaste in the company’s new policies in a group manner. His individualistic approach led to his dismissal from the company. In any sense, one must conduct thorough research in order to refute a whole corporation of their policies. This negligence placed Tuff in a bind when he presented his appeal to the Labor Commission.  Moral judgment does not win legal disputes because the facts are placed on paper for everyone to recognize and find the weaknesses in each party’s argument. The Labor Commission emphasized on the aspect of a ‘group appeal’ because this would show a more, definite resistance regarding Blue Mountain’s new policies. Read also about one national guard RRNCO
In this case, Blue Mountain could have placed Tuff on a probationary period until they resolved the issue. Tuff’s actions or press leads did show his disregard of company rules to a degree, but it was in hopes of a better outcome. At some point, the probationary period could have been used to discuss better ways to re-evaluate the new policies and how they can harm the community.
I feel that the Labor Commission should have granted Tuff’s appeal because of his ability to recognize public safety. Blue Mountain’s negligence may or may not lead to a preventive accident on the highways due to their new policies. If this were to happen, Tuff could raise another appeal to show his evidence of his previous tries of intervention. The only question to ask is:  What will happen to Blue Mountain when other security guards show this same concern? Is there a way for Tuff to receive unemployment due to his previous legal disputes with the company? An extensive follow up on this case could draw more questions to be answered by the Labor Commission and Blue Mountain’s administration.