A letter to Da Boss

C

Coinneach

Staff Alumnus
I've been mulling over the latest round of workplace shootings, and came up with the following letter to my manager. Whatchyall think?

------------------
Mike,

You’ve undoubtedly noticed the widely-reported incidents of workplace violence. Statistically, violent crime is down nationwide, but with the news media running these incidents as banner stories for weeks at a time, coycat crimes are actually up.

MCI has a policy against concealed weapons on their premises. Even our security guards are unarmed, rendering them utterly useless in the face of an armed psycho. With this in mind, how are we to protect ourselves against the stereotypical “digruntled former employee?” The police can’t protect us, nor are they required to, according the the US Supreme Court. Feel-good policies which disarm the good guys don’t mean squat to a maniac hell-bent on getting revenge; no criminal was ever dissuaded by a sign saying “This is a weapons-free facility.”

In the interest of the safety of all MCI employees and contractors, I propose that the policy against concealed weapons be changed as follows:

-Licensed CHL (Concealed Handgun License) holders be permitted to carry their firearms in a discreet manner. Open carry, while 100% legal in Colorado Springs, tends to distract people of a certain mind-set.
-Manager’s and director’s written approval for the employee to carry, submitted to the head of security.
-Perhaps limiting carry ammo to frangible bullets (i.e., MagSafe and Glaser Safety Slugs), to prevent collateral damage in the event that firing becomes necessary.

Frankly, I’d feel much safer knowing that anyone who enters this building with evil intent would be stopped before he could kill 20 or 30 of us, most likely without a shot being fired (according to criminologist Gary Kleck, 98% of potential crimes are prevented by the mere presence of a firearm).

What’s your opinion on this?
-----------------
Now, if the guards come to escort me out of the building, I'll know this didn't go over well. :)

------------------
"The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question.." Article 11, Section 13, CO state constitution.
 
Good argumants...but don't put it in writing. I would recommend a verbal discussion in an informal setting...more interactive, you can address concerns that come up...and less evidence should your boss dislike the message.
 
Good points, rat, but my boss is a gunnie too. I kept that in mind when I drafted the message. :)

------------------
"The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question.." Article 11, Section 13, CO state constitution.
 
Send it if you're willing to bear the possible consequences. No one can answer this for you. But I think the letter is a noble appeal to reason and workplace safety.

If not, sign it with a coworker's name! ;) Preferably that anti down the hall! :) :)
Rich
 
Rich,

Thanks for your concern, but I don't foresee any negative reactions just for making the suggestion (which probably won't be implemented anyway... just call me Don Q). The company itself is anti-gun (contributors to HCI, no less)... but the employees at the Colorado Springs campus are, FTMP, not. Very much not. In fact, Mike and I stood out in a heavily-travelled hall while discussing guns last week. At least 50 people passed us, and no one said boo.

Although there is the wretched Democrat down the hall who mutters about hunters using Street-Sweepers and that the BoR is "amendments, not commandments"... if TSHTF, I'll be sure to grab him for my human(?) shield. ;)

------------------
"The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question.." Article 11, Section 13, CO state constitution.
 
Coinneach,

My only suggestion would be to change "coycat" (last part of your second sentence/first paragraph) to its original "copycat".

Other than that, I know of some people who take their personal resposibility for self- protection seriously enough to do what it takes without arousing undue attention. ;)
 
There was another thread awhile back about this kind of thing. It was mentioned that insurance companies often require a "no weapons" policy before they'll insure a business. The management doesn't have a say about it if they want their company insured.

Of course, you could always mention how expensive your loved ones could make things for the company should they fail to protect you adequately. :) I think that worked for another TFLer, Mr. Hill maybe, I can't remember.


[This message has been edited by boing (edited November 05, 1999).]
 
Bravo Sir. It was very well written and I hope it has the desired effect. I sincerely believe that work places (and schools) would be a safer place if such policies were instituted on a grand scale. I know that I would not be as concerned for my wife and two boys when they are at school and she is at work.

Good luck and God bless,
Paladin
 
You stand zero chance of having this even considered by the human resources group of any company large enough to have a human resource group.

Sorry. The legal folks have been telling them for years that they *must* have a policy against any guns on the company property. It isn't going to stop somebody from coming in and shooting up the place, but it will stop them from having to pay a ton of cash if you decide to go on a shooting rage with your "company approved gun". Can you imagine what the lawyers would say if the guy from Xerox in HI had a note from HR that said he was ok to carry at work? Yahoo! Money for everyone!

The insurance companies, as previously noted, also require policies against guns at work. Bottom line is they don't really care if somebody comes in and shoots up the place -- that's what their insurance is for. But if *you*, a trusted employee, shoot up the place... well, dang, they don't want to have to pay any of that money out.

Try as hard as you like, there are zero reasons you can get an HR guy to accept for having armed employees. I work for a pretty major software company that for years had a policy that said "guns locked in your car on company property are perfectly ok". And then one day the lawyers found out about it and that was the end of that. Do people still keep guns in their cars at work? Probably. How will the company find out? They won't... unless you need to use it. Then you can count on finding a new job, and if you just happen to be dead, perhaps they'll think about not honoring your benefits as you were violating company policy...

It is, IMHO, a *bad* idea to send letters like this to management. Unless you work for Glock or HK or something, it can do NO good and can create roadblocks for you down the road. "Oh, gee, sorry, we're cutting back on employees. We'll have to let you go. It's just bad luck" could really mean, "We'd rather not have a gun guy work for us."

my $0.02

danbrew :->

[This message has been edited by danbrew (edited November 06, 1999).]
 
danbrew, OTOH, who would want to deliver the pink slip. ;) I know ... bad taste ...

This should be one of those cases where it should be easier to beg forgiveness than get permission. However, as a practical matter, it depends on how the company might enforce the policy, and how much a person is willing to risk their job.

FYI, apparently dog's can detect gunpowder, with proper training. I have heard of employers 'searching' company property (and parking lots) with dogs. Do a search on TFL for more info.

Coinneach, please let us know if you send it, as well as the result. Thanks.
 
Sent the letter to Mike on Friday afternoon.

Came in this morning to see an email reply consisting of one line: "See me on this."

Oh $#!+. Visions of unemployment dancing through my head.

Plucking up my courage, I ventured forth into the lair of the beast. I put on my most pleasant face and said, "Hi, Mike, got your message."

He said, "First off, I think you made some great points. We've discussed the possibility already at managers' meetings."

Blink.

"However, there's just no way it'll happen. Something like this would have to be approved all the way at the top, and you already know how *they* are."

I let out the breath I'd been holding and said, "Yeah, I didn't figure it'd fly, but I had to try, y'know?"

"Yeah. Well, if you wanted to leave it locked up in your car, that'd be fine. So how was your weekend?"

"Great! I picked up a Glock 20C in Ft. Collins. It's now my carry gun."

"No kidding? Can I check it out? And what do you think of the Taurus Titanium revolvers?"

Sometimes it's nice to have a pro-gun boss.

------------------
"The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question.." Article 11, Section 13, CO state constitution.
 
Wheeewww! (pant, pant, pant)

A lot us have been holding our breath for you - you rabble-rousin' rascal! :D :D
 
Coinneach, I don't know how you saw this, but I would score this as a 'win'. With our current tort system in this country, we have too many corporate decisions made based upon legal advice - advice that usually leaves us with lowest common denominator thinking, driven by insurance companies as well, and often illogical except for the realities of the courtroom.

Thus, I think in today's environment, this kind of acceptance is a win. And, I'm finding that the RKBA cause will be better served if all of us 'come out of the closet', and let our friends, family, neighbors and co-workers understand we are responsible gun owners, there are millions of us, and we have a logical perspective on this issue. A perspective they should reconsider.

Thanks for a great example of how to handle this kind of situation. Take care.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top